Iraq, again

@Soon_U_Die:

You see the US rejected Kyoto and is going their own way. You should try actually looking up the new energy policies enacted by GW.
…
Anyway, you should get the idea now. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Bush is challenging old paradigms. New technology doesn’t have to mean windmill farms etc. He has greatly increased funding in many areas, as evidenced by the simple examples above.
But everyone wants to pick on his policy…because they have vested interests and are narrow minded. But, if you actually look at what is being funded and at what level, you will find it to be the most proactive and aggressive and dynamic change in the past 30 years in the US. And a lot more promising than solar energy or windmills.

I don’t mind that they go their own way, although i don’t think that he challenges old paradigms. A challenge or a new paradigm would be “use less energy”. Increasing effiency is something that happens all the time and usually is nothing revolutionary (look at cars for example: still use the same basic technology, but with a lot of “improvements”, still nothing revolutionary. Revolutionary was the the car compared to the train or coach).
“A lot more promising” is your subjective opinion (i con’t claim to know wether an opinion can be wrong). Solar energy and windmills are intrinsically zero-emission. The do not use up our limited supply of carbon-hydroxcides (sp?). I would consider it a useful, but nonetheless intermediate step.

Again, I suggest you actually learn about what the US and GW are doing WRT to energy efficiency, R&D etc. Kyoto is a piece of paper. We in Canada are going to try to meet our requirements by buying credits from the Russians, and by planting trees … In short, we are actually going to do absolutely nothing to actually decrease emmissions, improve air quality etc. … The US has rejected Kyoto, but they will surpass us all in the end. They could fail, but history doesn’t suggest that. Indeed, history suggests that US R&D efforts will succeed and they will ultimately contribute far more to our environment because of this.

Still, there is no reason not to join Kyoto, if you reduce the emissions and spend a lot on R&D anyway.
A question of real interest: Do you remember why this credit-trading had been proposed and by whom in the first place, for the Kyoto protocol? I can’t remember, maybe you know it, otherwise i will look that up.
Anyway: If the US are so strong and committed to reducing their emissions, then which reason made them not join Kyoto?

But, 99% of the people don’t actually understand Kyoto. They don’t actually understand that it is a shell game….that the most likely result is absolutely no reduction in actual emmissions. They don’t understand the credits.

That’s why i was asking for who brought that up first. It’s true, these credits are not helping the goal behind the protocol, and probably they will be the resons for Kyoto to fail.

And we beat up the Americans. They aren’t playing ball. Ha…they are actually way smarter than we are and show far more leadership in actually combatting the issue, not signing treaties.

How that? How can you lead when noone is following? Just imagine: THe US had signed, and used its full weight in the negociations of the protocal to promote real reduction of emissions without the trade of credits… that i would have called leadership.

ok boys, play nice.
Interesting. A Canadian vehemently arguing in favor of American policy, a German anti. Weird. I am generally against American foreign policy and Bush policy, but i think SUD makes some interesting points.
I am currently in the (amazing) city of Oporto. My Portuguese (now ex-g/f) is decidedly against Bush and his actions in the middle east, as is an increasing chunck of the populace. A German girl (from somethingberg in the north) seems to admire American courage and decisiveness.
Anyway, my point is that you both have interesting takes on the situation, both are 3rd party observers with i´d say above average acumen at research and logic. I would love to see you both able to put aside the pointless insults and namecalling in lieu of respect for the position (or at the least abilities) of the other. I am guessing that the rest of the board is enjoying this fascinating table-tennis discussion.
i´ll shut up now.
Go Jets Go!!!

@Soon_U_Die:

I see…it’s really about the ‘meta-point’, and not the substance…LOL :)

It seems to me that you don’t see behind that.
Look again:

This is what you said,

There is one christian fundamentalist country: The USA. They do research on WMD and do not sign conventions by the UN on that topic, they have not signed the anti-anti-person-mine convention by the UN, they ignore the Kyotot protocol etc etc. Unfortunately, they are the biggest bully around, and about to show us their muscles again.
Who was the last president of the US who did not fight a war?
Carter maybe?)

I stated three international treaties (important on their issues, i could add the international court on war crimes, that the US doesn’t accept and for which the current US gov’t made laws to allow military means to free US citizen before that court) that were not signed by the US. The first sentence was mainly for provocation and is not backed by the following, but unfortunately our society more and more needs “big” headlines for people to start reading.
So, all i did was showing that the US isn’t keen on multilaterialism, and that they are powerful enough to act accordingly. This behavior i cannot accept. Not on a local, not on a global scale, not by anyone.
As there is only one nation acting against multilateralism on this global scale, i picked them as example.

