Saddam refuses to cooperate? So what's new about that?

[Psychoblues]

We have a sitting prez that refuses to open up presidential papers that were generated under his father's administration. He doesn't have a problem with the Clinton papers but somehow his father's and his father's predessessors papers need to be kept from the public eye. I find that very strange and even intriguing. But, it doesn[t stop there.

He also refuses to explain in any credible or comprehensive way his behaviour during his enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. He also refuses to make available his information concerning the energy task force meetings with his vice prez and all the contributors to those meetings. I've never seen anything credible as to why he is so adamantly opposed to the Kyoto Treaty that he would trash our relationships with more environmentally conscience allies. Those notes are somehow not in our national security interest. I could go on, but I won't, for now.

It is no secret here in USMB that I, Psychoblues, am absolutely elated that we, or should I give credit where credit is due, our American Armed Forces have captured and are now interrogating Saddam Hussein. Hussein was and still is to a some degree a scourge on freedom, human rights, human dignity and society as a whole. But refusal to answer questions or even obfuscation within his answers is not uniguely his invention. We've got our own demons, don't we?

It will come to pass, as it has in the past, that some here will attack me personally. I'm as much and even more American than many of the readers here. I would rather we discuss this intelligently and thoughtfully. Wouldn't you?

 

[jimnyc]

We have a sitting prez that refuses to open up presidential papers that were generated under his father's administration. He doesn't have a problem with the Clinton papers but somehow his father's and his father's predessessors papers need to be kept from the public eye. I find that very strange and even intriguing. But, it doesn[t stop there.

Haven't read about this, not that I don't believe you, I just haven't read it. Can you link us to some articles? Specifically what won't he open up? And specifically, what reasons have been given for the denied access?

He also refuses to explain in any credible or comprehensive way his behaviour during his enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard. He also refuses to make available his information concerning the energy task force meetings with his vice prez and all the contributors to those meetings. I've never seen anything credible as to why he is so adamantly opposed to the Kyoto Treaty that he would trash our relationships with more environmentally conscience allies. Those notes are somehow not in our national security interest. I could go on, but I won't, for now.

Who is he answering to when his explanations aren't credible? Are you saying they aren't credible enough for you, or for someone else? It would seem that the military and majority of our government were satisfied with his explanations.

You say he refuses to disclose information about the energy task force meetings. Specifically, what was his reasoning? I link to an article would help.

It is no secret here in USMB that I, Psychoblues, am absolutely elated that we, or should I give credit where credit is due, our American Armed Forces have captured and are now interrogating Saddam Hussein. Hussein was and still is to a some degree a scourge on freedom, human rights, human dignity and society as a whole. But refusal to answer questions or even obfuscation within his answers is not uniguely his invention. We've got our own demons, don't we?

I'm confused. You start off by talking about a man that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and will soon be on trial to answer to thousands of crimes to humanity. You then continue on about George Bush and how he doesn't give answers or they aren't credible enough for you. Are you trying to make a comparison? What exactly is it you are saying here? It sounds like you are saying that we have our own problems, namely George Bush, and that somehow negates the country from going after criminals elsewhere. Feel free to correct me if you like.

It will come to pass, as it has in the past, that some here will attack me personally. I'm as much and even more American than many of the readers here. I would rather we discuss this intelligently and thoughtfully. Wouldn't you?

Do you seriously wonder why you would get personally attacked here? You just claimed you are somehow 'more American' than some here. What gives you that right to make such an outlandish claim?

 

[Psychoblues]

You got me, jimnyc. I don't suppose that anything beyond that which is already widely available insofar as the "facts" that I mentioned will satisfy you. I didn't come here to debate these "widely available" facts. I came here to discuss American attitudes towards these "facts". Your shithouse lawyering is not in the least impressive to me although I admit it's value to the more unenlightened. I think you are trying to imply that everything I said in my post was a lie and you have proof that it was. I maintain that what I said in my post is the truth. Research it and prove me wrong, I don't think you can.

 

[NightTrain]

I've never seen anything credible as to why he is so adamantly opposed to the Kyoto Treaty that he would trash our relationships with more environmentally conscience allies. Those notes are somehow not in our national security interest.

It's been awhile since I've visited the Kyoto thing, because it's water under the bridge, but I remember a few things about it. Basically, the entire program is based on bad science - it wouldn't solve anything and it would be economically crushing.

