1 6 mins 15 yrs

Listened with an almost tired resignation to the platitudes uttered by Senator Kerry in an interview on climate change, and the so-called failing of the United States in not providing leadership in this area. I think, as an observer, that we do have to accept that the climate is altering; where I disagree with most commentators and politicians is why this alteration has occurred. They (the doomsayers) preach that all the different and sometimes violent climatic events hurled on an unsuspecting world are due to just one source, that of course being mankind, our works and our machines. I stick with the minority viewpoint that what we are seeing is a cyclical change, and our puny efforts in pumping large amounts of CO2 have little or no bearing on our weather cycles.

However, as I listened to Kerry mouthing off about how the President should accept the immediate imposition of mandatory carbon targets on American industry and domestic life in the United States, in accord with Kyoto and other delusional target-festering ideals, he brushed aside the question that perhaps America should maybe wait until other huge emitters of so-called climate damaging emissions, such as India and China are on board’ He said that America should take the lead, and by example and argument only, the rest of the world would climb on board the bandwagon!

Now, apart from the facile lunacy of such a statement, whereby America would in effect tie a huge chain around itself by imposing crippling limitations on it’s ability to produce and compete in a global market-place while expecting hard-headed realists such as the Chinese Politburo to tamely follow suit, I would ask you to remember that this guy stood for President, and not only stood; he nearly won! He believes that a type of moral leadership, such as that proposed by a certain Tony Blair, will prevail against the armoured strength of a resurgent Russia, or China. He stated that the United Nations, if given this ‘moral leadership’ by the United States, would exert pressure on the reluctant nations to alter their stance and comply with the ridiculous ‘targets’ which have been swallowed by the European Union and all the other lily-livered nation-clowns which huddle under the Kyoto umbrella.

Just try telling a Burmese Buddhist monk that the United Nations’ is on his side as he marches, unarmed but un-afraid, against a ruthless military dictatorship who have trampled all over his, and his fellow-countrymen’s lives, for over forty years. Just try telling him that the United Nations will help him, despite the syrupy tones of the Security Council’s statement. The fact that the leaders of Russia and China, both well-known liberal and peaceful regimes have blocked any strong words (my emphases) from the Security Council resolution is indicative of only one certainty, the dictators of Russia and China aren’t going to allow anything nasty to happen to their uniformed buddies in Burma; mainly because they are so alike.

The real, and to some the only path is that of intervention, with a strongly armed and principled force, which would sweep away the corrupt military thugs and hand back that beautiful country to those who are best placed to look after it; to the governance of Aung San Suu Kyi or any who might stand against her party in a free and fair election. Unfortunately, that choice is virtually off the chess-board, because of the mire which is Iraq. The invasion by American and British forces against the depredations of Saddam Hussein, cloaked as it was by the statements regarding ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, which in turn was amended to ‘righteous regime change’ was the death-knell for Western-principled intervention, as the deadly quagmire which Baghdad now resembles so violently depicts. The fact that Islamic terror now functions freely inside Iraq is not, I believe, a direct consequence of the invasion, but an opportunistic happening because these guys know when they spot a good thing, and anarchy always breeds it’s violent imitators. In contrast to Afghanistan, where the Allies wiped the floor with the Taliban, who really needed to be crushed, the Iraq war almost provided the perfect lesson in military colleges as ‘how not to do things’. So by unleashing his cruise missiles and Abrams tank regiments against the ill-disciplined and ill-equipped army of Iraq’s dictator, the United States’ leader has stopped for maybe ten years or more any hope of a confident Western approach to those uniformed thugs in Burma, in Zimbabwe, in North Korea, in Darfur and other global trouble spots.

When we see on our t.v screens those brave red- and orange-robed men marching for the true definition of their ‘human rights’, just remember that what will surely hit them is sanctioned by the mealy-mouthed collaborators of the United Nations, and their adoring supporters such as the ever-so-highly-principled Senator Kerry.

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

One thought on “the best of all possible worlds….

  1. I wonder what you call a minority, as there seem to be many people out here that agree that we are not the great destroyers that the press and politicians make us out to be.
    personally I don’t think it will hurt to clean up our act a bit, however, if we place all our eggs in one basket, we’ll be really screwed if the climate fundamentalists are wrong and we slide into a new Ice Age….

Comments are closed.