OT- The U.N., the U.S. Army, and me

[Schugger]

I do also think that the UN doesn't have any means to force the US gouvernment to undertake any military action.

As mentioned above ( good post "82. Airborne") the USA has a permanent seat in the UN security council and all the US ambassador there has to do to reject any case of an peacekeeping operation, is to throw in his Veto.

This is exactly the reason why there wasn't any attempt to bring the case of the Kosovo Intervention in front of the highest UN gremium - noone saw a chance that the Russian Federation vote in favour of it.

Well, and if the USA partakes in any military UN operation you can count on it that it is supported by your gouvernment, wether you like it or not, MJ.

At least you should now be aware that being member of the armed forces of the political, economical and military most powerful nation of the world is quite a responsibility.

Another point that was touched in this discussion is, if the USA should revert to a policy of isolation, i.e. only care for it's own matters.

Any major decision by such a powerful nation as the USA is, be it of economic and/or political nature, will have some impact on the rest of the world.

International crisis management is one of a Superpower's jobs and if it rejects to get involved in internatinal affairs it ceases to be one; it becomes something different.

I think that discussions like this, even if this one is somewhat OT, show what a nice forum this could be. It would be a pitty if this thread ends up in flames.

Schugger

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The thing is, I actually agree that the US and other post-industrialized nations should be more heavily penalized for polution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Think about it. When the US and Europe was at the stage of industrialization that countries like China and India are now, there was ZERO control over pollutants, and the US dumped truly amazing amounts of polutants into the biosphere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But here's the fallacy of that argument, if the aim is pollution CONTROL you must stop the pollution that is occuring NOW not what has already happened. Those third-world countries are now the one's polluting. You can't exempt them and then claim the aim is pollution control.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now, AFTER the US and Western Europe have completed industrialization, we are going to demand that other countries not act the way we acted when we were in their shoes!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the aim is not stopping pollution. It is simply a way of redistributing the wealth.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Coal is a good example. Coal, as an energy source, is amazingly cheap and easy. Low tech, low plant maintenance, etc.

The US complains about the amount of CO2 China is currently pumping into the atmosphere due to its burning large amount of coal in dirty power plants. But the reality is that the US did much, much worse 100 years ago, and even 50 years ago. By now, our technology and infrastructure has allowed us to largely move to other, cleaner sources of power, and even when we do burn coal, we can do it much cleaner. But those things cost money, and every dollar spent on a clean environemnt is one less dollar a country like India has to spend on building an industrial infrastructure to compete in a global economy. It should not come as any surprise that they are not overly interested in spending those dollars!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it shows that the aim is not pollution control. If it was you'd go after current day polluters not the one's who have moved past that era.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Essentially, the US and Western Europe won the race and now would like to make the rules for other countries trying to catch up different than the rules under which the US won in the first place.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. This is not being "pushed" by the US. The US has refused to sign several of these agreements, like the Kyoto (sp?) accords for this very reason. The rules are being made by those who are the current poluters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So, I think the US and other Western antions should be much more heavily penalized than other countries, and I have no problem with the US and other western nations being asked to subsidize other countries efforts to become compliant.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't."

Call it what it is, don't claim it is "polution control" when those poluting won't be effected by it.

Cav

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what's wrong with the redistribution of wealth? It's an idea that's been around for a looooong time. You either redistribute wealth, or the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Now, I have no problem whatsover with some people (or countries) being richer than other people (or countries). That's life. But I also think that there is a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions where possible, and if this means that the rich need to pay up, well, so be it.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Agian, this is simply wealth redistribution. "Damm you have money... let's give to this guy who doesn't."

Call it what it is, don't claim it is "polution control" when those poluting won't be effected by it.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It *is* pollution control. The thing is, pollution control, just like everything else, comes down to money. It is just that simple.

If we want China to clean up the amount of CO2 they are dumping, then what should we do? Just demand that they reduce emissions? What possible reason would they have to do that? It would hurt them, and help countries like the US.

Yes, of course it is all about money. So is everything else.

Part of the reason the west became the dominany economic force that we are is because we never bothered to spend money on environmental issues, rather we invested it back into our economies. Now we are going to demand that China and India should not be allowed to do exactly what we did?