1. I don’t intend on beating you up on just the APM reference, I intend on beating you up on every single statement in this parargraph (above).

With the danger of missing my point, distracting the others and us two.
See my coment on (2) as well.

2. Suddenly, the ‘meta-point’ is no longer about the substance of treaties…it’s only about signing them…and bilateralism, unilateralism, and the like instead of multilateralism. Funny, how the process is suddenly more important to you than the result.

It’s not suddenly. As you are so proud on your logical abilities, you might have seen what the three examples have in common.
For the protocol:
These are examples to show how the US does not work with the international community. They are not examples to show how the US does nothing or too little on these topics. They are not to be seen as single points, but as part of the “red thread” of foreign policy of the GWB admin.
Therefore you are right: These examples are not about the results, but about the process.

3. Why didn’t you just state that it is the ‘meta-point’? Why argue about numbers of mines, where they are, who was responsible etc, if it really is about the ‘meta-point’ of unilateralism vs multilateralism. …
4. It would seem to me that you haven’t been arguing the ‘meta-point’ at all. It seems to me that you have been arguing the substance of this treaty … However, when confronted with the facts of what the US actually does in the landmine arena, you have now retreated to the ‘meta-point’.

Right, i got distracted, and didn’t see where you wanted to lead me to. The point of the “substance” of the treaties was brought up by you, and i went into that trap. I admit that i carry some responsibility for the distraction. I should try not to jump to fast on baits in form of insults ( a weakness of me that i know and find hard to fight).
I have not retreated to the meta-point, you have ignored it. I just didn’t state it the first place because it thought it would be obvious.

5. Why are you bothering to argue the substance of the Kyoto accords? …
Apparently your comment on the APM treaty was really about the ‘meta-point’ Shouldn’t your comment on the Kyoto accords also be about the ‘meta-point’ and not the substance? Or do you just move back and forth when it’s convenient? LOL

No, i actually try to follow the thoughts of my adversary and counter them when i can. That’s what makes up an argument for me. That can easily lead to distraction from the first point (see other threads to see this happen continually). I don’t move back and forth, i have split up the two answers (the one on Kyoto and it’s substance plus the one about APMs/the metapoint) in different postings for a reason.

6. So far, you have no substance to play with…but that’s OK. Afterall, multilateralism MUST be good and unilateralism/bilateralism MUST be bad.

You mix up the two again. For the effects of uni/bi-lateralism vs. multilateralism: have a look at history.
An imposant example of multilateralism working is the conference diplomacy of europe after Napoleon I., the Kongo Conference of 1885 etc.
Of course they couldnot prevent all wars, but neither could the Roman Empire prevent its collapse (which lead to the “dark ages”, remember, with the single only one superpower falling away without a substitute).

7. Maybe each Treaty and process around it should actually be judged on its own merits?

The treaties yes, the process no.

8. Apparently, by your logic of the ‘meta-point’, the world of farmers in mine riddled countries would be better off with:

No, you miss the point and mix up substance with process.
Tell me one reason why the US should not have worked the way they do (in environmental issues, in demining efforts) if they had actually signed the treaties and made themselves a partner: they could even have been the leading partner, the great example for others to follow etc. Instead they insisted on their “special role” outside the treaties.
To do the goods, the treaties would not have hindered them. The treaties would become a “nuisance” once a gov’t of the US decides not to do these goods anymore.

Substance would seem to be of little import to the ‘meta-point’ LOL.

Partly true. Why do you expect the US to work differently on the substances if the yhad signed the treaties?

9. It warms my heart to hear that you have finally figured out why the US has not signed the APM Treaty yet.

One reason that you brought up (the Korean-Korean border). Anotehr reason i brought up: not wanting to have any instance above the US that could exert control, ergo freedom to defy the UN if it is in the interest of the US (and maybe the US only, or whatever friends they “buy”).

11. Not signing IS a technicality to the people of Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mozambique, etc. etc. …some people are actually making the world a better place…and they didn’t even need to sign a piece of paper to do so :)

Not signing can become more than a technicality at any time.
Making the world a better place would not have been hindered by the treaties (do we really have to repeat ourselves so often?).

