Slashdot Mirror

• Brief Bio
• NPR Audio Interview from Dec 15, 2004
• 2001 Press Conference Speech

Cheers,
-l

find it funny that foreiners liked clinton and he didn't sign any of those treaties either. Actually, what most foreigners are ignorant of is that the president cannot sign it unless congress gives him the authority to (for each indevidual treaty).

Incorrect, he signed a number of treaties, they were just either not ratified, or rejected by GWB. He (Clinton) didn't have support of the senate which was and still is Republican controlled.

"The United States ratified the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on February 16, 1995. However, in 2000 when the U.N. attempted to pass the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, the United States raised strong objections and still refuses to ratify it. President Clinton signed the Protocol in May 2000, but the Republican-dominated Senate did not ratify it, raising the objections that the treaty undermines the rights of parents and is unfair to the U.S., since the U.S. currently recruits and deploys 17 year-olds for service. The Bush Administration is taking no action on ratification."

http://www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html

"On Dec. 31, 2000, Bill Clinton signed the Rome agreement creating an International Criminal Court. He waited until almost the last permissible moment to affix the United States to the agreement even though he did not, he said, agree with its contents."

"President George W. Bush, recognizing the consequences of treating the U.S. signature so frivolously, has instructed the State Department to make clear the United States has no intention of being bound by the signature by informing the United Nations of the decision."

http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3312

"The current treaty at issue is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, first opened for signatures in 1996. This multilateral agreement bans all nuclear tests above and below the Earth's surface. The treaty also established a worldwide monitoring system to check air, water and soil for signals that someone set off a nuclear explosion. While President Clinton signed the treaty, in 1999, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it."

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/nucleartreaties.ht ml

"Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, mandating a reduction in carbon emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012, a 2001 State Department memo rejected the protocol on the basis that it would harm the US economy and exempt developing countries from reduction requirements. Of industrialized states, only the US, Australia and Israel haven't ratified the protocol. The US did ratify the UNFCCC, but has not complied"

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2003/treatyt able.htm

Likely there is more (thats enough for today, but I see a recurring theme). It seems pretty much like his hands were tied.

Here are some references:
Showing the 45% figures
In graph form

When you look up figures, how fresh they are are vital. The Iraqi and Afghan war has substantially boosted the USA military spending.

Unless the US's GDP is THAT much higher than the 46 countries above us, your facts are wrong.

The answer to that is yes. The US GDP is indeed that much higher than most of the 46 countries above you (except China).

Another possibility is that the CIA is biased (or incompetent). As their recent record in Iraq shows, their intelligences obviously isn't that great (unless you reckon they deliberately mislead the public). See the discrepency between their figures (that US spends $280B/year and the other figures $420B/year. Part of this is also probably because the Afghan, Iraqi and war on terror figures haven't made their way into the CIA factbook. Military spending in dollar figures.

Anyway, my central contention holds, that the fear by Roosevelt of the military-industrial complex has become a fact. That such spending will over time lead to China, India, Indonesia and Europe increasing their spending without necessarily buying security for anyone -- you, me, the citizens of USA or other countries. We all lose, this is MAD. (pun intended)

Most of the technology we have today is the direct result of, or significantly improved by the space race. From things as simple as velcro and dehydrated food, to sophisticated electronics, there are huge benefits to everyone that are never mentioned when people bitch about the costs.

BTW, the costs aren't really that much. Defense spending in 2002 was $360 billion, while Nasa's new budget is $15.5 billion. Even spending a trillion dollars over the next decade wouldn't bring it close. Furthermore, we're spending nearly $4 billion in Iraq and nearly $1 billion in Afghanistan EVERY MONTH. For some reason, no one seems too interested in doing a cost/benefit analysis on that.

People don't realize how much our lives have been changed by the 'side effects' of trying to achieve huge goals. Bigger challenges lead to bigger innovations.

Space travel brings a whole different set of challenges than we face on Earth, inspiring different innovations. This is even more true with manned space flight.

