Bush swings ax of environmental devastation

Did anyone see this story on BBC online:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n … 351863.stm

Bush, obviously not one too concerned about the environment before, has taken things a step further by actually sabatoging international steps toward protecting nature. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre madman is wielding his crazed weapon across the globe. A selfish spoiled brat with his own canyons, forests and rivers on his ranch -the rest of the world? To hell with it? What do I care?

Well the people WHO ACTUALLY LIVE there seem to support it by very wide margins. BUT since they are only NATIVE PEOPLES they probably should not get any say in what kind of development takes place there since they don’t know as well as we do what they really want.

The guy with the chainsaw scars going up and down his back certainly didn’t support the illegal logging. Do you really think that local people in Indonesia can stand up to criminal gangs? Because they are frightened and powerless to stop the gangsters does not mean that the mass -and illegal- felling of rainforests in Indonesia is what the people want.

How do you know?

I am not supporting logging but I do hear an awful lot of people “speaking” for the Oppressed People of the Third World IRONICALLY while at the same time being regular toters of the usual “Orientalism” by Edward Said and Chomsky’s 911. My reaction to this is the same as the hysteria about drilling in Alaska. LOCAL solutions are going to trump anything else that we may “feel” about it. What would you like to do? What would you like us to do? What do you think that we can do? Sorry, if I am beating up on you but I read these kinds of posts all the time and I am not saying you are this way since I do not know you yet but then at the same time, many posters with similar concerns as yours will then wax morally relative when it actually comes to judging systems and/or governments like those in Indonesia. Do you judge? Can you judge? This is my question.

ALSO I am adding this:

Why is this Bush’s fault? Why are you blaming him and not the Indonesian authorities?

Indonesia doesn’t need any help destorying their environment or their economy for that matter. They do both just swell.

Does one actually need to be on the ground in Indonesia, amid the tree stump wasteland, or walking through an Indonesian village, fluent in their dialect TO REALLY KNOW??? How the hell do YOU know? In the article, the Indonesian authorities themselves admit that their government is so corrupt that they are basically powerless to do anything. This -but I don’t actually KNOW this- is probably due to ties to the underworld. This kind of crap happens even here in Taiwan. You’re not ‘beating up’ on anyone on Forumosa, don’t worry, you don’t need to apologize.

So why are you angriest at George Bush then? What does he have to do with this and why is he responsible first and foremost for what is happening? Just curious. You seem VERY angry about Bush and his actions or non-actions. I thought that we were not supposed to judge, that the world is made up of many different systems and that we cannot say which one is better than any other. Ergo perhaps the Indonesian people like their system. What do you want Bush to do go and invade to give them a better one? But wouldn’t that be saying that the Western system of laws and governance is BETTER than some sort of multicultural grabfest? Are you SURE that you want to sign on to something as racist and imperialistic as that?

Why am I blaming Bush? Because the goddamn article says he’s making a concerted effort to stop Blair’s plan. Did you read the story??? A link is provided.

So there is illegal logging going on in Indonesia. The US has issues not with banning illegal logging but seeing this going through certain highly politicized NGOs and activist groups. The memo in question was not in fact adopted as government policy. It was a memo of concern. The other G8 are free to vote as they like. China is the biggest culprit in terms of buying illegally logged wood. It is not signing on to the deal. So out of all this I get your point: It is all Bush’s fault.

Who is doing the illegal logging? Indonesian gangs.
Who is failing to protect these forests? Indonesia’s government.
Who is buying the illegal logs? Mostly China.
Is the US stopping anyone else from implementing these policies? No.
Is the US interested in preventing illegal logging? yes.
Is the US also concerned about politicized activist groups getting control or involved in trade issue? Yes.
Did the US adopt this as an official policy? No.

So again, why are you angriest at George Bush? The other G8 members can vote as they want. China is the biggest buyer. The Indonesian government and gangs are the biggest culprits. The BBC once again uses emotionally loaded pictures to somehow imply the US and George Bush are responsible for this man’s injuries and you fall for it like a junior cadet with his first communist party handbook.

Did you also read the Far Eastern Economic Review’s wonderful take off on all the aid workers who went to Aceh, did nothing, got in the way, were flown to US ships for free showers and food but did nothing but take up space since they refused to work with US military authorities? More of the same kind of posturing ridiculous behavior that fills me with nothing but contempt.

