Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
What on earth are you on about?
HOW could any nation state be forced to ratify anything?
|
Um, I was being facetious. Apparently my meager attempt at humor sailed clean over your head. I'll try to aim lower.
Quote:
This sort of slip up is indicitive of what is really going on in your and Texan's psyche in this utterly utterly pathetic thread.
|
I have no idea what you're talking about but if this thread is causing you distress then I would suggest you avoid reading it.
Quote:
1) George Bush decided not to ratify Kyoto
|
Well, no. George Bush can no more ratify Kyoto than Bill Clinton could. Admittedly, Bush is against Kyoto but even if he submitted it to the Senate for approval and used his vast rhetorical skills to argue in favor of it [warning: I was being facetious there as Bush has no rhetorical skills], it still wouldn't get the necessary two-thirds majority it would require (which is why Clinton--who was in favor of Kyoto--didn't bother to send it to the Senate). Even Obama, were he elected President, would not get Kyoto through the US Senate (and like Clinton, I doubt he'd even try). Since the rest of your rant seems to be based on this false premise that Bush has somehow single-handedly prevented the US from ratifying Kyoto I won't bother with it further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
1. I quoted the Stern review which gives estimates.
|
Which are, at best, just that.
Quote:
2. Part of the problem with meeting the targets is through the tragedy oif the commons, its hard to achieve in just one country, you need a global deal or the whole thing is a waste of time, plus you get capital flight. If everyone does it then no capital flight. Duh.
|
See my reply to acropolis. If you negotiate/sign a treaty that encourages capital flight (because developed nations have emissions restrictions and developing nations don't) then you shouldn't be surprised if/when capital flight occurs. Duh indeed.
Quote:
3. I got the numbers from, Wiki, they might be wrong, what the money goes on is neither here nor there. You can't spend loads of money on military stuff, and then say "well its all for the veterans of our ridiculous wars so ner."
|
I don't know why you're so obsessed with our military spending, as it's really a small part of our budget (in spite of your attempts to inflate it).
Quote:
Furthermore if you look at what I wrote, I didn't say that Afghanistan and Iraq cost 10% I said that"the total military budget was $400billion and then add Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
OK, but it's still a long way from 10%.