Manned space travel will continue to be necessary if we wish to explore further out or in more detail. Robots can only do things you planned on, and going into the unexpected is the whole point of exploration. The communications lag will also increase. The 8 minute lag to mars limits the speed and manuvuerability of the rovers. While this is fine for now, eventually we will reach a point where further research requires closer to realtime action. The further out you go, the less feasible remote-control exploration becomes.

As pointed out in the CNN article, the overall NASA budget would stay at about 1 percent of the federal budget. Yes, Bush is contributing an additional 1 billion, but that's chump change considering what the military gets ($379 billion in 2003 and growing). NASA's total budget is less than the cost of one attack aircraft. As far as I'm concerned, this is a ploy to make Bush Jr. look generous. While everyone is looking up at the sky thinking of how great it would be to land on the moon again, Dubya and his cronies will be busy manipulating things on earth for their own benefit.

Open your eyes people. While I think it would be great to return to the moon and visit Mars, this isn't anything more than a PR tactic for re-election. The numbers speak for themselves.

Well according to the NCES, the US spends $745 billion on education. That is federal and state level expeditures, so I was wrong that it was just federal level expenditures in my estimate. The military budget for 2003 was 310 billion.

"Your hatred of America is giving everyone else a pass to do the same things."

That isn't hatred. That's concern. Hatred is when people try to blow up buildings within your borders, and you're just beginning to see that.

Ignorance of your own foreign policy is dangerous if you plan on defending it, however.

"Nearly everyone has one. Did the United States sell those?"

The better phrase would be 'Did the USA manufacture those'...to that, it would be a no. As to where they were bought from, or who supplied them, or for what reason, then it gets a little murkier.

I don't have accurate figures for more recent times, but in 1998 the State Dept. licensed exports by US manufacturers to the tune of $64 million over and above the standard Government-to-government transfers, which included those worthless M16's you mentioned. Now I don't know how you do your research, but you might want to check export licenses from the state department. But that's legitimate trade. We also have backchannel...

I certainly hope that you know what the Iran-Contra affair was about, because you really need to explain what the US was doing there, what the US role in Nicaragua was.

Of course this does tend to start including military advisors. There is after all the IMET (International Military Education Training), Expanded IMET, ACRI (African Crisis Response Initiative), JCET (Joint Combined Exchange Training) which the US funded in 1998 to the tune of around $6 million, and while IMET has been cut over the years, other initiatives have sprung up to fill the gaps, such as the ACSS (African Center for Strategic Studies).

Training took place in 34 African nations including Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In fact, when Zaire was invaded in 1996 by the Rwandans, the Rwandan troops had been trained by US special forces.

Just two days after the UN security council imposed an embargo on 'direct or indirect' supply of arms into the region on July 28th this year, the US lifted it's embargo on arms to Rwanda.

As someone interested in the global arms trade, you might find this handy.

As an aside, I think we've found another 'Godwins law', the positing of a 'hatred of America'...in itself quite an arrogant concept. I love your cheeseburgers.

This years budget for the U.S. Military is $400 Billion. Diverting only 2.5% of that budget (for just one year) would give us a workable space elevator.

The uneducated (on this topic) or pessimistic will tell you it can't be done. But we have the technology we need, and could have a working space elevator within 10 years (according to NASA's own study) for an estimated $10 billion (to as high as $40 billion, still insignifigant over 10 years).

This would lower the cost per pound to space (low earth orbit) from around $7,000 to as low as $5. For a fatty like me this means I could go to space on vacation for $1,100. Space would be accessible by all, even washed out boy-band members. Telecommunications costs would be a fraction of what they are now, because launching a satellite would be the cost of a car, instead of as much as the satellite itself. New technologies (similar to GPS, Iridium phones, internet anywhere cheaply) would come out of the woodwork.

The only thing we need for this to succeed, that we don't already have, is a government (or private funding) committed to it's success.