So. Final question? If you were to give a grade of responsibility in percentage terms to those most responsible for this situation how would you rate any of the following:

  1. Illegal loggers
  2. Gangs
  3. Indonesian government
  4. Chinese businesses
  5. Chinese government
  6. The men who chainsawed this man’s back.
  7. The US govt.
  8. George W. Bush

I guess to me it would look something like this.

1 and 2: 80 percent.
3. 15 percent
4. 2.5 percent
5. 2.5 percent
6. 100 percent for the specific action in question
7. 0.0000000001 percent
8. 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent.

Why do I blame Bush? Firstly, his administration is behind the scheme to sabatoge Blair’s plan, and, most importantly -the USA is the most influential country in the world. Have you forgotten this? Don’t you know? If the USA took an active stand against illegal Indonesian logging instead of encouraging it, we -the USA (I said ‘we’ because I am American)- might use our sway to influence others to not buy it. But -SHIT!! IF THE AMERICANS ARE DOING IT, THEN WHY THE HELL SHOULDN’T WE???

That’s a good one! :laughing: :laughing: … oh… you’re not joking? :s

That’s a good one! :laughing: :laughing: … oh… you’re not joking? :s[/quote]

Well there it is folks. The US a terrible hyperpower…because it’s not using its enormous influence to make people do what it wants, I mean, what YOU want it to do. Wait. What DO I mean?

No what do YOU mean?

This is the article that you have posted. Notice the last paragraph. The paper is genuine but it was NEVER FORMALLY accepted. Each member nation can do what they want?

Also, Is America illegally logging this wood? Is America illegally looking the other way like the Indonesian government? Is America buying this wood? Is America looking the other way like the Chinese government while its companies buy this illegal wood?

so here we go again, everyone demanding that we lead since we are the largest nation but then when it does not suit you (say over Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq or wherever) then it is the UN that must be respected. Go to the UN. Tell it your concerns. Let it do something about this and leave us the hell alone.


The point of the BBC article that I posted -assuming you read it, which is doubtful- was this (quote): “But powerful industry lobbyists in the US have resisted moves to certify that timber is legitimately produced. And the leaked State Department memo shows that the US government will refuse to sign up to the Blair initiative.” The US is using only underground, termite, subversive influence -secret influence. Actually, the US will probably succeed here, which means, lo and behold to the other who mentioned US influence, the US influence worked, albeit negatively. To the other -if the US is not the most influential country, which is?

So a lobby is at work in the USA!!! No!!! I refuse to believe it!!!

But the government has not implemented this memo as official policy and will do nothing to stop the other G8 members from doing whatever the hell it is they want and how can the get them to vote the way it wants anyway? We saw the total noncompliance with American pressure over Iraq but now we are all powerful. Wake up.

Regardless of how the US votes, the fact remains that 99.999999 percent of this problem is essentially a matter between parties in China and Indonesia. Nice try with the America bashing but guess what? You lose. Thanks for playing though. We’ve got some great party gifts. (Sorry I have finally become MFGR). And denial ain’t a river in Egypt.

Damn, Fred, you can really argue!

You are absolutely right that the vast majority of this problem is a matter between parties in China and Indonesia. I think what the OP was getting at was the blatant disregard for anything environmental in american trade policy.

Do you not believe that it would be a good idea to work together with other nations to balance environmental concerns with trade issues?

You say that the US should not be blamed for this - I would agree with you completely if it was not for the enormous influence that the US has on other countries. Of course other nations are still sovereign, but it would be pretty fricken naive to think that the US does not have great influence throughout the world.

The US should be blamed for trying to sabotage this plan.

I hope you can understand Fred that this is not the same as blaming the US for actually cutting down the trees.

I am glad you find my shit convincing, AND lucky for you I have more.

How do you know that the US was trying to sabotage this? You have a BBC story that says it is (no! the BBC wouldn’t be biased now would they?) with a quote from a US official saying that the memo is genuine but that this was never adopted as official US policy. So if it was never adopted as official US policy, just what kind of story is this? Look at the headline. Look at the tone. Look at the text. But the simple fact is that this story is not based on proof but allegations. Given the BBC’s past coverage of America and Bush, I would be very suspiscious as to whether this coincidental. I also love the chainsawed back. The reader is left with the impression as our first somewhat simple poster was: It is Bush’s fault!!! Talk about yellow journalism but the more discerning reader says: hmmm wait a minute. This is a memo but the US official says it was never adopted as US policy ERGO (light flashes on) what is this story really about? Then, one thinks about past BBC blunders for which it is now being severely scrutinized and criticized for and one must conclude that any action taken to get the BBC onto a higher journalistic ground has clearly failed. I therefore allege that the BBC is not being reformed but continues to play around with its same old tired reheated pro-Marxist, anti-Americanism. Boring!

