A proposal... [Link U.S acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol to European support on Iraq]

First time poster here…

I am an American dismayed at how much of the world - especially Europe - has turned against my country. Nevertheless, I support any and all means of removing Saddam Hussein from power, including force, if necessary. I believe it is vital to the interests of the U.S. and I also believe there is no other way to change the status quo in the Middle East, which I believe is untenable.

With that said, I agree with many of the posters here who say that Bush, Blair, et. al. have done a terrible job of providing a valid casus belli to the skeptics. I think Bush and Powell are preaching to an angry audience - ever since he took office in 2001, he has alienated much of the world by rejecting Kyoto, the ABM, the ICC, etc. I think the massive resistance to war - as illustrated yesterday with the global peace protests - is in large part not only a demand for peace, but a rejection of Bush’s willingness to laugh at international protocols.

It seems to me that it’s going to take something completely improbable (Blix finds an autographed picture of bin Laden “To my good friend Saddam, Yours in Jihad, Osama” in Saddam’s bedroom) to get the people (not just the governments) of Europe on our side. Probably not going to happen.

So how about this: In a speech, Bush pledges that in return for Europe’s support for this war, the he will sign the Kyoto Protocol and send it to Congress to ratify.

Never happen. Bush is a puppet, remember?!?!?!

until the Powell presentation, a case for soon invasion for Iraq had not been given to my satisfaction. Now a case has been made sufficient for me, but apparently not for many traditional US allies or the UN, and right now, I just don’t think it’s prudent (Dana Carvey flashbacks) to strike without a united front… Soooooo- if I were President Bush, I’d just wait until we had an airtight case intelligence-wise & then present it to the UN & on an international broadcast right as our forces are ready to strike. Alternately, I’d be tempted to wait until Saddam does something so blatant the UN et al is begging us to intervene & then make them sweat until we had to strike.

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by lesser countries to take economic pot shots at the US. It’s crap, it always has been. We have higher air quality standards than damn near anywhere, yet we’re the ones punished? Bullshite.

Further, please protest the war if you must, and even if you’re more wrong than one person can easily explain. it’s your right to do so, but as long as you protest, in keeping with your ideals, you should shun the protection of the US military and Police here at home. In keeping with the it-must-rhyme-if-we-spend-time crowd, I offer this chant “I am an objector, I don’t need a protector”

How bloody ficking daft are the protestors? They honestly think that it’s a war for OIL? Come the devil out of that lefto-babble stupor, it would be cheaper for anyone involved to just buy the damn oil, than it would be to charge in there and try and take it.

You think that this one guy, this figurehead, wants to send millions of american dollars and send thousands of troops off to waste? Spare me that too, W, while not the most charismatic person, is JUST the cat we need in the Pennsylvainia st. address.

Like it or not, we’re the biggest dog in the fight, and we’re also the richest player at the table. We can afford to be cocky, for now.

Kyoto’s not about “air quality standards”, buttonjockey308.

Before this completely dissolves into a flame-thread, I wish to point out that at least 18 countries in Europe support our current anti-Saddam offensive (Vilnius Group and the Gang of 8) while only 3 are openly opposed. 4 if you count Russia, but I think they will go along, as will China.

Got any proof of that, Alien? I don’t particularly like Bush; however, I’m not going to make groundless and foolish comments about the man.

smiling bandit: Calling some nations “Gang of Eight” seems like you want to start a flamewar. Or are you unaware of those criminals called the Gang of Four?

Try using the real title of the group, just for kicks, okay?

Moderator’s Note: Edited thread title for clarity.

As has been noted, Kyoto is about greenhouse gases which the U.S. being 5% of the world’s population emits 25% of. It doesn’t have to do with air quality standards.

And, you seem inordinately paranoid about its effect on the U.S. All the industrialized countries have to cut back to about the same point relative to their 1990 emissions…And, since the Western European countries were already using energy more efficiently and taxing it more heavily than us in 1990, one could argue that they are being held to a higher standard than we are.

By this logic, if you protest any government program or complain about your taxes being too high, I suppose we ought to tell you to not use any government services…e.g., don’t drive on the roads.

Protesting this specific military action does not mean one is opposed to any use of military or police force. This is a particularly non-defensive use of force against an enemy who is quite weak and seems to be quite well contained by the world community.