12. You state: ‘But now, we are about to see a precedent created by the last superpower, that they take their right to act against the international community, to blackmail it, and to follow its agenda not as “primus inter pares” but more as an imperialistic european power of the 19/20th century suppressing unrests in colonies with the world being the colony and no other major power around’.

Presumably, this relates to your ‘meta-point’. Why is it again that failure to sign the APM Treaty is bad? Are you sure that your opinion WRT to Iraq, which is obviously behind this statement, doesn’t cloud your opinion on these other Treaties. Again, why is Multi-Lateralism Good and Unilateralism Bad? Shouldn’t each thing be judged upon its own merits?
Presumably you don’t think that failure to sign the APM Treay is ‘blackmailing the international community’.

Not presumably, it does relate.

For multi- against bilateralism: Who watches the watchman?

The blackmailing of the international community is the US threat to fight a war against Iraq regardless of the UN security counsil’s decision, threatening to make it “irrelevant”. That is blackmail, in open words: Follow us, or we will not work with you in anything later on.

13. Yes, you were just stating facts.

Yes, i got distracted.

14. On Kyoto…the basic cycle was this…

Everyone: Lets all get together on a truly worldwide initiative to reduce these emissions.

US…Ok, but let’s make sure every one plays

EU…well, we can’t control the Commies, and we certainly don’t want to burden the developing countries. …

(notice, this is not about the meta-point anymore)
By this i could claim you are anti-european. No facts at all, just something that you think to remember that way. I thought we had this level behind us.
Of course, follwing your theme, you cannot do anything else but put the blame into europes shoes. Plus, you put in blatantly untrue information (
“US…let me see…we exclude half the world, including the vast majority of the actual dirty polluters”): Some facts for this: THe percentage of CO2 production: USA 24%, Japan 5%, Germany 3.8%, UK 2.4%, Canada 2.1%, Italy 1.9 %, France 1.7%. Sums up to 40.9%. With China (12.7%) and Russia (6.3%) (who are not part of the developing countries) we get more than those. Just some data for you to make it easier to retract that false announcement.

I made the work to look the history up in the net. I will comment directly after your … well, effectively defamations.

It may not be perfectly sequenced, but it sums up the issues:

the means by which targets were set was fatally flawed,

the US strongly objected to the exclusion of developing nations,

the EU rejected compromise and reworking of targets and exclusions

credit schemes were floated

credit schemes were floated by the US as well, some even going further than those of all the evil evil others, see below.

the EU refused to negotiate with the US

or did the US refuse to negotiate?
There is one credit scheme called “Flexible Measures” (a direct translation of the german phrase), “Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism” (the official names). The JUSSCANNZ group wanted that the credits of the “flexible measures” could be transfered without limit, the EU wanted to cap them.
After the US left the conferences, the conference later agreed not to cap them to get Canada, Japan and Russia to ratify the protocol.
In the field of CDM, the europeans wanted to include energy efficient, sustainable technologies to be included, the US wanted nuclear energy to be included. In the JI the situation was similar. Nuclear energy is excluded from these trades.
Another of the credit schemes is the forests as CO2 “catchers”. The US here were the first to suggest not only that new forests could be used as credits, but that existing forests should be counted as well. This was not accepted at first, so the US left the conferencesat that point.
Later, the US proposal was implemented (Russia, Canad, Kapan, see above), and widened so that Russia can now use two times the amount of its forests as credits compared to initial plans.

After the conference of Marrakesh, all the initial points (except the nuclear energy) of the US are now part of the protocol.

the US balked

Canada, Japan and Russia came up with the Russian shell game credits, and Canada pushed for trees

Form what i read, the credits were on the list before the US left, and most of those that the US wished were later implemented.

the EU was desperate to save anything and agreed, hoping the US would return

the US did not return, and we now have a lousy agreement

It would have been lousy with the US anyway.
But seriously, now that nearly all wishes of the US have been fulfilled, are they just stubbornly offended?

….multilateralism at its best :)

Well, it is the first and only international treaty on this topic. It’s crap in its substance, but it’s a symbol that at least the nations made the lip service to protecting the environment and international commitment to it. The first meters of a marathon race, so to say.

Leaders don’t look behind them to see who is following. They lead. We will eventually follow. We will be forced to do so once the full power of the US R&D machine kicks in.

A leader who does not look behind himself to see who follows is stupid. Any general who did so died quickly.
I still doubt that “the full power of the US R&D” will be anything that anybody notices, except the researchers and some media guys who get a one-day-headline out of that. We will see though.

