PDA

View Full Version : global warming as part of a bigger picture


brad
12-19-2003, 03:20 AM
if you click thru to the site there are hyperlinks in the article

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32521

Globalist assault against America now underway

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 12, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


"ECOSOC's CSD seeks to control WEHAB."

If you know what this headline means, you are likely to be part of the problem. This headline is written in "acronymese" with a U.N. dialect – the lingo of leftists who live on, and for, the United Nations. Translation: the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council's Commission on Sustainable Development seeks to control Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity.

While the media spotlight is focused on the Security Council's debate about rebuilding Iraq, the rest of the U.N. bureaucracy lumbers along toward its published goal of ruling the world. The Commission on Sustainable Development concluded two weeks of meetings in New York, on May 9. It was the 11th annual session of this U.N. body, created as a result of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. The purpose of the Commission is to implement "Agenda 21."

For 11 years, this collection of delegates has been meeting in exotic places around the world, at taxpayers' expense, egged-on by thousands of representatives of NGOs (non-government organizations) – again, largely at taxpayers' expense – expressly for the purpose of figuring out how to control the lives of everyone on earth. They know how they want to do it, and they are making great strides toward achieving their goal.

Think about it: If this commission can control water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity, they control the people who rely on these resources. Can they actually control these resources? They're trying. Here are some of their efforts to control water.

Energy is still up for grabs because the U.N. Climate Change Treaty calls only for voluntary action, while the legally binding Kyoto Protocol has been rejected by the Bush administration. The World Health Organization is in place with 3,500 employees stationed around the world. The U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization has 3,700 employes stationed around the world. And the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity is up and running, with more than 400 Biosphere Reserves around the world.

These are only a few of the key organizations and agencies of the U.N., which coordinate their work to achieve the objectives set forth in "Agenda 21," which is the "Action Plan" to achieve global governance, as described by the Commission on Global Governance's report, "Our Global Neighborhood."

On the final day of the CSD meeting in New York, Eric Frumin, representing the textile unions in the United States, but speaking for Global Unions, praised the delegates for amending the "Action Plan" to more fully integrate the body of issues relating to "basic security," which is also a goal of the U.N.'s International Labor Organization.

For those unfamiliar with U.N. doublespeak, "basic security," describes the evolving definition of the word "security" as it appears in the U.N. Charter. Originally, "security" meant defensive security for member nations. The new definition means "... safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life." Frumin said that the changes in the "Action Plan" would provide a "Workplace Assessment" program to assure that this new brand of "security" would be integrated into the Commissions' WEHAB priorities.

Sustainable development, as defined in "Agenda 21," is defacto socialism. Sustainable development requires government to regulate virtually all human activity in order to achieve what government determines to be "equitable" and "sustainable" use of the planet's resources.

Freedom cannot survive sustainable development. Free markets cannot exist under a "sustainable" regime. Sustainable development, defined and implemented under a system of global governance, results in the U.N. deciding to what extent individual nations may exert what remains of their national sovereignty.

Skirmishes with the U.N., such as the recent impasse in the Security Council, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, and the removal of the United States' signature from the International Criminal Court, are small steps in the right direction. It is foolish, then, to turn around and rejoin UNESCO, turn again to the Security Council for U.N. involvement in Iraq, and to continue to send delegates and money to the CSD, ECOSOC, UNEP, UNDP and the hundreds of other U.N. agencies and organizations that continue to plot the downfall of American values.

Congress will not seriously consider Ron Paul's HR 1146, a bill to withdraw from the U.N., until the American people realize that every day we continue to prop up the U.N. brings us closer to global governance, and demand that their elected officials get behind the bill and get us out of the United Nations.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

Ray Zee
12-19-2003, 11:36 AM
as for the global warming thing. the last six years has had three of the warmest ones since they began keeping records in the mid 1800's. global warming could become the thing that destabilizes the world.

brad
12-19-2003, 12:49 PM
well take chloro flouro carbons.
supposedly eating ozone layer.
so they banned them. bye bye. thats it.
ok. so im inclined to believe that. in any case problem solved if one exists (which probably >95 it did/does)

contrast the case for man made global warming. with current technology probably totally unprovable one way or another even with 50 more years of obserbation/data. but the solution proposed? for american workers to to work part of the day for their chinese equivalents (ok send money), and not to cut emissions at all. ok. well. gee. it cant be much of a problem then, p.s. f*** you you commie bastards you cant come over here with guns and take stuff so you gotta go to all this trouble with b.s. and get us americans to send u money for some pie in the sky reason. ok.

heck when are those death camps gonna be built anyway, maybe ill just check myself in.

MMMMMM
12-19-2003, 01:48 PM
Don't worry, brad: when we get that missile-shield fully built, along with space-based laser weaponry, and if we still have a leader with balls and a half-intelligent Congress and citizenry--then the commies will be forced become democratic republics too and embrace free enterprise. Just as long as the Prozac doesn't kick in first and the U.N. doesn't gain too much power. What are the chances that Prozac is secretly put in French wines?

sam h
12-19-2003, 01:56 PM
Lol. Yeah, that missile defense system sure is looking like a good investment. Too bad it can't tell the difference between a balloon and a rocket.

