The Department of American State has made to know that soon it will violate
the treaty ABM. This after USA have decided:
-to go back on the treaty of Kyoto
-to go back on the fiscal heavens (recycling of dirty money from weapons
and drug)
-don’t undersign the treaty against the nuclear tests
-don’t undersign the treaty against the bacteriological weapons
-to be against to every limitation in the production and sale of light
weapons.
This is the American foreign politics: the world is a reserve and its
inhabitants are of the savages.
Therefore the USA don’t care of the few international treaties that have
undersigned.
Luca my home page http://www.themanfuture.it
To see other my post http://digilander.iol.it/vannyluca/post.htm
"Luca" <lucava…@libero.it> wrote in message
news:JAi47.12179$m06.464312@news.infostrada.it…
> The Department of American State has made to know that soon it will
violate
> the treaty ABM. This after USA have decided:
ABM’s key signers were the USA and USSR. The USSR no longer exists.
Who should the USA be keeping this treaty for?
> -to go back on the treaty of Kyoto
The USA has not "gone back on" Kyoto, it never rattified it! Can you
name ANY INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY that did rattify Kyoto?
> -to go back on the fiscal heavens (recycling of dirty money from weapons
> and drug)
I haven’t the foggiest idea what that is.
> -don’t undersign the treaty against the nuclear tests
And you’re point is?
> -don’t undersign the treaty against the bacteriological weapons
If you were face to face with a known killer and both of you had guns,
would you put yours down?
> -to be against to every limitation in the production and sale of light
> weapons.
And your point is?
> This is the American foreign politics: the world is a reserve and its
> inhabitants are of the savages.
America takes it’s position as Leader Of The Free World seriously. It’s
nice for countries like France, Italy, Germany, Holland et. al. to get upset
when we flex our muscles to protect THEIR interests as well as our own, but
were big enough to take on a thankless job.
> Therefore the USA don’t care of the few international treaties that have
> undersigned.
International treaties don’t affect rouges and despots, I refer you back
to the standoff against a killer (above). The USA will not tie it’s hands
behind it’s back when it comes to protecting freedom.
–
"Beauxgus"
Bossier City, LA
http://www.angelfire.com/la3/challenger
The USA in the last century have given a lot to the civilization, but in
the new century I have fear that will be a great brake.
My point is in my web site http://www.themanfuture.it (Disarmament).
Luca.
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:03:53 -0500, "Beauxgus" <beaux…@bellsouth.net> wrote,
in us.politics:
>"Luca" <lucava…@libero.it> wrote in message
>news:JAi47.12179$m06.464312@news.infostrada.it…
>> The Department of American State has made
>> to know that soon it will violate the treaty
>> ABM. This after USA have decided:
> ABM’s key signers were the USA and USSR.
>The USSR no longer exists. Who should the
>USA be keeping this treaty for?
For the people of the world who don’t want
to be blown to smithereens in another war.
And for Russia, which promised to honor
all treaties made by the USSR to the best
of its ability.
[snip laundry list and responses because
I don't have time to check the facts just
now]
>> This is the American foreign politics:
>> the world is a reserve and its inhabitants
>> are of the savages.
> America takes it’s position as Leader Of
>The Free World seriously. It’s nice for
>countries like France, Italy, Germany, Holland
>et. al. to get upset when we flex our muscles
>to protect THEIR interests as well as our own,
>but were big enough to take on a thankless job.
There appears to be some difference between
the interests of the United States and the
interests of members of ‘the free world’.
>> Therefore the USA don’t care of the
>> few international treaties that have
>> undersigned.
> International treaties don’t affect
>rouges and despots,
Nevertheless, they become ‘the law of
the land’ once they are ratified by the
US Congress, and thus are entitled to
be treated with some respect.
[snip one sentence]
>The USA will not tie it’s hands behind
>it’s back when it comes to protecting
>freedom.
So we save the village by threatening
to destroy it?
Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h…@wwa.com
No need to be pessimistic, the US is not a GOP NAZI state. If you recall,
in the last "election" more people in the US sided with a different
philosophy. Bush’s win was a technical squeaker at best and the GOP knows
it’s living on barrowed time. Look at the party, it’s falling apart with
key defections and a powerful internal counter culture. The controlling
arch conservatives are playing to a dwindling voter base as population
demographics rapidly erode what was once a white males only club. Bush
himself has been trying to keep right wing slobber off to "appear" more
mainstream. It’s a fact, the majority of people in the US oppose cold war
style budgetless military projects, reject global corporate domination of
their lives and understand that the world’s fragile environment is more
important then any one nation. Give it a little time.
j
"Luca" <lucava…@libero.it> wrote in message
news:xjo47.14516$m06.567715@news.infostrada.it…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> The USA in the last century have given a lot to the civilization, but in
> the new century I have fear that will be a great brake.
> My point is in my web site http://www.themanfuture.it (Disarmament).
> Luca.