Interestingly, the Russians just decided to forgo Kyoto as well, here are some of the challenges they faced :


The Kremlin That Killed Kyoto
By Ariel Cohen Published 12/16/2003
TCS

MOSCOW, Russia -- Andrey Illarionov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's libertarian economic adviser, almost single-handedly engineered the Kremlin's commitment to kill the Kyoto Protocol -- a climate control treaty heavily promoted by the European Union and environmentalist movement. UN Secretary General Koffi Annan called upon Putin last Thursday to ratify the treaty. Without the Russian and American signatures, the Protocol is dead in the water.

The Protocol is purported to limit global warming through curbing carbon dioxide emissions at a cost deemed unacceptable for Russia. Illarionov used Putin's stated policy goal -- to double Russia's GDP by the year 2010 -- and the staggering cost of Kyoto's implementation to convince his boss that the Protocol is dead meat.

Russia would need to spend up to 4.5 percent of its GDP to comply with Kyoto, Illarionov told me in the Kremlin. "When Deputy Minister of Economy said recently that Russia is still negotiating, I corrected him saying that he reflected the Russian position in August. Things are different in December."

Putin even joked in October that the global warming will "cut fur coat costs and improve wheat yields." The joke made the green lobby… well, green. Jokes aside, Russia is responsible for 17 percent of the global CO2 against the U.S.'s 35 percent based on the baseline year 1990. Today, Russia is responsible only for 8-9 percent, as many smokestack industries collapsed, allowing Russia to trade in "hot air" quotas. However, the Russian economy is only 4 percent of America's. Russian GDP after five years of robust growth is only $400 billion against U.S.'s $11 trillion.

Deft Bureaucratic Politics

Initially, when the Protocol was initiated, Russia believed it stood to benefit from carbon dioxide emissions trading because its current CO2 production is 30 percent lower than the baseline year 1990 due to the extinction of many Soviet-era industrial dinosaurs. There is plenty of room in Russia to improve environmental performance, reducing emissions even further -- and increasing an incentive for emission trade.

However, deft bureaucratic politics by treaty opponents have reversed the initial commitment to ratify the protocol. On October 1, Illarionov gathered in Moscow the World Climate Change Conference, at which leading Russian and Western Kyoto opponents voiced their concerns.

Professor Kirill Kondratyev of the Research Center for Ecological Studies in St. Petersburg claimed that the "science behind the Kyoto Protocol is still highly uncertain, and reducing greenhouse gases will have little or no impact on climate change."

Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Management at MIT added that "Climate change is inevitable as a result of natural processes and regardless of human factors… Kyoto… will have an insignificant impact on climate. This is true even if the climate change in the past century has been significantly affected by humanity, or that the model projections (of global warming) are correct."

Margo Thorning, director of International Council for Capital Formation, (Brussels) stated that "promised emission reduction targets for the second period of the Protocol (past 2010) to the range of 60-70% lower than the current level will hit the Russian economy very hard, including job losses and lower living standards. Other experts pointed out that when Europe was considerably colder -- in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth century, it was infested with malaria. Economic and technological progress allowed eradication of mosquito-infested swamps, while better medicine took care of the sick.

Still, supporters of Kyoto point to the warming up of harsh Russian winters: some birds stopped migrating and the areas infected with viruses of West Nile fever and the Congo-Crimean fever -- another hemorrhagic disease -- have expanded 300-400 kilometers north.

Four Reasons

Russia has rejected Kyoto for four reasons which combine business and geo-economics.

First, it did so because U.S. refused to ratify, thus hitting hard the value of emission trading quotas. Russia stands to make much less from hot air trading than initially expected.

Second, Moscow is fuming at the treaty exemptions India and China have received. The two giant states are among the world's biggest polluters and, increasingly, Russia's industrial competitors.

Third, Russian smokestack industries -- such as ferrous and non-ferrous metals, autos, and oil -- are all standing to lose if the Kremlin signs Kyoto. However, RAO UES, the Russian state-controlled eleven time zone electric grid monopoly, and the state-owned powerful nuclear ministry MinAtom, which also supplies nuclear reactors to the Iranian mullahs, are eager to sign Kyoto.

Last, conspiracy-minded Russians are suspecting that Kyoto has become a tool for the EU bureaucracy to limit U.S. and Russian economic growth and reduce Russia to a raw materials "appendage" for Europe, especially as a giant natural gas tank.