@Soon_U_Die:

the EU (US) refused to negotiate…you seem to object to this.

I objected that you put the EU only to blame. In the above you mention the US as well, that’s all i wanted.

I just find it humorous the EU compromised its position so much throughout in an attempt to get an agreement…any agreement. My view is that the US actually acted IAW with its principles.

What is politics? Everyone acting according to his principles, seeking compromises? Both as good as possible? None of it? Only one totally with no respect for the second?

A small point to note…‘most of those that the US wished were later implemented’… exactly…and why do you think that is? Because the EU gambled that the US would come back to the table…they did not.

This is your opinion only, and based on your reasoning only. The same applies for my opinion that the US gov’t is to be trusted as far as than i can spit cherrystones.
I have a collection of facts, and make up my mind. You have a collection of facts and make up yours.
Even with the same facts we probably would draw different conclusions.

A similar situation happened with ITER…a thread from last year. Multi-national attempt to build a fusion reactor (EU, Japan, Russia, US, Canada). They attempt to negotiate a path. The US refuses citing a number of funding and technological objections and withdraws.

Just a quick comment not to be followed on:
It’s funny that it’s always the US that withdraws and later appears right (at least in your view): If they are so sure they are right, why leave, when it’s good for the whole of mankind?

“US…let me see…we exclude half the world, including the vast majority of the actual dirty polluters” …

My statement is not inaccurate…but it is poorly worded.

Where is the difference? I can understand a difference between “wrong” and “poorly worded”/“inaccurate”, between those and “totally accurate”…

Consequently, I won’t retract it…but I will explain it.

The explanation is enough for me to accept your position (as your position), even i don’t agree with the point and esp. not the way you try to talk yourself out there.

Remember, I gave you a thumbnail sketch, not a detailed explanation.

Not inaccurate? … i thought accuracy was about details etc…

ok, i’ll shut up on this.
Just one thing: You did not explain the term “vast majority”… vast to me is more than two thirds. But i must admit, i misread your “dirty polluters” to “dirt polluters”.

So, no I will not withdraw the statement as it is/was accurate.

:) …. sorry, taht was just too tempting :)

Finally, why is the US such a big producer? Is it primarily the ‘myth’ that they don’t give a damn, are self centered and the like. No. Consider the following points:

they are the world’s largest economy and the worlds most industrialized country by far, so of course they should be much higher.

True, but if you look at the pollution per capita, the US still is in the lead by a large amount.
All facts i will state at teh end.

they are geographically a huge country with a dispersed population. This is quite different than Europe. In the US and Canada…a lot of us live in the suburbs. We have to drive cars. Public transportation sucks because of the distances. We have garages so we have larger cars. Europe is much more densely populated. Public transportation is much more viable and efficient in Europe because of this density and geography.

Yes and no. I have spent some time in Australia, who fits into the abovementioned category. Your description is correct, your conclusions are singleminded and not thinking far enough.
I must add: you se this totally wrong. In Europe, the population density across the continent is rather “flat”, at an intermediate level. In Australia, and i suppose in the US and Canada as well, you have much bigger centres, and much less polpuation outside these centres.
Thus, effectivlythe european population is dispersed: Germany with its 80 million people has only 4 cities with more than 1 million inhabitants, plus the Ruhr area, which can be counted as one city, and then would be the 5th. Australia, with its 18 million people, has 3 cities of more than one million inhabitants.
Your argument is more a counterargument.
In cities that large, a good transportation system should be no problem, with that amount of possible customers.

This means, public transportation would fit to your places much better.
I lived in Melbourne, with 3 million inhabitants. My hometown in germany is half as big in population. Still, it has a better system for public transportation.

You said “you have to drive cars”. Why do you have to drive cars? Because the public transportation system suck. Why do they suck? Your argument does not work for it. Try to think of others. Compare the investments maybe into these systems and street building.

Another point why public transportation does not work so well: It could be your mindset. You seem convinced that you need a car, regardless wether there are trains running or not. What is the maximum distance for you to cover before you change to your car (from walking/bicycle…)?
Why is “denser building” something undesirable? Why do you need your home in your suburb, even if it means driving 25 km through the city to your job?

