web analytics


By ATWadmin On June 3rd, 2007

un.jpgI think that the United Nations is one of the most corrupt incompetent malicious organisations one can imagine.  (See Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Bribes, etc) So isn’t it interesting to read that Britain and Germany yesterday joined forces to warn President George Bush that talks on climate change must take place within a United Nations framework and not in an ad hoc process floated last week by President Bush.

As violent protesters clashed with police in Rostock ahead of next week’s G8 summit in Germany, Washington was warned that Britain and Europe will not tolerate a separate process. ‘For me, that is non-negotiable,’ the German Chancellor Angela Merkel said of the need to ensure that climate change negotiations take place within the existing UN framework." Her remarks were echoed by Hilary Benn, Britain’s international development secretary. ‘I think it is very important that we stick with the framework we’ve got"

Merkel and Benn both make reference to Kyoto – that failed Big Nothing, as the template on which to build. The US should reject the idiot mewlings of Merkel and co – this is just one more attempt to use the UN to entrap the US. If Merkel wants to go ahead and further wreck her economy then fine – why on Earth should the US do likewise?

8 Responses to “BEATING UP ON AMERICA..”

  1. I get all the way to the bottom of that argument before Blair pops up as usual trying to bridge the divides and pointing to the positives. He reminds me of Beckham in a football match – generally disliked because he made it to the top of his game in this country – always grafting on the pitch to keep the team together. In this case Team West.

    I think Merkel has a point if the idea is to get all nations including the developing ones to buy into this. The Bush legacy is a general PR fiasco and so anything he does will be viewed cynically by other nations (i dont mena Germany etc). She also referred to a follow on to Kyoto and not the agreement itself. Were ALL going to have buy into this somehow, thats clear. I would just prefer it is done smartly and not punitively.

    I dont believe a word Bush says about being at the top of the development game on alternative fuels. What a joke.

  2. Alison,

    I would not accept buying into ANYTHING that involves the corrupt mendacious UN. Merkel’s diktat is offensive to me and frankly, given the Euroweenies performance on hitting their own greenhouse gas emissions reduction, it is laughable for her to suggest that an EU driven mandate is worth a damn.

    If we leave Bush out of this for a sec, and remember he will be gone within a relatively short time, the issue still comes down to a suprantional quango determining how we best protect our planet vs a colations of willing countries working smartly together, using technology to make our world better for everyone.

  3. You can tell how much these politicians want to save the world, refusing to play unless they get to choose which toys they use.

  4. This is another attempt to place effectively the control over America’s (and other selected nations, never China) energy policies into the hands of the UN.

    Kyoto was an energy rationing scheme. It is classic socialism. Centralized power grabbing.

    Alison: "I dont believe a word Bush says about being at the top of the development game on alternative fuels. What a joke."

    Why? Before you dismiss this outright maybe you ought to do some research.

  5. Patty what didn’t you hear France and England are leading the world in alternative energy…LOL

    Screw the EU, Screw the UN and buy an SUV…

  6. Have to agree with you Alison, nearly fell of my chair in disbelief when I saw the logos…America Leads the World etc. Until this year they haven’t given it any thought at all from a climate change perspective. I believe it took Arnold Scwartzenegger to make Bush see some sense. I still see Americans at the petrol pumps so assume they haven’t cracked the good old gas syndrome yet.

    No Patty no-one takes a swipe at China and that is because China is too busy digging up and blasting holes in African soil to listen…we all know what they are doing building nice little council houses for the Africans after donating ‘aid’.

    Doesn’t Brazil have an alternative to oil?

  7. "Until this year they haven’t given it any thought at all from a climate change perspective."

    Thats because MAN is NOT causing climate change

  8. Scrap the UN and reintroduce the League of Nations.

    That’s why Bush wants to impose sanctions on Sudan for heaven’s sake. If it were Iraq he’d surely have plugged in his Play Station US Air Force by now.

    All I can say is that the UN needs serious reforms and countries that have just around 1% of the world’s population like Britain and France should not lightly be given permanent seats in the insecurity council.

    Remember, when that was decided, Britain and France still ruled their respective empires. The world has changed a bit since then. Having Britain up there sounds as strange as having Taiwan instead of China. If the leadership of the English speaking world has passed to America, let America have the seat.

    Has Britain ever voted against America in the Security Council? No. Britain is quite obviously America’s way of getting two permanent votes where it hardly deserves one. Don’t tell me Bush deserves two votes because Roosevelt did.