I think you are correct that we have to reduce emisions in those countries, simply because they are a significant percentage of the problem. We are kidding ourselves if we think that will be possible without money from those countries that have already done their own share of polluting long before these controls existed.

Jeff Heidman

[kunzler]

Interesting argument Jeff. I see that you are in favor of those who want reform to pay for that reform. Now tell me this. Are you in favor of environmentalism here in the U.S.? To the detriment of certain people whom environmental reforms will hurt? Should we then compensate those who we are injuring by our reforms? For instance, when we take away someone's way of life, e.g., loggers, ranchers, miners, tourist service, ORV shops, etc., should we then compensate those people? Or Should we just pay those damn lawyers (see profile) to force people to conform to our idea of what is right for the environment? It seems to me that there is a liberal's catch 22 in your argument.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Be sure to thank the U.S. for the ability to post those remarks via the internet! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And thank a Brit for the web as we know it...

Now I'm not looking for a flame war, I just couldn't resist that!

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler:

Interesting argument Jeff. I see that you are in favor of those who want reform to pay for that reform. Now tell me this. Are you in favor of environmentalism here in the U.S.? To the detriment of certain people whom environmental reforms will hurt? Should we then compensate those who we are injuring by our reforms? For instance, when we take away someone's way of life, e.g., loggers, ranchers, miners, tourist service, ORV shops, etc., should we then compensate those people? Or Should we just pay those damn lawyers (see profile) to force people to conform to our idea of what is right for the environment? It seems to me that there is a liberal's catch 22 in your argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, youa re the first to call me a liberal! That is pretty funny actually. I assume you are a right-wing conservative dittohead then?

I guess it is easier to label someone than it is to come up with solutions to difficult problems.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:

And thank a Brit for the web as we know it...

Now I'm not looking for a flame war, I just couldn't resist that! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not talking about that Brit trying to patent the hyperlink so they can charge per use are you?

Cav

[Dittohead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I assume you are a right-wing conservative dittohead then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, I represent that remark.

Tony

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

And what's wrong with the redistribution of wealth? It's an idea that's been around for a looooong time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So has racism and I hardly think that its age qualifies it for high regard.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You either redistribute wealth, or the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, I have no problem whatsover with some people (or countries) being richer than other people (or countries). That's life. But I also think that there is a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering and improve living conditions where possible, and if this means that the rich need to pay up, well, so be it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously because you're not one of the rich. It is easy to say "give it up" when it is not yours to give up.

Cav

[Steve Clark]

This debate is actually related to the UN since 'environmentalism' is one its pet issues. As shown in the US since WW2, the only way you can effectively cut down on pollutants is to make it economically feasible to do so. The best way to make it economically feasible is for the industrial economy to be growing and profitable. In a post-industrial economy, it now becomes a positive thing to do, but only until it reaches that stage.

If you want India and China to cut on pollutants, get them growing out of the industrial age. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of shutting down the plant (and putting people out of work), which does not help the economy. And that is my beef with Big Govt and Naderites. They (like OSHA and EPA) believes that the only safe business, or a truly clean plant, is one that is out of business.

IMO, much of the environmentalist and the UN agenda is partly based on 'worshipping Mother Earth' and 'saving the world for the children' but also on envy and arrogance of others. They truly believe that humankind can be one with nature, but they do not realize the fundamental essense of human nature.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Well, youa re the first to call me a liberal! That is pretty funny actually. I assume you are a right-wing conservative dittohead then?

I guess it is easier to label someone than it is to come up with solutions to difficult problems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he called you a liberal. He gave an example of "liberalism" in this country and asked your opinion.

As someone once said, "So try not to read what you want into what people say. It would be better for everyone you communicate with if you responded to what they say rather than what you wished they would say."

That was you.

Cav

[pzvg]

Ok, some of y'all are seriously overmedicated.

As for those who hate America, fine why you on this American forum,supporting an American game company? jeez, gidouddaheah!