As a sidenote, this could eliminate our reliance on oil by making electricity next to free, with no pollution and without building more dams or nuclear reactors.

Just my $.02, but I really hope it happens. It's a common sense thing for the human race to commit to, and has a better chance of drastically improving life on earth for all than just about anything. Science would flourish, pollution would be almost eliminated, space travel may become possible, etc.

This page has a few stats. It's not the origonal one I saw. The origonal one has said Russia had less total nulcear weapons that the US. Then again the might have been weapons that could be used.

Found another here

If the US can ignore UN resolutions (and have huge debt with the UN, but let's ignore that for a moment), why can't China?

Yes, I am just trolling. But it's carnival here, and I am bored.

Hey...with a GPS transponder, we can make missiles home in on it pretty darned accurately.

Rip me off on ebay, and your part of MY axis of evil...

The "Peñon Woman III" -- which scientists believe is now the oldest skull from the New World -- has been sitting in Mexico City's National Museum of Anthropology since 1959. At the insistence of geologist Silvia Gonzalez, who had a hunch that the bones were older than previously thought...

Oups, my bad I was wrong in the order, I forgot Mother Russia. (too bad I didn't find anything up to date)

U.S. Military Budget Tops Rest of World by Far

$ 379 billion (2003) - United States
$48 billion - increase from Fiscal 2002 to 2003

$ 34.8 billion ( 2001 ) - United Kingdom

$ 29 billion ( 2000 ) - Russia

$ 27 billion ( 2000 ) - France

$ 23.1 billion ( 2001 ) - Germany

$ 18.7 billion ( 2000 ) - Saudi Arabia

$ 15.9 billion ( 2000 ) - India

$ 14.5 billion ( 2000 ) - China

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - South Korea

$ 12.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Taiwan

$ 7.5 billion ( 2000 ) - Iran

$ 3.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Pakistan

$ 1.8 billion ( 2000 ) - Syria

$ 1.4 billion ( 1999 ) - Iraq

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - North Korea

$ 1.3 billion ( 2000 ) - Yugoslavia

$ 1.2 billion ( 2000 ) - Libya

$ 425 million ( 2000) - Sudan

$ 31 million ( 2000 ) - Cuba

Source: The International Institute for Strategic Studies

Nope ,the platform reviewed is STILL the official platform on the party web pages.

Here's a hint: www.greenpartyus.org is the real Green Party. www.greenparty.org is a tiny Green faction. The former has the platform endorsed by 99% of Greens in the USA.

Its so pathetic, Nadar created his own platform to run on-- but the official party platform is there for everyone to see.

The fact is, Nader had nothing at all to do with the creation of the Green Platform (the real one or the one you insist on). It is a grassroots Green project. I know it's fun to make things up, but you need to be careful when presenting made-up things as fact, because there's probably someone out there who knows better.

you think military spending is half the federal spending, it isn't.

Let me correct myself - it's half of the discretionary funding Congress allocates each year. It still dwarfs welfare, OSHA, the EPA, and all the other programs right-wingers love to hate. More info...

irregardless

You may want to check a dictionary before posting to Slashdot.

Source of the following quote.

"The increase of $44 billion from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002 is greater than any other nation's annual defense budget."

When you consider that most of the wealth posessed by the top 2% of the population comes from this travesty, I think you might want to rethink your position. Capitalism is fine in an OPEN and DEMOCRATIC society. If you think you're living in either one of those...

...while America drowns under the weight of it's enormous, wasteful military budget...

And while evaluating the budget's "wasteful"ness, you should remember that a fair bit of the ~$280 billion we spend each year goes into R&D -- the same R&D that produced the Internet's predecessor, the ARPANET. So at least some of the money is doing some good; the same goes for NASA's budget -- we get completely unexpected scientific discoveries out of directed research programs, that end up being incredibly useful. While other nations leapfrog past our initial technological advances... we discover new ones! And the cycle continues....