Therefore why are we having this argument when we don’t even know whether there is anything to argue about?


You seem to be against any environmental plan on the drawing board. You seem to doubt everything that points toward global warming. I think I know why and I’m going to risk some assumptions: 1. it (these ‘green’ issues, if you will) doesn’t matter because -you’re old and will be long dead before the impacts of what we thrash about are felt 2. You, somehow,someway -god knows how- are successful in some realm of business and just before you fire off a lengthy rebutell (sp) -and you’ve posted, what?) 7,000 remarks on here- ah, just before you post one of these, you’ve just swallowed a delicious (and expensive) piece of steak chased down with some fine French wine. Having filled the belly yet again with great food and fantastic wine, living in Europe, it’s far easier to say that environmental concerns are abstract. Live it up, homeboy. Live it up. You must be doing quite well.

I’ll let Mr. Smith decide to what extent he wishes to respond to the accuracy of assumptions that: (a) he is very, very old (just about on the brink of death, in fact), and (b) he is a wealthy retired European businessman.

My comment relates to the issue of age, and the effect that experience might have on one’s perspective on the issue of global warming. My question is this: Do you think that someone who saw the world’s best scientists make exactly contradictory predictions 30 years ago might be justified in being skeptical about the current predictions?

__________The world’s top scientists overwhelmingly agree: the Earth is cooling

[color=black] … climatologist J. Murray Mitchell, then of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, noted in 1976: “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation. Whenever there is a cold wave, they seek out a proponent of the ice-age-is-coming school and put his theories on page one…Whenever there is a heat wave…they turn to his opposite number, [who predicts] a kind of heat death of the earth.”

"The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations. It has already made food and fuel more precious, thus increasing the price of everything we buy. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000."[/color]

–Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976.

“The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”[/color]

–Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and producer of scientific television documentaries, “In the Grip of a New Ice Age,” International Wildlife, July 1975.

[color=black] “At this point, the world’s climatologists are agreed…Once the freeze starts, it will be too late.”[/color]

–Douglas Colligan, “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age,”
Science Digest, February 1973.

“I believe that increasing global air pollution, through its effect on the reflectivity of the earth, is currently dominant and is responsible for the temperature decline of the past decade or two”[/color] Reid Bryson, "Environmental Roulette, Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P. Holdren and Paul R. Ehrlich, eds., 1971.

[color=black]Bryson went so far as to tell the New York Times that, compared to the then- recent “decade or two” of cooling, “There appears to be nothing like it in the past 1,000 years”, implying that cooling was inevitable.[/color]


__________Flashback to Fred Smith, around 1976

Photo of Fred Smith taken in 1976. “I don’t believe in this Global Cooling nonsense”, said the old man in a phone interview from his home in Europe.

Imagine, swiller, that Fred Smith read all of the literature coming from leading scientists in the early 1970s (he had time to read, having retired in the late 50s). Imagine that Fred Smith, at that time, claimed in discussions with friends “You know, I don’t really believe this Global Cooling business. If anything, I think it might be getting warmer.”

What would the younger generation (those born in the 20th Century) have said in response to 1976 Fred Smith?

Perhaps they would have told him: [color=blue]“You may not care that the world is getting colder every year. But that’s because you are old and rich. You just plan to stay warm in your vast European chateau with plenty of servants to put more rainforest hardwood in your fireplace… meanwhile the rest of the planet is going to freeze to death because of Global Cooling.”[/color]

Perhaps they would have told him: [color=blue]“Who are you to disagree with the best scientific minds and evidence in the world? EVERYONE says that Global Cooling is a fact. This is SCIENCE, this is not some crackpot theory! Don’t you understand that!?!?” [/color]

Who knows. Maybe when you get to be as old as Fred Smith is (when you can remember the first horseless carriages appearing in your little European town when you were a teenager) … maybe at that point you do become more reluctant to believe each new scare. Especially when you can remember people calling you crazy for your refusal to believe the scientific community’s Global Cooling theory not that long ago… :idunno:

Hobbes -
Once again… :bravo: :notworthy: :bravo: …you have punctured the self-inflated with your rapier wit. Well done. :thumbsup: