The Logic Off Topic list

> >There's pretty much occasions where the US simply was like "going our own
> >way" rather than agreeing on international conventions. As I allready
> >mentioned in a previous post, the Kyoto agreement is a perfect example
> >for
> >that.
>
> A good example of misinformation. The treaty was not fair to the US - 
> written
> an way to favor the Euros - and especially India and China.


Please explain. What's not fair about it? (this is not meant in a 
negative way, I just want to learn from this discussion!!)

> And when you said the "US" you really mean "the US's new president" 
> who took
> office and has a right to re-evaluate things before they are signed.
> President Bush is indeed stupid and not effective in communicating, 
> but that
> doesn't  mean the whole country is to blame

Correct.

> , or that he is necessarily wrong
> in re-evaluating.

Incorrect as it had been signed already. :-/

> It is exactly your mindset to blame the US unfairly which is 
> disturbing. This
> seems to be the 'thought of the moment' for Europeans

Hehe, now you're generalising yourself as well. :-))
I don't think that way and I still have to meet the first European who 
thinks so.

> , who feel they are very
> enlightened but actually are not very broad minded. If you are truly
> concerned over global warming you should be very afraid of the combined
> efforts of China and India - with populations about 7 tiimes that of 
> the US
> with little to stop them from creating all the greenhouse gases they 
> want as
> they rapidly industrialize.

Think of it this way: we have gone through the stage of development 
(hundreds/tens of) years ago. Those countries now have to catch up. Once 
they've reached our development level, they'll be able to catch up with 
ecologic stuff too. The only way to stop the growth of their population 
is to make them develop their economy and industry as fast as possible.

> you would be marching in the streets over the death and
> destruction Russia delivers to Chechnya and China delivers to Tibet

I fully agree!!!! I'm a 100% against those things.

> Also, more
> European countries would commit troops to the Balkans - a problem in 
> your own
> backyard, whch the US must bail you out of ... again ... because you 
> refuse
> to act.

Now you're misinformed. ;-)
Actions were taken by UN but since UN doesn't have an army, they rely on 
NATO. Therefore, the usual NATO rules are what define how many forces of 
which country are used. Bush wants to get the US soldiers out of that 
area, but on the other hand, US authorities don't allow Europe to build 
their own army! :-/  They're very much opposed to that. Difficult 
political situation.

> without the independence of thought to look at things
> objectively.

Exactly what I noticed in some of your arguments too. :-)
The problem is it's difficult for either party to obtain objective 
information. To give you an idea: last year, I was doing some research 
on FSC's: foreign sales corporations. Europe had asked the Dispute 
Settelement Body of the World Trade Organisation to bring an end to the 
(in their opinion) hidden and illegal subsidies of the US for exporting 
companies. During my research, I really enjoyed reading the arguments by 
the European Commission and the US Department of Commerce, International 
Trade Administration. It was really funny how both parties were giving 
information from their point of view, very very subjective etc. The 
problem is that those statements are the ones that are printed in the 
papers, even when they're not correct.

> Germans in particular waste a lot of fuel on their autobahns, at least 
> in the
> US we have strict speed limits.

I'm not so sure an Audi at 180km/h uses more fuel than an average 
American car at 70miles/h.
I agree though that limiting the speed would definitely reduce fuel 
consumption!!!!!!

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM