Wednesday, April 30, 2003
There is a backlash on the way to Bush's Iraq war . But we can't just blame the war, he has done everything possible to isolate the United States from ANY and all international institutions as well.
Kyoto Agreement
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was successfully created, with the vast majority of all the world's nations. They were happy to set targets in order to successfully reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions in hope of significantly reducing Global Warming, when Bush pulled the rug out from under them and pulled the U.S. from the Kyoto agreement In March 2001, even though most of the world's nations agreed to it.
Nuclear Arms agreements
In May 24 2002 "The administration argued that the responsive force is needed to address unspecified contingencies in the indefinite future, so a limited agreement was reached with Russia.
*"When the state (U.S.) with by far the most powerful conventional forces asserts that it can only protect its vital interests with an undiminished reliance on nuclear forces, it is undermining the global effort to stem nuclear proliferation. "
International Court System
"On April 11, 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) received the sixty ratifications that it needed to be established. While many nations celebrated this human rights milestone. On Monday May 6, 2002 Under Secretary Grossman announced that the U.S. would be removing their signature from the treaty."
How long can Bush ignore the world?
How long can we ignore the world? Quite a while, I am afraid, since Bush considers the world a "focus group", which is undeserving of his concern.
Treat the world nations as equals? Sure!
What does the administration do when they encounter problems that clearly require the cooperation of other countries, not as junior partners, but as equals? Well Right now their approach is simply to deny the existence of those problems and spin them down so they look like they are minor. My favorite spin is "We need more research to support that claim."
Now lets add American revenge on France for their anti-war stance.
On April 25, The Bush administration moved to drastically scale down a French-backed U.N. proposal to send more than 250 U.N. peacekeepers to the former French colony of Ivory Coast, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. The request to streamline the $25 million U.N. political mission comes just days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said France would face consequences for leading opposition to war against Iraq.
This was the first major test of U.S.-French cooperation, at the United Nations, since the war. U.S. officials said their decision was motivated by concerns for costs, a quarter of which would have to be shouldered by the United States, not revenge. I am sure its not, Come on, it is obvious that the administration is prepared to penalize the Ivory Coast, which has been devastated by ethnic, religious and political conflict, to get revenge against the French. What a hypocrite! Bush is willing to let those people die, just to teach France a lesson? Wait a minute, the U.S. has no money to spend. No, that's not it, Bush has billions. Yea, I guess it's revenge. Let those people die George, that'll teach the frogs!
Well Mr Potter, a new club is being built and it is not the Baily Savings and Loan.
Given all of the above issues and many others I have not been able to catalog. Is it any surprise that this week that the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg came together in Brussels for a mini-summit. Each of the four countries involved belong to NATO. Curiously, they announced plans for the creation of a joint military planning system by next year, and a multinational headquarters for European military operations in which Nato is not involved.
The four countries, also intend to set up their own rapid reaction force and launch a European Security and Defense Union, which others would be encouraged to join.
Europe was ready to move closer to a common defense and foreign policy. That went to hell with all the disagreement over the Iraq war. It split the EU into pro- and anti-war camps. Some say that this mini-summit will make that rift worse.
"In Nato, we do not have too much America, we have too little Europe and that is what we want to change with the proposals we have made "
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
Europe's anti-war coalition has started to develop their view for the future. It wants the EU to have a stronger and more effective defense capability. And the four countries which gathered in Brussels are prepared to go it alone to begin with, if they have to. The leaders of the four nations have denied charges of organizing an anti-Nato, anti-US summit.
The club is including Russia too.
France is also working with Russia to work more closely on weapons systems. France and Russia agreed on Friday April 29 to intensify military cooperation and joint weapons production to counter regional and global threats. The Defense Ministers of both countries said. "The meetings took place in a climate of great cordiality, great confidence and a very practical spirit with a look toward the future," French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said following talks with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov.
have intensified political and diplomatic cooperation in recent months. They now look set to deepen military ties as well.
Both ministers said their countries want to develop weaponry that could be sold to third countries and to hold joint training exercises to improve the ability of their armed forces to work together. Ms Alliot-Marie stressed that France and Russia historically had strong military ties that could help the two countries develop better relations in the 21st century.
U.S/Britain Response. "You better not"!
Today's meeting was criticized in advance by U.S. officials. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his monthly press conference yesterday, warned France and other European countries against trying to set up ``rival centers of power'' to the U.S.
You pissed in the well, Georgie you may now have to drink from it, Mr Potter, I mean Georgie Boy.
But, knowing Georgie like I do. He will do what he can to keep any organization from having any kind of major economic or military power, which may compete with America in the future.
Is this the start of another cold war? Could be!
Sources Cited:
(Bloomberg) By Gregory Viscusi and Rainer Buergin
BBC Europe correspondent By Chris Morris
USA for ICC.org
The Guardian Limited Michael White, political editor
Dr. Hans Bethe
Nobel Laureate; Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University;
Head of the Manhattan Project's theoretical division
Dr. Richard Garwin
Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations; IBM Fellow Emeritus; consultant to the Sandia National Laboratory, former consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Marvin Goldberger
President Emeritus, California Institute of Technology; member, Council on Foreign Relations, National Academy of Sciences, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Kurt Gottfried
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University; Chairman of the Board, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. Walter Kohn
Nobel Laureate; Emeritus Professor of Physics and Research Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky
Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University; Recipient of National Medal of Science and Lawrence and Fermi Awards of the Department of Energy
Dr. Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate; Jack S. Josey-Welch Foundation Chair in Science, Regental Professor, and Director, Theory Research Group, University of Texas
Kyoto Agreement
In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was successfully created, with the vast majority of all the world's nations. They were happy to set targets in order to successfully reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions in hope of significantly reducing Global Warming, when Bush pulled the rug out from under them and pulled the U.S. from the Kyoto agreement In March 2001, even though most of the world's nations agreed to it.