Well, it might be cheaper on the whole but the money would accrue to different people in different ways. E.g., if you are an oil company executive, it might be quite a bargain to use taxpayer dollars to help maintain a stable oil supply from Iraq. [By the way, I don’t think it’s completely a war for oil but I think the whole situation there is so inextricably linked to the oil that it is hard to separate out one part from another. The fact that Iraq has lots of oil reserves is by no means a small factor in the whole situation.]

Why is it that people think attacking Iraq will be a bonanza for the oil companies? More oil coming out of Iraq means larger supply of oil, which means prices will fall. Why would oil companies want to increase their competition? The only oil companies that would benefit from Iraqi oil production would be only those that directly recieve contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil facilities. There is money to be made in that, surely, but the vast majority of oil companies won’t see a dime of that money. In fact, they will be hurt since there will be more competition. Makes no sense.

Now, it might make sense for a national government to want to increase and stabilize supply. But if they do that they are acting AGAINST the interests of the oil companies, not for them.

That’s a bit of a stretch, Monty, trying to connect that phrase with a bit of history from Communist China.

The US may only have 5% of the worlds population, but I believe that it still has around 25% of the worlds manufacturing industries.

BTW, was China ever held to any of the Kyoto standards, including shutting down their coal power plants?

The first round of emissions reductions mandated by the Kyoto Protocol applies to the industrialized countries which are still, I believe, the primary emitters today and are certainly by far most responsible for most of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the last 100 or so years. Later frameworks are supposed to mandate emissions from the developing nations.

The idea behind this two tier approach is recognition of the fact that the industrialized nations have caused most of the problems thus far and that we are the ones with the tehnological resources to start finding paths that the developing countries can take that won’t lead to a considerable worsening of the problems. (If you think this is unfair, imagine another possible “fair” scenario under which all nations would be allowed the same per capita cap on emissions. If this were mandated, the U.S. and other industrialized nations would have to scale back much more dramatically relative to the less developed nations!)

By the way, as it turns out, China has been making quite a bit of progress in cutting or at least not growing its emissions while its economy is rapidly expanding. See http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/achinagg.asp

On the subject of Kyoto, why do we keep hearing the lie about “Bush pulled us out of Kyoto”? Please tell me if what I consider the “facts” to be innacurate:

Clinton signed the protocol, but told the American people that he only did so to show the other countries that we were concerned about the issues and were not ignoring them. He made it clear he had no intentions of submitting it to Congress for approval.

The Senate voted on the measure anyway (non-binding) and voted against it 99-0.

So what exactly is it that George Bush did relating to Kyoto that doesn’t sit well with the Greenies?

NO, as I keep saying, there is a difference between the craven kow-towing of governments and the will of the people. Strike off Spain, the UK and Italy from your list.

If I recall correctly, the sequence of events was this.

Before there was any Kyoto agreement, the Senate adopted (95-0) a resolution saying that it would not ratify any treaty on emissions which would harm the US economy.

Subsequently, the US signed the Kyoto Agreement when the Clinton Administration was in power.

It was the Bush administration which later announced that it would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

I’m not aware that Clinton said that he had only signed the agreement “to show the other countries that we were concerned about the issues” and that “he had no intentions of submitting it to Congress for approval”. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like a cite for that, please.

Two factors lean against this. First, if the Clinton administration had made such a statement, there would have been no need for Bush to announce that he was not proceeding to ratification, since that announcement woudl have been made already. In fact he did make such an announcement.

Secondly, signature of a treaty is a statement that a state intends in good faith to proceed to ratification. Depending on the states internal constitutional arrangements ratification cannot be guaranteed, of course, but the state is going to try. No rational self-interested state should sign a treaty while simultaneously announcing that it does not intend to proceed to ratification, because in doing so they devalue their own good-faith commitments, and who wants to do that? The best course would be not to sign, but to make a declaration expressing concern about the issues and ouitlining why the state feels unable to ratify (and is therefore unwilling to sign) the agreement.

In any case Clinton never submitted the treaty for approval. However it is Bush that is getting all the flack for not supporting the treaty, when he isn’t the one that signed it.

I don’t have a cite for Clinton’s statements. My best recollection now is that after the Senate made it clear that no treaty like it had a snowball’s chance in hell, he made the statement that he never really intended to submit it for approval.


while it doesnt cover my earlier questions, it does provide some relevant information about the treaty, and how even Clinton’s own officials who came up with the plan for the U.S. now agree that it is unrealistic.

It also shows how most of the complaining about Bush is merely politics if anyone bothers to listen to facts instead of the soundbites.