> No need to be pessimistic, the US is not a GOP NAZI state. If you
recall,
> in the last "election" more people in the US sided with a different
> philosophy. Bush’s win was a technical squeaker at best and the GOP
knows
> it’s living on barrowed time. Look at the party, it’s falling apart with
> key defections and a powerful internal counter culture. The controlling
> arch conservatives are playing to a dwindling voter base as population
> demographics rapidly erode what was once a white males only club. Bush
> himself has been trying to keep right wing slobber off to "appear" more
> mainstream. It’s a fact, the majority of people in the US oppose cold
war
> style budgetless military projects, reject global corporate domination of
> their lives and understand that the world’s fragile environment is more
> important then any one nation. Give it a little time.
In my heart i know that you told me the true, specially when the american
people realize that the indians (redskin) are all dead and that your life
is not in danger and therefore leave the culture of weapons.
I try to accelerate this process because from this depends the future of
the planet.
Luca.
"Proinsias" <humani…@catholic.org> wrote in message
> George Bush is clearly the most dangerous President the USA has ever had.
OH MY GOD! RONALD REAGAN HAS LOST HIS SPOT?!?
>Russia
> got use to the idea that ballistic missiles had the disadvantage of
inviting
> other ballistic missiles in part exchange, therefore using them would be
> expensive and their ‘power’ was to be limited by the MAD theory.
And you guys said that that theory was stupid! You told us that we
should unilaterally disarm to show Russia that we weren’t a threat. "Then
we can all be friends".
> George Bush is trying to make one nation immune to missiles and that makes
his
> own devices invincible (in the notional sense) and the others impotent.
> Obviously those nations with the research in place will be developing new
> systems to hit the USA under rather than ‘through’ the desired ABM shield.
The SDI system COULD NOT protect against an all out assault, MAD still
applies. A rouge that launches 1 or 2 missles would not be responded to in
kind (if we are able to destroy the missle on it’s way). Ultimately SDI
LOWERS the risk of any nation being blown to smitherines.
–Snip–
"Beauxgus"
Louisiana, USA
> The SDI system COULD NOT protect against an all out assault, MAD still
> applies. A rouge that launches 1 or 2 missles would not be responded to
in
> kind (if we are able to destroy the missle on it’s way). Ultimately SDI
> LOWERS the risk of any nation being blown to smitherines.
And we’re riht back into the cold war rethoric that’s been with us for all
these years. Again some of us seem willing to spend gigantic amounts of
money (which could have ben spent in a wiser fashion) on some right wing
security hangup. MAD does not make the world a safer place, it never has.
Talking, listening, agreeing and trust do. But then again, these words seem
out of fashion.
Eowine.
"Eowine Eomundsdottir" <eow…@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9j6eg8$2tf$1@gazette.corp.medtronic.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > The SDI system COULD NOT protect against an all out assault, MAD
still
> > applies. A rouge that launches 1 or 2 missles would not be responded to
> in
> > kind (if we are able to destroy the missle on it’s way). Ultimately SDI
> > LOWERS the risk of any nation being blown to smitherines.
> And we’re riht back into the cold war rethoric that’s been with us for all
> these years. Again some of us seem willing to spend gigantic amounts of
> money (which could have ben spent in a wiser fashion) on some right wing
> security hangup. MAD does not make the world a safer place, it never has.
> Talking, listening, agreeing and trust do. But then again, these words
seem
> out of fashion.
> Eowine.
A little while back I ran into one of your intellectual friends that was
extolling the virtues of MAD. Naturally I pointed out that you liberals
always hated that philosophy.
"Beauxgus"
Louisiana, USA
> A little while back I ran into one of your intellectual friends
First step in a strawman attack. Make sure you categorize your opponent.
> that was extolling the virtues of MAD.
Step 2. Attribute some stupidity.
> Naturally I pointed out that you liberals always hated that philosophy.
Step 3. Man the straw.
Have a nice wank. Come back when you have an actual _argument_
Eowine.
"Eowine Eomundsdottir" <eow…@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9j9f2a$4lp$1@gazette.corp.medtronic.com…
> > A little while back I ran into one of your intellectual friends
> First step in a strawman attack. Make sure you categorize your opponent.
> > that was extolling the virtues of MAD.
> Step 2. Attribute some stupidity.
> > Naturally I pointed out that you liberals always hated that philosophy.
> Step 3. Man the straw.
> Have a nice wank. Come back when you have an actual _argument_
> Eowine.
STEP 4: Get the chip off you’re sholder.
It was an actual argument! This is not a private conversation, it takes
place among many people. Besides, it was just an interesting point in the
broader argument going on here. It related to you’re post with the whole
MAD thing.
In fact, I was actually noting YOU’RE consistant logic, a very admirable
quality that is lacking these days among partisens. I didn’t ask you to
defend another person’s logic, it was an open note targeted to those on
you’re side who have forgotten their roots.
Perhaps you need to thicken you’re skin a little before you enter a real
knock down, drag out like we have here… (oh btw that was sarcasm, perhaps
you’ve heard of it).
"Beauxgus"
Louisiana, USA