>
> Issue #1 - Kyoto
> As has been demonstrated already in substantial detail on this List, Kyoto
> has been dead for a very long time now. It is virtually inconceivable to
> think that a Treaty that did not have a single vote in our Senate could
> ever be agreed to by that Body without wholesale revisions. Nevertheless,
> the Europeans insisted on proceeding with the technical negotiations
> anyways, even though the very outlines of the proposal had already been
> completely neglected. As it is, we decided to actively participate in
> the technical negotiations during the Clinton Administration, anyways, and
> the Europeans again insisted on not considering our proposals for trading
> of emissions credits or for using carbon sinks to meet our targets.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is Bush was an ASSHOLE about it
with his saber rattling and has gone and pissed off the rest of the
world. Extremely undiplomatic.
>
> So, after years of not being listened to, the United States decides to walk
> away, and *we* get accused of unilateralism. (BTW - Australia walked away
> from Kyoto today too - does this mean that Bush is engaging in
> "bilateralism" now?)
aw, look at a country so powerful whining about "not being listened to."
>
> Issue #2 - Biological Weapons
> The United States walked away from a Treaty that would impose burdensome
> requirements on the civilized nations that intend to abide by the Treaty,
> and yet not place any meaningful restrictions on those nations that would
> try to subvert the Treaty. Of course, nobody was complaining about
> *unilaterlaism* when the United States unilaterally disarmed its biological
> weapons. Still, just as it was on Kyoto, Europeans seem to think that
> "multilateralism" means "agreeing with us." Sorry, but that just doesn't
> cut it. Kyoto and the CBW were both deeply flawed, and Bush is actually
> doing us all a favor by keeping them on the drawing board.
"BUrdensome" by not allowing SECRECY. Secrecy is evil. If Big Business is
so terrified of industrial espionage, TOUGH!!
]
Yes, I know the russians cheated,(that man Abilek is a saint for defecting
and warning the world...) but I still maintain that unilateral disarmament
of biological weapons WAS and IS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT THING TO DO!! WE
still have nukes to retaliate with, don't we? I never agreed with the
unilateral-disarament crowd on nukes IF ONLY because we have to be able to
retaliate/defend ourselves SOMEHOW, but civilized human beings need to
DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE and say, "These weapons are ABSOLUTELY EVIL. We
will not use them. Period." A plague could kill as many or MORE than a
nuclear exchange! MOre horribly, too. Plagues don't vaporize anybody, not
even at ground zero.
>
> Issue #3 - ABM Treaty
> If Bush were truly *unilateral* in his foreign policy, he could have given
> Russia the legally-required 6 months notice on his first day in office.
> Yet, to this date, we still have not given notice. Why? Because we
> decided to take the time to consult with each and every one of our NATO
> allies before proceeding, and continue to try to come up with a consensus
> on the best way to proceed. Likewise, Bush has worked particularly hard
> at getting Russia to acquiesce to our building of a missile defence. So,
> instead of *unilaterally* withdrawing from the Treaty, Bush is actually
> going to let Russia wring concessions from us, so that we can get Russia's
> acquiescence.
"Star wars" was destabilizing before, and it could be again.
>
> Meanwhile, the most prominent politician in Washington who intends to have
> the United States unilaterally break one of its Treaty obligations is not
> Mr. Bush at all, but instead, is none other than Mr. Daschle. In fact,
> Mr. Daschle is keeping the Senate in extended session at this very moment
> to *ensure* that Mr. Bush does not have time to broker a compromise that
> does not involve violating our North American Free Trade Agreement. (per
> this morning's Washington Post.)
Oh, NAFTA. THe NAFTA Label "Assemled in Mexico (because we don't ahve to
pay them so bl****dy much) of USA Components"
>
> Its amazing, really - Mr. Bush gets all the press about unilaterlaism,
> simply because he simply won't agree to Treaties that he has principled
> objections to. Mr. Daschles, on the other hand, is taking extraordinary
> steps to actually *break* a Treaty, and somehow we all listen to him
> complain about *Bush's* unilateralism with a straight face.
>
He is an arrogant pinhead. He comes across as stupid. He pisses off people
overseas and he pisses off me. He comes from a family of nepotistic rich
pigs (somebody told me they even have a history of war profiteering ... he
would get economic benefit from WW3). Alright? I CAN"T STAND IT ANY
MORE!! DO you see why I want to leave this list!?!?!!?
Kristin