Nuclear Arms agreements
In May 24 2002 "The administration argued that the responsive force is needed to address unspecified contingencies in the indefinite future, so a limited agreement was reached with Russia.
*"When the state (U.S.) with by far the most powerful conventional forces asserts that it can only protect its vital interests with an undiminished reliance on nuclear forces, it is undermining the global effort to stem nuclear proliferation. "
International Court System
"On April 11, 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) received the sixty ratifications that it needed to be established. While many nations celebrated this human rights milestone. On Monday May 6, 2002 Under Secretary Grossman announced that the U.S. would be removing their signature from the treaty."
How long can Bush ignore the world?
How long can we ignore the world? Quite a while, I am afraid, since Bush considers the world a "focus group", which is undeserving of his concern.
Treat the world nations as equals? Sure!
What does the administration do when they encounter problems that clearly require the cooperation of other countries, not as junior partners, but as equals? Well Right now their approach is simply to deny the existence of those problems and spin them down so they look like they are minor. My favorite spin is "We need more research to support that claim."
Now lets add American revenge on France for their anti-war stance.
On April 25, The Bush administration moved to drastically scale down a French-backed U.N. proposal to send more than 250 U.N. peacekeepers to the former French colony of Ivory Coast, according to U.S. and U.N. officials. The request to streamline the $25 million U.N. political mission comes just days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said France would face consequences for leading opposition to war against Iraq.
This was the first major test of U.S.-French cooperation, at the United Nations, since the war. U.S. officials said their decision was motivated by concerns for costs, a quarter of which would have to be shouldered by the United States, not revenge. I am sure its not, Come on, it is obvious that the administration is prepared to penalize the Ivory Coast, which has been devastated by ethnic, religious and political conflict, to get revenge against the French. What a hypocrite! Bush is willing to let those people die, just to teach France a lesson? Wait a minute, the U.S. has no money to spend. No, that's not it, Bush has billions. Yea, I guess it's revenge. Let those people die George, that'll teach the frogs!
Well Mr Potter, a new club is being built and it is not the Baily Savings and Loan.
Given all of the above issues and many others I have not been able to catalog. Is it any surprise that this week that the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg came together in Brussels for a mini-summit. Each of the four countries involved belong to NATO. Curiously, they announced plans for the creation of a joint military planning system by next year, and a multinational headquarters for European military operations in which Nato is not involved.
The four countries, also intend to set up their own rapid reaction force and launch a European Security and Defense Union, which others would be encouraged to join.
Europe was ready to move closer to a common defense and foreign policy. That went to hell with all the disagreement over the Iraq war. It split the EU into pro- and anti-war camps. Some say that this mini-summit will make that rift worse.
"In Nato, we do not have too much America, we have too little Europe and that is what we want to change with the proposals we have made "
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
Europe's anti-war coalition has started to develop their view for the future. It wants the EU to have a stronger and more effective defense capability. And the four countries which gathered in Brussels are prepared to go it alone to begin with, if they have to. The leaders of the four nations have denied charges of organizing an anti-Nato, anti-US summit.
The club is including Russia too.
France is also working with Russia to work more closely on weapons systems. France and Russia agreed on Friday April 29 to intensify military cooperation and joint weapons production to counter regional and global threats. The Defense Ministers of both countries said. "The meetings took place in a climate of great cordiality, great confidence and a very practical spirit with a look toward the future," French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said following talks with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov.
have intensified political and diplomatic cooperation in recent months. They now look set to deepen military ties as well.
Both ministers said their countries want to develop weaponry that could be sold to third countries and to hold joint training exercises to improve the ability of their armed forces to work together. Ms Alliot-Marie stressed that France and Russia historically had strong military ties that could help the two countries develop better relations in the 21st century.
U.S/Britain Response. "You better not"!
Today's meeting was criticized in advance by U.S. officials. U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his monthly press conference yesterday, warned France and other European countries against trying to set up ``rival centers of power'' to the U.S.
You pissed in the well, Georgie you may now have to drink from it, Mr Potter, I mean Georgie Boy.
But, knowing Georgie like I do. He will do what he can to keep any organization from having any kind of major economic or military power, which may compete with America in the future.
Is this the start of another cold war? Could be!
Sources Cited:
(Bloomberg) By Gregory Viscusi and Rainer Buergin
BBC Europe correspondent By Chris Morris
USA for ICC.org
The Guardian Limited Michael White, political editor
Dr. Hans Bethe
Nobel Laureate; Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University;
Head of the Manhattan Project's theoretical division
Dr. Richard Garwin
Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations; IBM Fellow Emeritus; consultant to the Sandia National Laboratory, former consultant to Los Alamos National Laboratory
Dr. Marvin Goldberger
President Emeritus, California Institute of Technology; member, Council on Foreign Relations, National Academy of Sciences, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Dr. Kurt Gottfried
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Cornell University; Chairman of the Board, Union of Concerned Scientists
Dr. Walter Kohn
Nobel Laureate; Emeritus Professor of Physics and Research Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky
Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University; Recipient of National Medal of Science and Lawrence and Fermi Awards of the Department of Energy
Dr. Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate; Jack S. Josey-Welch Foundation Chair in Science, Regental Professor, and Director, Theory Research Group, University of Texas
# posted by Thomas @ 1:14 AM 