• does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Does anyone believe the US promise to fund $14.5 billion of the ISS? Given their record with the UN and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Oh, plus Bush has already reneged. Perhaps if we renamed it the "US Anti Terrorist Orbitting Death Platform" it could get funding under the current climate.

Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.

while there was a no-nuke-test treaty in place with the US!

No treaty was in place, only negotiations were on their way. See thid page for the history.

a snip:
1960 February, France conducts it first nuclear test in Algeria and in May, test ban negotiations are nearly concluded when an American U-2 spy plane is shot down over the U.S.S.R., increasing East-West tensions and spoiling the chance for agreement.

On February 11, 1960, the Eisenhower Administration redoubled its efforts by proposing a phased approach to achieving a comprehensive ban.The proposal was endorsed by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, and with some further modifications, the proposal was accepted by Soviet Premier Krushchev, making it likely that the test ban treaty could be signed at the Paris summit that both President Eisenhower and Premier Krushchev had agreed to attend in May. However, the shoot-down of an American U-2 spy plane over the Soviet Union on May 1st led to an atmosphere of hostility that cut short the Paris summit and the chance for the test ban.

1961 January-July, Kennedy accelerates U.S. nuclear weapons deployments and East-West relations deteriorate over the Berlin crisis.
August, resumption of Soviet nuclear tests followed by resumption of U.S. testing in September. October 30, Soviet Union conducts largest nuclear test explosion ever, a 58 megaton atmospheric blast.

The obvious issue is, what about those without anything to lose?

We need smaller, more agile nuclear weapons in order to counteract the threat of enemy boxcutters?

there's a good bit of question if the weapons built in the late 60s and 70s would even be functional today.

That is true. However, I'm certain that the Bush administration, which, if you'll recall, is not entirely in favor of the test ban treaty anyway wants to build new toys. It is my belief, which I failed to explain in my original post, that this is the real goal of the technology that they're developing.

i.e. even if you can blow them up and don't strictly need computer models to test them, as anyone who's ever worked on an airplane design will tell you, the computers are a helpful first step. I wouldn't expect even this administration would be dumb enough to field something without first setting a few off underground (though they might try and get us to fork over the cash regardless), so this obviously isn't a substitute for backing out of the test ban treaty, but merely an attempt to move in that direction.

You could also say that this is intended to abrogate an argument put forward by those who want to pull out of the CTBT, if you were inclined to ascribe good will or good sense to anyone who works with nuclear weapons.

No no no! We're talking time, not distance! And no fair using the sun, we're talking about earth!

The closest fusion event was May 11, 1998, in the Shakti-1 experiment done by India. There's a little peer review problem, so there's some debate. In truth, there is a consipracy to prevent fusion -- a consipiracy that I should note that has been accepted by 161 world leaders.

The military budget was $280 billion for 2000 and $300 billion for 2001.

Everything presented by Karzan is painfully on-target.

The republicans are actually the ones pushing for ABM research and deployment. Clinton is trying to walk the fence on this and finish up his term in office by revising the ABM treaty to allow some kind of ABM implementation (beyond the current allowance which is that the capitol of each country can be defended by ABM's), which I think is to placate the forces in the US that are clamoring for an ABM system.

What is going on here? I think that my country of citizenship (America) is trying to leverage its current economic superiority to cement its influence / control over the rest of the world. Perhaps it's perceived by some that one remaining chink in its armor would be that the country is susceptible to a nuclear strike by a rogue nation with nuclear missle technology (don't forget that Pakistan and India recently joined this elite community). At least that's the public argument these US lobbyists and lawmakers are presenting. I think the real interest is to:

A. Provide pork for these representatives' home states.
B. Enable America to become a real rude sob and not have to worry about retaliation.

Before any more money is spent on this boondogle, I wish voters were made explicitly aware of the hundreds of scientists criticizing ABM systems as being implausible.

Anti-Missile System Won't Work
National Missile Defense: Rushing to Failure

This is by far the longest the human race has gone without a war between major world powers. I wonder if it will be any different if we develop the technology to successfully win a nuclear war.