And to those who suggest MJ study the UCMJ, good plan, Oh MJ, they did however omit the fact that ya'd have to re-enlist to FINISH reading it, since the Uniform Code of Military Justice isn't exactly a 4 page how to document

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[kunzler]

"I assume you are a right-wing conservative dittohead then?"

You didn't answer my reply. Answer my questions about your position on environmentalism and I will know better whether you are a liberal.

As for being a dittohead, I am fairly middle of the road on most issues, and I like to believe my positions are well thought out. With regards to environmentalism, I am for that also, in principle, but I do not like to see the people who live on the land (especially people close to me who I care about) losing their livelihood due to city dwellers who have ruined their environments and who now want to tell others how to live at said others' expense.

And I have to agree with Cav on this one. It is easy to tell others to give up their hard-earned money, but what happens when it is yours and other people are telling you what to do it?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I don't think he called you a liberal. He gave an example of "liberalism" in this country and asked your opinion.

As someone once said, "So try not to read what you want into what people say. It would be better for everyone you communicate with if you responded to what they say rather than what you wished they would say."

That was you.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to me that there is a liberal's catch 22 in your argument.

Sorry, sure sounds to me like he is whipping out the "liberal" brush and giving me a swipe with it.

The point is that he is getting out these labels ("environmentalist", "liberal") which typically do nothing but polarize any kind of debate.

If he means "someone who is concerned about the environment" when he uses the term environmentalist, then he is correct, I am an environmentalist. But I imagine what he really means is "tree hugging, liberal, whacko". Otherwise, why bring the term liberal into the discussion at all? What relevance does it have? Not all people who care about what effect humans have on the environemnt are "liberals", whatever that means to begin with.

The funny thing is, after moving to New York, I just filled out my voter registration, and, as always, checked the box next to Republican Party.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler:

Answer my questions about your position on environmentalism and I will know better whether you are a liberal.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is precisely why I am not going to answer your loaded question.

Jeff Heidman

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

It seems to me that there is a liberal's catch 22 in your argument.

Sorry, sure sounds to me like he is whipping out the "liberal" brush and giving me a swipe with it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. He presented the "liberal" argument, as it stands in this country, and is showing how the "enviromental movement" differs within and outside the country.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

And that is precisely why I am not going to answer your loaded question.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then how about this, should the EPA/US Government/Enviromentalist pay those, who they think, are harming the enviroment like what is suggested we do on the global scale?

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Dittohead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The funny thing is, after moving to New York, I just filled out my voter registration, and, as always, checked the box next to Republican Party.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Goodnews

Glad to have you on the team Jeff.

Badnews

There are endangered hamster living in your backyard. In order to protect the Hamsters you have 24hrs to leave your house.

[This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 09-08-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Then how about this, should the EPA/US Government/Enviromentalist pay those, who they think, are harming the enviroment like what is suggested we do on the global scale?

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you can ask a question that is not loaded, can't you?

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Obviously because you're not one of the rich. It is easy to say "give it up" when it is not yours to give up.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, I'm not one of the rich at all. And let me tell you, paying for a computer, CM, and an ISP is a bitch on those welfare checks. I haven't eaten in 3 weeks, but at least I can escape my dull reality in the vivid world of cyberspace.

Oh, and comparing the redistribution of wealth to racism is a loaded and misleading comparison, I think. My point in saying that it's an old idea is that it's not some new plot cooked up by the UN to defraud the wealthy nations of the world.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 09-08-2000).]

[kunzler]

"And that is precisely why I am not going to answer your loaded question"

Great example of obfuscation there. Are you sure you are not an attorney? Or a politician? Oops, more labels. Can I still call you "Jeff"?

"The funny thing is, after moving to New York, I just filled out my voter registration, and, as always, checked the box next to Republican Party."

Hmmm, you may want to rethink that. Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:

And thank a Brit for the web as we know it...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Al Gore is British?

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Surely you can ask a question that is not loaded, can't you?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How was my question loaded? You advocate paying third-world countries to become compliant with enviromental regulations. The question is do you think a similar approach nationaly is warranted as well?

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunzler:

Take from the rich and give to the poor is classic bleeding heart politics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sure is, God bless it.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.