Transportation pollutants are vastly higher proportionally in the US than in Europe. North America is the home of the long distance truck driver :) Europeans drive smaller cars, shorter distances because they have to…not because they are more environmentally conscious. You can’t even find a spot to park a car in many European cities…so the cars have to be small. Where are all your garages? ::)

This speaks of your mindset again. Would you need parking spots if the public transportation worked? Plus: It is untrue. I drive about 200 km per trip per day to work. My homevillage (6000 people) was about 40 km from the citycentre of the next large city, where most people worked. But, we were not a suburb, but there was a town and a few villages in between.
Denser building in the city makes such thing possible. And the garages in the city areoften underground or in parking buildings, if you haven’t noticed.
Whereis the need for bigger cars, if you drive from one suburb to the other?
It’s a myth that you need big cars, as you drive such long distances. How many people have SUVs, and need the “U” part in it?

Plus: We have quite a environmental conciousness.
A hint: Look at the different designs of the same cars for different continents, and at the PR-strategies used to sell them.

Long distance truck dirvers: Why can’t their job be done by long distance trains? Why wouldn’t it work in principle?
Do you know what is damaging roads most? Trucks.

Transportation is not the only thing. Our agriculture sector is spread over a much greater distance/area. Europe heavily invests in chemicals etc for so called intensive farming. For instance, I believe yields in the UK are about 3-5 times per acre that in Can/US. Instead, we have the space, and we leave huge tracts of land fallow…we are less intensive…but we burn far more fuel to till this amount of land.

True.
You have the space, and you buy your feel of freedom with the need of fuel.

Electrical generation. Without getting in to physics too much, the longer distance power travels, the less efficient the overall system. In short, you require greater proportional generating capacity. Well the US is huge, like Canada. We have a built-in disadvantage.

???
So, you think the people in New York get their Electricity from the Westcoast? The distances is not a factor. I don’t think that your powerplants are so much further away from the customers as ours. Or your costs for electricity would be much higher, or are your electrical power producers not making profits??

Weather in the US and Canada is more extreme and more varied than in Europe in general. We have four distinct seasons in much of our land, … But in the winter it is freezing and you must have central heating. …our weather necessitates greater power consumption. It is the same for Canada…actually worse. I believe proportionally we use more power than even the US…why? The weather again…if you haven’t had to let your car warm up for 15 mins before you can even drive it…you don’t know.

(1) Europe is not sub-tropical, therefore we have 4 distinct seasons as well.
(2) Canada is second to the US is per capita energy consumption.
(3) central heating? the central heating i know, or just a word for “well working heating in every room”? hopefully the second.
You are right, your weather conditions are more extreme, esp. in Canada. Not at all in Florida or southern California though. There the need for winter heating is quite reduced.
A question: Do you know how USies and Canadians build their houses? How much insulation in the walls? Double brick? brick at all? Wood? Aluminium? single/double/triple windows?
I guess at least many USies could save a lot of energy by building “smarter” houses.

All of these things affect our businesses, not just our homes. It is easy to say that we are just power hogs, but that is simplistic. There are valid reasons on why we consume so much. Europeans who move here quickly find that out.

The weather is the only difference from you towarsd the Ozzies, AFAICS.

In any case, that may indeed be our problem, but look at it from our perspective…to move any of the absolute numbers is more difficult here. A 1% change is more costly to effect here, than it is in Europe. It is just reality.
I don’t expect you to change your opinion on Kyoto, but I do hope that you will acknowledge there are real issues in North America on these issues, and solutions for you, may not be the best solutions for us because of these differences. Hopefully, you will at least acknowledge that it is not just greedy Americans as Europe likes to portray it.

I don’t think you are greedy, but i think you have to rethink one of your very basics, one of the things that kind of define you:
Space costs energy. Energy is limited. Do i need the space i use for my well being, just because the space per se (withour following costs) is so cheap? Or should i try and make up a larger sum, of all following costs?

–--------------------------------------
Stats section:

CO2 emission per capita (1995)
USA 20.5 tons
Germany 11 tons
(sorry, nothing for Canada or Aus in that list)

global sources of Greenhousegases (GHG):
Farming, Cattle, “Foodproduction” 15%
Energyusage by industry and “households” (sp?) 30%
Traffic 20%
Burning forests to gain land 15%
chemical products 20%

If you look at that, the CO2/Energy-consumption possibly comes from the second and third, with the fourth being a topic for developing countries.
And on the traffic, i strongly disagree with you and think your reasoning is shortsighted.

