Re: Genetically Modified Crops
 

The reason why African countries are not keen on getting GM foods is because it kills their local agriculture.

1. The foods are heavily subsidized by the US government.
2. The GM food feed need to be purchased every year from the manufacturers, rather than reuse of seed from the fields.

There is no knowing whether they are good for us. Remember we were told by the pesticide companies that was safe, DDT manufacturers that was safe, by the Thalidomide people that was safe, by the cigarette people, by the... .you get the idea. Hard to trust a salesman of GM foods when he says that this safe.

Bush (as are most presidents) is a salesman doing the bidding of his corporate masters.

Huh???????........
 

...well at least you got in some sexual content. Whew!!!! For a minute I thought this was a brad imposter.

Maybe it's the ritalin is kicking in, but I'm having a little disconnect with your thought process - not necessarily a bad thing mind you, but a tad of a head scratcher nonetheless.

Re: Who Does Defend Them?
 

"Still what would happen in the Middle East if the USA abandoned Israel? "

I'm not suggesting it should, but that a relatively rich, tiny country(population 7 million) should get more aid than the poorest 1 billion people in the world strikes me as repugnant. To answer your question on specifics, the US could make portions of its aid conditional on the dismantling of settlements, phased withdrwal from the territories etc.

"Also, is this a call for more humanitarian aid to Africa in the form of food? Last time news of this sort of aid brought about a post accusing the USA of destroying Africa's agricultural export industry. "

Because they should be sending cash, not food. I made that very clear. Cash would stimulate local economies, food exports destroy them.

"BTW Bush has gone on record as stating that if the ECU will drop it's subsidizing of European agriculture the USA will drop it's subsidies. Methinks the genetically engineered produce concerns are baloney. Chirac is the intransigent one. We'll see what happens in Cancun. "

Both sides are equally intransigient - agreed that the EU has a dreadful record on subsidies - hopefully Bush is being sincere and both sides will phase them out. I can't see either side doing it given the power of the agricultural lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic. I am no fan of Chirac either and agree that he is a major villain in the whole affair. Regarding the GM issue, European public opinion is vastly against it. I remember when that was supposed to count for something. But talking about baloney, what about Bush's cynical inistence that GM could end world hunger. This is complete crap and Bush knows it. Furthermore GM crops would make farmers totally dependent on expensive products from rich agrochemical multinationals. They can't make ends meet at the moment, how having to buy new seeds every year thanks to terminator genes would improve their lot, I really don't know.

Re: Who Does Defend Them?
 

"Israel represents just slightly over 1/1,000 of the total Arab land mass. But to the Arabs, it's a big, big deal."

It's a big deal to the people whose homes were taken off them. And it's a big deal to people living under 30 years of occupation.

Re: Who Does Defend Them?
 

Anti-semitic bigotry in the arab world is indeed widespread and repugnant. There is a difference though in that those countries are not oppressing local Jewish populations (because there aren't any; why that's the case is another argument, but that is nevertheless something that happened in the past rather than something that is continuing right now), whereas the Israelis are oppressing millions of Arabs.

You are right though that the Israeli repression of the Palestinians gets a disproportinate amount of condemnation from all quarters, including me. A lot of pro-Israelis suggest it's because of antisemitism; obviously I don't think that's true in general, but it's interesting to ask why. I think it's partly that Israel is supposed to be one of us, a free Western democracy, and indeed is that for its Jewish citizens, but is also a brutal, racist military oppressor for millions of people. Partly it's that it's relatively close (almost in Europe), partly that it's such a close ally of the West, partly it's that the conflict there reverberates world-wide (sometimes threatening to set off WW3), partly it's that it's a continuation of the history of WWII which affected the whole world, partly because Israel is seen as US puppet... etc. Mainly though I suspect it's because for decades there's been so much pro-Israeli bias and coverage in the West, that people feel the need to counter it. I mean, I think that what Russia is doing in Chechnya is even worse than what the Israelis get up to in the occupied territories, but how much does anyone really want to disagree with me on that? M might because of the Islamic connection, but I suspect most other people just aren't interested - whereas in the case of Israel people do care and the official line has always been on the Israeli side.

Re: Who Does Defend Them?
 

Good post.

Re: Genetically Modified Crops
 

The GM foods have been tested. We know that ingesting pesticides is bad for us. There is no evidence whatsoever, as far as I know, that GM foods are bad for us. So it seems those who fear them more than they fear persticide-sprayed foods, are fearing more greatly what is very likely the safer thing.

Re: Genetically Modified Crops
 

All the other "safe" products I mentioned had also been tested. Sorry, I prefer my food with the original genes and preferably organic -- but cant always get the organic kind -- specially with my itinerant life style.

Re: Who Does Defend Them?
 

nickyg: [ QUOTE ]
To answer your question on specifics, the US could make portions of its aid conditional on the dismantling of settlements, phased withdrwal from the territories etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

How's this for an alternate conditional proposal, nicky, and one that I think makes more sense overall: Israel makes incremental withdrawals on the condition that attacks cease for predetermined periods of time, in effect trading some lands for peace. If attacks flare up again, Israel takes back the land.

It is ludicrous for Israel to just withdraw while continuing to face attacks from closer vantage points, and U.S. policy should take this into account. Mere lip service by the Palestinians (as in the past) is not sufficient; attacks must cease.

Your idea of making U.S. aid conditional is OK provided it includes the proviso that Israeli withdrawals are similarly conditional on the cessation of Palestinian attacks for substantial lengths of time.

Re: Genetically Modified Crops
 

Genetics are modified continually through nature anyway. I think most people who fear GM foods more than pesticide-sprayed foods are presuming too much based on way too little information. Organically grown foods may be best of all but good luck feeding the world with them.