Kirill Yankov, the young and dynamic Deputy Natural Resources Minister, also believes that Kyoto, if ratified, would breed yet another layer of bureaucracy tasked with issuing "greenhouse gas emission permits." This will be an additional burden on business which is already suffering from high over-regulation costs. As Russian bureaucrats are notoriously underpaid -- and corrupt -- one can see that Mr. Yankov's concerns are not without merit.

Also, Kyoto does not provide a break given Russia's notoriously cold climate. "Lots of carbon dioxide [emissions are] generated by central heating, which Russia needs seven month a year," Mr. Yankov notes.

Russia should pursue a national program to limit carbon dioxide emissions outside of the Kyoto framework, just as the U.S. and Australia do, says Kirill Yankov. It should study the American experience, without committing to the treaty. In the meantime, Kyoto looks dead. The Kremlin is the one who killed it.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry, my lying friend, if YOU make statements, it is up to YOU to provide factual evidence.

Backup your claims, or admit it's simply your opinion. I'm tired of playing your games, do one or the other or don't plan on posting again.

 

[NightTrain]

Ahhhh, yes. I found what I was looking for.

It wasn't Dubya that killed Kyoto - this all went down when your boy Clinton was still in the saddle.

Behold!

Who Killed Kyoto?
By Iain Murray Published 05/20/2003
TCS

We've heard it now for so long that it's drummed into our heads. President George W. Bush soured relations with the E.U. by refusing to accept the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, he took the U.S. into unilateralism and demonstrated his disdain for world opinion. That's what is at the root of the current divide between Europe and America. We're hearing that argument trotted out by various contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, most notably Senators Joe Lieberman and John Kerry.

The trouble is, it just isn't true. The Kyoto treaty was killed in November 2000, during the dying days of the Clinton-Gore administration. We didn't notice in the United States because something else was going on at that time. This is also why we didn't notice that it wasn't the Americans who killed it. It was the Europeans, most prominently (surprise, surprise) the French.

How did this happen? Back in 2000, there was a general agreement among governments that Kyoto was a good thing. This was certainly the opinion of the Clinton administration, despite the Byrd-Hagel resolution (Senate Resolution 98) passed by the Senate in 1997, that Kyoto would be harmful to the economy of the United States and was flawed in its failure to restrict the emissions of developing nations. Nevertheless, the United States, along with Australia, Canada and Japan, argued that carbon sinks - the natural forests and greenery that hungrily absorb so much of the carbon dioxide emitted all over the world - should be taken into account when working out emissions targets.

The fact is that while the North American continent emits about 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon every year, North American carbon sinks actually absorb 1.7 billion tons of atmospheric carbon every year. North America is therefore a net consumer of carbon dioxide. The same is not true of the European nations, who essentially see their emissions cleaned up by North American or other carbon sinks. They were not keen to see carbon sinks counted in the equation when they had none to count themselves, despite the fact that the European targets under Kyoto were less stringent than those imposed on other industrialized nations.

The various sides in the argument came together in November 2000 at The Hague in the Netherlands to sort out their differences. Frank Loy, the chief negotiator for the Clinton-Gore team, acted swiftly to try to compromise. He dropped the previous American stance of demanding that developing nations commit themselves to "meaningful" involvement in the Kyoto process. He told the conference, "It's time now that we commit ourselves to a pragmatic, not a dogmatic approach. We're past the time for rhetoric - we need give and take. The U.S. has shown flexibility."

But as the U.S. position softened, and the United Kingdom - true believers in the Kyoto process - tried to broker a deal, the position of "Old Europe" hardened. French President Jacques Chirac in particular took up a radical stance, telling delegates "France proposes that we set as our ultimate objective the convergence of per capita emissions." This idea is based on the theory that everyone in the world should have the right to emit carbon in equal amounts - so requiring a vast decrease in the amount emitted by industrialized nations and a massive increase in the amount emitted by the Third World. Chirac admitted that Kyoto therefore represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

If this process sounds familiar, it should. French intransigence caused the U.K.-brokered deal to allow progress on Kyoto to collapse. British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott blamed continental European politicians in no uncertain terms:

"It failed in the European area. There comes a time when politicians have to use their own guts, their own judgment." European ministers should have taken a chance and made the change, he said. "That's what I decided to do and everyone was with us until we got into those Euro ministers and they split."