Total Energy usage (million tons coal equivalent units)and usage per capita (kg coal equivalent units)
USA 3021.6 11,300
Canada 320.9 10,900
Australia 140.8 7,879
Netherlands (?) 7,421 …
Traffic important for the Netherlands? Or are they just the most wasteful nation ever?
Germany 461 5,650
France 308 5,309

So, in a first model we could account about 3,000 kg per capita due to extreme weather differences between Australia and Canada.
Anyway, i don’t think your “traffic model” works. In population density, the Netherlands lead in front of Germany, in front of France.
So, there France should use more than Germany should use more than the Netherlands.

Just one point …

If Kyoto was so great and US Pres. Clinton had 2-3 years to say, “It’s Great!”(found on Google search ‘Clinton-Kyoto Accord’), why didn’t Clinton push for approval? He’s been trying to grab credit for anything good and deflect criticism for anything bafd since leaving office!

Stil, it would have been a valid distraction, rather than bombing aspirin factories, schools and hospitals.
Oh, wait! Distraction…war… Democrats…I get it now.

Now that you’ve had time to read and cogitate upon my post of Mar. 7, 2003 …

What do you not understand about 1441 and the fact that Iraq is in violation of these multiple resolutions?

As well as Russia, France and China(and possibly Germany) being in violation of resolution 1441, #10.

@Xi:

What do you not understand about 1441 and the fact that Iraq is in violation of these multiple resolutions?

Did you have a look at Resolution 687? The one that the US are continually breaking, just about a week ago with the marines cutting open the border fences between Iraq and Kuwait……

Note: i am not saying that the Iraq has not breached this resulotion either, i am aware they did.

As well as Russia, France and China(and possibly Germany) being in violation of resolution 1441, #10.

Shot in your foot?
It was the US agancies who didn’t hand over all their “proof” to UNMOVIC. It’s the US government who claims that UNMOVIC is futile, and that is not the “full support” that they have to be given. To me, it seems the one who want more time and more material support for UNMOVIC is not the USA.
Xi…. i think that did no good to your cause.

facts:
from resolution 1441
" 10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"

from Resolution 687
"Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, "
"4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned (Iraq-Kuwait) international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; "

Sorry for the late answer, SUD

@Soon_U_Die:

1. If the US obtains 9 votes for a 2nd security council resolution, and France, Russia or China veto the resolution…will you condemn (France, Russia, China) for failing to agree to a multilateral agreement?

Yes, but i would accept the right to veto, just as i would accept it from the UK or US. I don’t have to agree with the compromise found or with the compromise being “vetoed”, still i would accept it. The UN is the final authority on this planet when it comes to international issues, and i fully support that.

2. If Russia does not ratify Kyoto, it is quite possible that Kyoto will collapse, as the threshold of 55% of emissions will not be reached. Will you condemn Russia then? Could we state that multilateralism has then failed? Or would multilateralism have succeeded? Perhaps faiure of the accords is actually success, since we seem to agree that the accords themselves are crap (at least in substance)?

If Russia doesn’t ratify, i would still expect the others to act “as if it was in effect”, just as you brought the example fo the US acting “as if” tehy had signed something.
I surely will put some blame on Russia, as on any other nation that refuses to ratify afer having their wishes met after the official negotiations. (This excludes the US to blamed to that reason).
We can say that multilateralism has failed, because in democratic systems not every notion put forward gets accepted in the end.
Multilateralism is similar to democracy between states, unilateralism is similar to dictatorship of one state over others.
And even if the the substance is crap, and the “failure in international relations” could happen to become a “success on the the issue” (which i strongly doubt!!)… i would still consider it a failure, as one of the problems that concerns all of mankind couldn’t be solved by all of mankind together, not even plans where laid out etc.

But, I wanted to let you know that I am going to be very busy in the next 10 days though

No worries.

I’m not so sure the US should have to accept a Veto by 1 member. If the US knew for sure that Iraq had to be pre-emptively hit and yet knew for sure that say France would veto an attack for purly cynical reasons she they just bend over and allow a perceived threat to become real?

I’m not saying this is the current situation, but what if? Let’s just assume this situation did exist? The US is going to war against Iraq. They are so sure that Iraq has WPM that their troops will all wear protection. Most likely, statistically, some will die due to heat exhaustion due to the added protection. Is this just a publicity stunt?

I say that after the dust settles, if the US administration was wrong that they should step down and face a war crimes trial. If they are that sure they should state this.

Does anybody think that those who want to support Saddam like the French would state that if they are wrong they will retire immediately and for ever from politics? I doubt it.

There are far far worse things than fighting a just war.

