[ July 22, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
Yes, there is consistency.
The Anti-Mine and the Human Rights Ratification were not signed around the time CLINTON was in office. Now I don't know why this occurred, but expect Omega to jump in and blame Clinton.
Also expect Omega to say that with regards to Kyoto, the US would be doing the right thing as there are many other countries that need to clean up their pollution before the US does (read, CHINA, why would we have to hurt our own economy when China doesn't do diddly squat?). With regards to the Anti-Biological industry, Omega will probably agree with Bush word-for-word, even though it does not make sense.
Our circumstances are different from every other country on earth, as can be said about ANY country, and we can and will decide what's best for US. What you want is just another layer of people who don't know the situation, trying to make laws about it. Well, generalization DOESN'T WORK. That's why we have local governments in the first place: so people who actually know what they're talking and legislating about are the ones making the laws.
[ July 23, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
And seeing as you didn't actually respond to anything I said, do you have anything USEFUL to say?
You know, I could point out that the original point was about the US not signing the "anti-biological weapons treaty", and you deceided to post about the Kyoto accords and blabber on about the envornment.
"If you want the government to do something harmful to you, personally, for what you believe to be the greater good, then just do it yourself!"
Because, obviously, the general public are the ones responsible for the design and implementation of biological weapons.
Things that the rest of the world does affect the way the United States lives and breathes. It is plain to see, other than for Reactionary Boy, Repubican Hero, that at some point any treaty is going to affect the internal policy of a given country. Why else would there be a treaty in the first place.
It's also great that every landmine manufactured in America is laid on the outskirts of the Ohio Demilitarized zone and around the rebel strongholds in Nevada. After all, their manufacture provides employment to thousands of honest blue-collar Americans in the munitions industry and it doesn't affect anyone outside the good ol' U.S. of A.
-Homer Simpson
stuff like this makes me glad i live in Canada.
And I agree with Tom. What we do affects the rest of the world. Therefore we are responsible for these things.
The Earth, the planet we live on, does not discriminate between country. When all the trees get chopped down in all the rainforests and regular forests down in South America and over in Europe, It's not going to look at the USA and say "Oh, they still have trees, so we'll let all the people of the USA have oxygen to breathe". When all the smog builds up in the rest of the world, and the acid rain gets so bad that it melts brick buildings with one rainstorm, The rainclouds aren't going to say "OH, there's the USA! There's no smog there so we won't rain there either".
And it goes vice-versa. Our smog doesn't stop here at our borders. The planet WE ALL live on is EVERYONE's concern.
There are some things that are more important than whether some country is dictating the USA's internal policy. I, personally, would like to know that the Earth is safe to raise children on, and that my children's children will also know what it's like to have clean air, beautiful trees/grass/flowers/nature, and safe drinking water. I do not think I'm alone in this wish.
The United States has the cleanest, most efficient factories in the world, when it comes to pollution versus production, so quit whining, or build yourselves cleaner, cheaper ones and take away our business.
The anti-biowarfare treaty:
Signed by 130 nations, many of which undoubtedly have no real intention of following it.
Perhaps it's unsigned because its wording could be misinterpreted (by one of those lawyers who just LOVE reinterpreting documents). Perhaps it's too vague... would it ban growing cultures in order to create vaccines?
The anti-landmine treaty. A good idea, with one bad point: Landmines are the primary non-nuclear means of perimeter defense against the 'human wave' method of attack favored by the Chinese and Chinese-supported troops (see Korea and Vietnam). Basically, land mines provide a defense against superior numbers. (Nevertheless, there should be a worldwide effort to 'clean up' landmines in areas where conflicts have ended.)
The HRT: Giving jurisdiction over US affairs to people who believe that a smack on the behind qualifies as a human rights abuse is not something any sane leader would do.
And what was is that became the laughingstock of 20th-Century diplomacy?? Oh, yes, Chaimberlain's "Peace in Our Time" Munich Agreement of 1938 treaty.
And didn't a lot of countries sign the Geneva Convention, and then utterly disregard it in certain wars?
And isn't there an international agreement against things like a national government seizing hostages?
[ July 24, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
That was the last treaty that was going to "save the world."
Hey, that reminds me... is it even possible to have a legal treaty with a nation that doesn't exist anymore? (The ABM treaty was with the USSR)
*points to right wingers Mike Harris and Ralph Klein*
Go talk to them.
And may I remind you, these are right wing politicians in Ontario and Alberta respectively, who have constantly shot down any proposal to reduce pollution emissions. They say that it is the US's fault, not theirs.
Pity that Ontario is the 4th worst polluter in North America, according to a recent report. And yet, Harris is trying to EVADE and downplay the report.
"Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build it."
~Sam Rayburn
Dubya is good at knocking things down. What does he intend to put in its place?
[ July 25, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
Hey, that reminds me... is it even possible to have a legal treaty with a nation that doesn't exist anymore? (The ABM treaty was with the USSR)
..come from?
From the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties:
quote:
If, at the date of the succession of States, a multilateral treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates and the newly independent State gives notice of its intention that the treaty should be applied provisionally in respect of its territory, that treaty shall apply provisionally between the newly independent State and any party which expressly so agrees or by reason of its conduct is to be considered as having so agreed.
The issues regarding treaty succession in Russia were dealt with according to the provisions of established international law.
quote:
the newly independent State gives notice of its intention that the treaty should be applied provisionally in respect of its territory,
That's all very nice... but DID they give notice? I mean, BEFORE the US's change in policy? See, AFTER, it's too late.
quote:
any party which expressly so agrees or by reason of its conduct is to be considered as having so agreed.
Which clearly isn't the United States, by expression OR conduct.
Basically, what the above treaty says is that both sides must agree that the treaty is still in force for it to still be in force. Clearly, they don't. So it isn't.
[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
I don't know if anyone else reads real news these days, but Bush and Putin are planning on working out a new agreement/replacement for the ABM treaty. I'm sure that accounts for something.
By the way, the UN is officially a joke. When nations famous for violating Human rights are on committees that prevent such things- you know there's something wrong. When nations accept and implement bad science for the sake of making their people 'happy,' then things have to change. I say scrap the UN and start over. NATO seems to be a good start
The UN has become a popularity contest, nothing more.
Anyway , on the topic of Treaties. The Signing of a treaty doesnt always insure compliance , for example Germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles which barred them from rebuilding their army after WW1 , we all know how well that worked out.
Another , more modern example is Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction sanctions. After the Persian Gulf Cease Fire , Iraq agreed to halt their Bio , Chem and Nuclear weapons programs and allow for Random UN Weapons inspections. After agreeing to this they backed out , and kicked the inspectors out and forced the UN to renegotiate and of course the UN got suckered into a weaker deal taht allowed the Iraqis to turn away inspectors when they wanted too.
Anyway the problem with these and other treaties is that they fall onto the back burner as time goes by , they lose their importance as other problems arise.
Personally I'm not going to form an opinion on the US not signing these treaties untill i read the treaties in full , you cant judge a treaty by its name.
I mean a treaty to end production of Bio Chemical Agents sounds nice , but as has been stated , what if this Treaty also limits production of agents used to create vaccines or counter - measures for a chemical attack etc.
Its just a matter of not judging a book by its cover.
The debates and problems inside it that we hear about is just a tip of the iceberg of affairs that the deal with annually, a big chunk of it probably doing a lot of good.
[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Nimrod ]