The thing is those commies in China have embraced capitalism - that's why their economy is booming. It's just our bias to think that capitalism can only prosper in an American-style democracy.

adios
12-19-2003, 02:27 PM
"It's just our bias to think that capitalism can only prosper in an American-style democracy."

Not my bias. Is this something you pulled out of your .... nope nevermind.

brad
12-19-2003, 02:30 PM
'What are the chances that Prozac is secretly put in French wines?
'

if im not mistaken most of europe (besides UK, if you consider that europe) has water purity laws that forbid adding medicine to water. unlike US, where water is flouridated.

ive got to get back on distilled water (or rainwater) and pure grain alcohol.

MMMMMM
12-19-2003, 02:50 PM
Total projected costs for the missile shield are in the tens of billions--compared to the trillions it would cost should just one major city get nuked (9/11 costs ran into the hundreds of billions). Also, the most recent (very recent) test was successful, even overcoming some type of countermeasures employed on behalf of the target. If I'm not mistaken test results now stand at 4 out of 5 successful.

brad
12-19-2003, 03:20 PM
'If I'm not mistaken test results now stand at 4 out of 5 successful'

youre mistaken.

in any case future is biowarfare. missile shield no help against that.

MMMMMM
12-19-2003, 04:05 PM
Still doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to defend against nukes.

brad
12-19-2003, 05:26 PM
wont against a nuke shipped in.

MMMMMM
12-19-2003, 06:46 PM
So what? You have to defend on as many fronts as possible. And Kin Jong-il could no longer blackmail us.

sam h
12-20-2003, 01:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is this something you pulled out of your .... nope nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually something I pulled out of taking a real look at the world and the types of governments successful late developing countries tend to have. These are just facts of history, however inconvenient they may be.

sam h
12-20-2003, 02:12 PM
Many scientists have said these tests are jokes, set up explicitly to favor the system and in no way approximating what a real intercept would entail. Not to mention 500 simultaneous intercepts, or whatever it might take in a real exchange with a country like China. I don't know enough about it to say one way or another. But I tend to very skeptical about how the Pentagon spins these types of projects - they certainly have a robust history of lying to us to cover up the failures of various weapons systems and massive cost overruns.

I believe that the MAD doctrine was quite effective in deterring state-to-state nuclear exchange. The SDI system, if it were ever actually effective, would make MAD unfeasible for most countries and might actually destabilize the world rather than protect it.

If we are to commit to missile defense, many have argued that the smaller more flexible ship-based system - I think some variant of the Aegis technology - is better than the vastly more expensive and logistically much tougher to coordinate SDI system.

MMMMMM
12-20-2003, 03:07 PM
The plan is eventually to have a multi-layered missile defense system which, I think, would include some ship-based or sub-based interceptors, as well as land based and space-based interceptors.

China only has around 25 nukes (as of a couple of years ago, maybe still). Whether those include MIRV's I don't know, but if the missiles could be intercepted before re-entry (before multiple warhead split) I don't see why we would have to be able to intercept 500 missiles to be able to nullify or manage a nulear threat from China.

Also consider that our country could absorb one or two nuclear hits far better than many hits. We would eventually recover (painfully and at great cost) if one or two missiles got through, but we might not if a dozen, or a few dozen, got through. So it matters a great deal if we can stop most or all of the missiles a rogue nation or China might launch at us.

MAD was OK during the Cold War, but if unstable regimes or fanatics get nukes and the means to deliver them (say North Korea, or Iran's mullahs), then I wouldn't think we should be placing too much confidence in MAD.

The government of the USSR was run by men who were not fanatical or potentially suicidal. The same can't be said with great confidence about certain other regimes.

brad
12-20-2003, 03:39 PM
'China only has around 25 nukes (as of a couple of years ago, maybe still). Whether those include MIRV's I don't know'

chin a got mirv tech from US under clinton, some say directly from clinton. (something to that look it up)

also in chinese newspapers generals have in the past (i was gonna say routinely but you know i wont exaggerate) called for nuking USA.

heh shipping all US infrastructure over to china is such a great idea. bush wants to develop 'mini-nukes', maybe US companies can tool up for that in china.

btw, implantable microchip (verachip, etc.) factories in china.

sam h
12-21-2003, 04:46 PM
I think the "rogue nation" thing is overplayed a little bit. Somebody like Kim in North Korea only cultivates the appearance of being crazy for strategic purposes - he's not interested in nuking us, just maintaining his little fiefdom. Non-state actors are certainly different, but the missile defense system largely won't help against them.

You make some good points about missile defense though. I don't know much about it. One question, however, seems to be how a place like China responds to our opting out of the ballistic missile treaty and going beyond MAD. It seems to me that the logical response from their end would be to build up their arsenal so they could eventually launch those 500 nukes and overwhelm the system. Not because they would want to start a war, but because for their own security purposes they'd need to be able to credibly threaten us. At some point we want to start trying to put the brakes on these arms races, not just to win them.

MMMMMM
12-21-2003, 05:43 PM
Yes, it's a complicated picture.

"At some point we want to start trying to put the brakes on these arms races, not just to win them."

I would suggest we do this after we have an excellent missile shield in place;-)