BB

@F_alk:

(1) Europe is not sub-tropical, therefore we have 4 distinct seasons as well.
(2) Canada is second to the US is per capita energy consumption.
(3) central heating? the central heating i know, or just a word for “well working heating in every room”? hopefully the second.
You are right, your weather conditions are more extreme, esp. in Canada. Not at all in Florida or southern California though. There the need for winter heating is quite reduced.
A question: Do you know how USies and Canadians build their houses? How much insulation in the walls? Double brick? brick at all? Wood? Aluminium? single/double/triple windows?
I guess at least many USies could save a lot of energy by building “smarter” houses.

I know that you did a lot of work in this post, but this one i had to take a stab at.
point (1) - 4 distinct seasons??? how often do temperatures range from -35 to +35? In Winnipeg nearly every year.
(2) yes. Absolutely. see point (1). I am amazed that Canada actually works. We barely have 30 million people spread over a 6500+ km country. We have a functioning train system, as well as ports, however it is not economical nor desired to take the train anywhere. For me to drive to Calgary (the nearest large city) would take me 14 hours straight. The train would take over 24 hours and cost me around 4-5 times as much.
And Canadian homes are built very intelligently with as much insulation as would be stuffed in the walls, usually with double windows. These windows are designed for the extreme temperatures. As for the other “specs”, i´m not sure, but i´ll tell you this. The only time i hear of a Winnipegger suffering from hypothermia, its because of a drinking binge followed by a head dive into a snowbank for 8 hours. In Portugal this is routine for old people at home!!! And the temperature here was around 40 degrees warmer than it was in Winnipeg. Really, Europeans have no idea of what it takes to survive in Canada. I am amazed that Canada works as well as it does, given the conditions.

I hear ya CC on the Canadian population density thing. Most from europe just don’t have any concept of driving your car at 130Kmph for an hour just to get to work. Of course if you live in a large metro city you can live without a car. For the same cost of living in an apartment in downtown big city Canada you often get a car and house in a rural area. The price is the commute to work. Unless you work from home :-)

It’s a 5 hour drive west to get to Quebec and about a 20 hour drive east to get to the next province Manitoba. Trains in Ontario are great as long as you live along the QEW corridor along lake Ontario or along the Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor. You can’t use what doesn’t exist.

The problem with Kyoto is that if everybody could use as much energy as the US/Canada does per citizen we’d all be in trouble. Then again, the south gets fried and Canada benefits…… Burn baby burn!

BB

Does anybody think that those who want to support Saddam like the French….

I wouldn’t say France is supporting Saddam, they want him disarmed just like everyone else. France just doesn’t agree with the U.S. and Britain on how that should be done.

France knows exactly how they want saddam disarmed. Over the next 10 years, with sanctions in place so everybody can blame the bad old americans for the sanctions. Since Saddam will be in power for 10 more years and be utterly gratefull for the French he will grant France even more lucrative contracts while continuing to support chaos against the US and Israelis. Since they aren’t paying a dime they have no problem with 1/4 of million Yanks and Brits sweating their nutts off while their family gets lonely and the French get fatter with lucrative blood money contracts with the devil himself……

BB

@cystic:

@CC:

point (1) - 4 distinct seasons??? how often do temperatures range from -35 to +35? In Winnipeg nearly every year.

Well, that’s a pretty harsh definition of “4 seasons”…. then besides Canada and Northern US probably noone has 4 distinct seasons.
But i admit, our seasonal changes are not such extreme.

We barely have 30 million people spread over a 6500+ km country. We have a functioning train system, as well as ports, however it is not economical nor desired to take the train anywhere. For me to drive to Calgary (the nearest large city) would take me 14 hours straight. The train would take over 24 hours and cost me around 4-5 times as much.

Well… but how are the “population density fluctuations”. An inspired guess of me would be that 90% of those 30 millions live on less than 10% of the area…
Those 10% people in the 90% area surely need cars/helicopters/whatever, but do the others truely need cars?
Just like BB said ". Of course if you live in a large metro city you can live without a car. " … but how many do?

Just a funny nice episode for you and BB, relating to BB’s “Most from europe just don’t have any concept of driving your car at 130Kmph for an hour just to get to work”. A Post Doc in Melbourne who visited Germany was utterly surprised when traffic on an Autobahn stopped. Just like that, for about one hour. All germans (it was summer) pulled out camping chairs and had kind of a picnic. The reason for this stop was not an accident or something. It was too much traffic, an overload.
So, i could reply “most of you have no concept of driving and standting your car in a traffic jam for an hour just to get to work”…
we don’t have that “concept” of distance, but we have the same concept of time :). And form my point of view, driving an hour is much more relaxing than driving half an hour and spending half an hour in a traffic jam (the usual way to get to work in germany if you have to “commute”).