Even the environmental groups blamed the Europeans. According to the BBC, the National Environmental Trust said, "The Hague was likely to have been the European nations' best opportunity to achieve a strong climate treaty, and they decided to pass it up. After January, they could face a Bush administration almost certain to push for bigger loopholes. There is no excuse for having walked away."

By refusing to countenance any compromise on Kyoto at The Hague, the French and their allies essentially killed the treaty, two months before President Bush took office. Whenever anyone blames the President for rifts with Europe over the environment, these particular events of November 2000 need to be remembered.

 

[Psychoblues]

That's up to you, jimnyc. So much for your Freedom of Speech award, whatever that means. I've stated facts as I surmise from widely available information. Somehow these "facts" piss you off. Do your thing, oh King Master, ban me for stating facts that you cannot credibly refute.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Psychoblues
That's up to you, jimnyc. So much for your Freedom of Speech award, whatever that means. I've stated facts as I surmise from widely available information. Somehow these "facts" piss you off. Do your thing, oh King Master, ban me for stating facts that you cannot credibly refute.

NO, you stated your opinion. I politely asked you to back up your opinions with sources. You refused to do so, as you conveniently have before, and tried to lay the burden of proof on me. I didn't make the post, you did.

If it's so widely available, why can't you simply backup your assertions?

You aren't going to be coming here calling yourself more American than others, spout your inane theories, without at least backing up your claims when asked to - LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES WHEN ASKED.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by NightTrain
Nevertheless, the United States, along with Australia, Canada and Japan, argued that carbon sinks - the natural forests and greenery that hungrily absorb so much of the carbon dioxide emitted all over the world - should be taken into account when working out emissions targets.

The fact is that while the North American continent emits about 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon every year, North American carbon sinks actually absorb 1.7 billion tons of atmospheric carbon every year. North America is therefore a net consumer of carbon dioxide. The same is not true of the European nations, who essentially see their emissions cleaned up by North American or other carbon sinks. They were not keen to see carbon sinks counted in the equation when they had none to count themselves, despite the fact that the European targets under Kyoto were less stringent than those imposed on other industrialized nations.

The various sides in the argument came together in November 2000 at The Hague in the Netherlands to sort out their differences. Frank Loy, the chief negotiator for the Clinton-Gore team, acted swiftly to try to compromise. He dropped the previous American stance of demanding that developing nations commit themselves to "meaningful" involvement in the Kyoto process. He told the conference, "It's time now that we commit ourselves to a pragmatic, not a dogmatic approach. We're past the time for rhetoric - we need give and take. The U.S. has shown flexibility."

But as the U.S. position softened, and the United Kingdom - true believers in the Kyoto process - tried to broker a deal, the position of "Old Europe" hardened. French President Jacques Chirac in particular took up a radical stance, telling delegates "France proposes that we set as our ultimate objective the convergence of per capita emissions." This idea is based on the theory that everyone in the world should have the right to emit carbon in equal amounts - so requiring a vast decrease in the amount emitted by industrialized nations and a massive increase in the amount emitted by the Third World. Chirac admitted that Kyoto therefore represented "the first component of an authentic global governance."

If this process sounds familiar, it should. French intransigence caused the U.K.-brokered deal to allow progress on Kyoto to collapse. British Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott blamed continental European politicians in no uncertain terms:

"It failed in the European area. There comes a time when politicians have to use their own guts, their own judgment." European ministers should have taken a chance and made the change, he said. "That's what I decided to do and everyone was with us until we got into those Euro ministers and they split."

Even the environmental groups blamed the Europeans. According to the BBC, the National Environmental Trust said, "The Hague was likely to have been the European nations' best opportunity to achieve a strong climate treaty, and they decided to pass it up. After January, they could face a Bush administration almost certain to push for bigger loopholes. There is no excuse for having walked away."

By refusing to countenance any compromise on Kyoto at The Hague, the French and their allies essentially killed the treaty, two months before President Bush took office. Whenever anyone blames the President for rifts with Europe over the environment, these particular events of November 2000 need to be remembered.
________________________ ___________________________
Thanks NightTrain I wasn't aware of this. I remember all those reports in the 90s about acid rains and moth mutation in Europe, but I forgot why. Despite their current stewardship of sustainable building and other environmental measures, the fact remains that they were in no way responsible for the care of their land until recently. This shows that they probably never will put it above political maneuvering.