As for weather extremes, winnipeg is noted for it’s winters, well, most of Canada is except for the Pacific Coast and the area around the great lakes where I am. These big fresh water ponds tend to keep the winters warmer (and more snow) and the summers cooler. We rarely hit -20 C in winter, usually it’s -10 to the low +30s in summer.

I’ve heard it gets so cold in winter in the western part of Canada that your car tires end up with a flat spot frozen into it where that part of the tire was in contact with the ground overnight.

How many folks in europe use a blockheater for their car? I’ve also heard that shopping malls in the west have electrical outlets so customers can plug their car’s block heaters in while shopping.

F_alk, we have huge traffic problems around Toronto. That 1 hour trip where you can drive 130KMPH for 80% of the trip is a tad bit longer when you are in stop and go traffic on the highway, it’s more like 2-3 hours. Many people just leave an hour early to avoid the stress and play cards at work until their shift starts. There are certain times you just don’t go on the 3 main links into Toronto (10 % of Canada lives in this city).

You’re right in that 90% of our people live in 5% of the land. The problem is that 5% is in a 100 KM strip North/South and about a 4,000 KM East-West along the border. Having a relatively round country is much better, you can do a grid of transportation links. We can’t, we have 1 big east-west corridor, 1 rail link and 1 highway link. Yeah of course there are smaller roads that cover a portion of the trip but in some stretches you can drive 130KMPH for hours and not see anything but wheat fields.

I must admit however, the europeans do know how to live life better. I spent 2 weeks there (Germany and Holland) on business. I never ever saw a drive through coffee shop. The idea of getting a coffee and not savouring it, not enjoying others company but rather driving your car to work coffee in hand is just not right! They take more time of work on vacation and vacation tends to come before work insofar as projects at work tend to be put on hold to allow the people to take vacations when they want rather then when the company wants. North America could learn much from that. He who dies richest still dies. He who dies with money didn’t enjoy life as much as he could have.

BB

Imagine you are playing Axis and Allies for the first time. Your playing Russia a friend of yours is playing Britain. He wants to build an IC in South Africa. You don’t think that’s a good idea and tell him so. He calls you a wimp and a weasle. You argue it might be better to build up an AC and transport Infantry to Europe. He is insulted and tells you, your not his friend anymore. You tell him, that you don’t want to offend him and you still consider him as your friend, but if he buys that IC the Axis will most probably win. He spits you in the face and declares war on you.

If I would think that a war against Iraq is the only way to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East, I would wholeheartly support Bush’s stance for war. But I don’t think so.

The first damage is allready done.

The Iraq situation was developing (and was being logistically planned) before North Korea even declared that it was restarting it’s nuke program.

What would you do if Bush set you on a list of three enemy countries and is just about to attack the first one?
Get a threat big enough to prevent him from attacking you as long as his busy with the first country.

Bush declared he is going to bring democracy to Iraq. But did he bring it to Afganistan? Karzai is not elected democraticly. And allthough he not a tyran, his effective rule is restricted to the area international forces are defending, that is, Kabul. More troops would be needed, French, German and American, to ensure Afganistance way to a democratic country. But nobody is willing to pay these costs and America prefers to attack the next country. By the way, in most parts of Afganistan, the Shria is still law.

The people in the Middle East are not likely to welcome the “Crusade against Evil”. The last Crusade they experienced was slaughter and opression. Bush’s “diplomacy” failed to convince his allies, how do you think he will convince his enemies?

The organication which did most for reducing world output of CO2 is th OPEC. Every single drop of oil produced will get burnt in the end. You can research alot about more efficient technologies to burn oil, if you burn more oil you produce more CO2. And this is exactly what the USA are going to do. They are just about to fight a war, which if everything goes according to plan, what I doubt, will destroy the OPEC, encrease the world production of oil and reduce its price.
I’m currently staying in Birmingham, Alabama and I notice the following. There’s hardly any public transportaion in an area of one million inhapitants. Ulm in Germany has 100,000 inhapitants and has a good net of busses. The gas is much cheaper than in Germany. All you can see are pickups and sport cars. Yes, you need air condition in the summer, but Germany is colder in the winter and I don’t need as much heating as I need here.