Why shouldn't we get points for maintaining our forests? This would not only encourage us, it would also sponsor the preservation of natural forests in third world countries, possibly even reforestation. Instead, they want an advantage for their weaker nations that allows them to pollute competitively. It's very eye opening.

 

[Psychoblues]

I've seen little asked from the dittoheads but I'll do my best in the future to both link my sources and explain my theories. Your's is a typical but weak courtroom response. Prove that which is commonly and heretofore held as truth.

I suppose you have the answers to the questions I only repeat in my post. I'm waiting?

 

[jimnyc]

What exactly is a dittohead? Sounds like a personal attack to me. Care to explain what exactly that means?

So, are you admitting now that your original post was not fact, and you cannot cite sources to backup your statements?

 

[nbdysfu]

Your thesis in initiating this thread was 'Saddam's refusal to cooperate is no different from the evil infidel Bush' as I gather from the juxtaposition of the title and actual content of your thread.

You claimed a lot of facts that may be technically true but are otherwise dubious as to having any value whatsoever towards proving your point.

Jim challenged you to further connect your claimed facts into something that resembles a case. Can you not find anything more substantial than what you have posted? If not I would suggest dropping it, as your appropriation of facts is worthy of the national enquirer.

 

[NightTrain]

A Dittohead would be a Rush Limbaugh listener / fan. When someone calls in to Rush's show, they usually say "Dittos from Ohio (or wherever they're from), Rush!", meaning they agree with Limbaugh. Dittohead naturally formed from that line.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NightTrain
A Dittohead would be a Rush Limbaugh listener / fan.

If that be the case, that just shows AGAIN just how wrong he is. I've never listened to Rush before, not once, unless it was on in the background and I didn't know it was him. I have no idea what station he broadcasts on, nor do I even know if he's available in the NYC metropolitan area.

Oh well, let him ramble on and call me a dittohead, I've been associated with a lot worse than Limbaugh before. It certainly beats being known as a poster who lies about being in the military. Misguided loyalty beats out stolen honor any day of the week.

 

[5stringJeff]

He is on WABC, whatever frequency that is in NYC - 850 or 950 or something like that, I think. Sean Hannity follows him on the same station.

Is Rush even back? I haven't really bothered to listen for him since he went into rehab.

 

[NightTrain]

Yeah, he's back & he's much sharper now.

We've been listening to Rush and Hannity at work, I'd have to say Rush is better now than he's ever been. His ego is still tremendous, but he's really ripping the Dems something fierce!

It's a beautiful thing

 

[NightTrain]

Nbdysfu :

Yeah, Kyoto was a great deal for small developing countries at the expense of other countries (especially the USA). I forget how expensive it would have been for us to comply with it, but it was staggering. The first article I posted said Russia would have had to spend 4.5% of their GDP to comply!

It's based on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and the science used as the platform for this protocol is controversial, to say the least. The models were flawed, but that didn't stop the greenies from pushing it forward at top speed.

You'd have to be a firm believer in global warming for this to fly, and there are many, many scientists that aren't buying the global warming theory.

I personally think it's a load of crap. We have natural warming and cooling cycles (remember the ice ages?) and what we see now is the same thing that's been happening since the dawn of time.

Remember in the '70s all the greenies were running around saying we were making the earth cool? And that we were speeding toward an ice age? LOL

Now they've got their story, and they're sticking to it.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by NightTrain
Remember in the '70s all the greenies were running around saying we were making the earth cool? And that we were speeding toward an ice age?
_______________________ ________________________
They were still teaching that in elementary schools in the eighties. Where I'm living we're getting snow earlier than we've ever had it, even though other areas report record heat. Things are shifting around, but they don't seem to be pulling to one side or the other. This may hurt species which are limited to specific locations, and maybe change migratory routes, but how much is in question.

Another thing that bothers me about this is that the pollution that is having the major effect on the ozone now was actually emitted thirty years ago. My greenie chem teacher explained that. It took that long to travel through the atmosphere and get that high. This would put it back in the midst of the original 70s environmental movements. Unless I'm totally mistaken, US industrial emissions are nothing like they were then.

 

[NightTrain]

Right. Much less pollution is released now than in the '70s.

There is always room for improvement, but I think things are going pretty smoothly.

Of course, I'm sitting here in Alaska, things are pretty damn pristine around my neck of the woods. But I understand the acid rain and smog problems are much, much better these days from what I hear in major metropolitan areas.