Did you know the Democrats lost the last election? Also, did you know that the United States is not "a" world leader, but "the" world leader? We are the majority stock-holder on this dust speck.

But we're not Old Country, we're New Country. We're the ones who left ROW because of the idiocy we encountered. We're a nation of refugees. Why bring the crap we left behind here? This is cutting-edge land. It's time for change, and it's time for newer, better ideas. Bush is riding a wave, and I don't mind the breeze at all.

Now, should we sit and diddle around with ROW trying to pass outdated concepts into international law, or should we see about improving the system?

The important part you apparently failed to read:
... the administration has concluded that treaty revisions favored by the European Union and scores of other countries will not work and should not be salvaged ...

I guess that equals evil to you? Maybe you should work on that.

Here’s a poor comparison for you:
The decision, which has been conveyed to allies in recent weeks, has been greeted with warnings that the move will weaken attempts to curb germ warfare programs at a time when biological weapons are a focus of concern because of the war on terrorism and the administration's threats to launch a military campaign against Iraq. It also comes as the administration, which has angered allies by rejecting a series of multilateral agreements, is appealing to the international community to work with it in forging a new U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Wakeup call. What exactly did the rejected agreements have to do with a militant tyrant, bent on genocidal use of WMD?

"It's based on an incorrect approach. Our concern is that it would be fundamentally ineffective."

Frightening? Or just frighteningly true?

If ROW is under the impression that the UN today is worthy of its legacy as a forger of world peace and no changes are required, then they can keep their little Whiners’ Club. Pointing out problems and offering better solutions is hardly the same thing as simply saying “can’t be done,” or “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which has been ratified by the United States and 143 other countries, bans the development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents, but has no enforcement mechanism. Negotiations on legally binding measures to enforce compliance have been underway in Geneva for seven years.

Drawn from a review by 10 pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology experts, the document argues that bioweapons inspections can be effective with the right amount of time and the right science and urges the administration to develop stronger measures.



"To argue that this wouldn't be a useful remedy would just be a mistake. I think it's because they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope," said Matthew Meselson, a Harvard biologist who helped draft a treaty to criminalize biological weapons violations. "We're denying ourselves useful tools."





The administration is not looking for way to detect germ warfare agents. They are looking for ways to stop germ warfare agents. Who has them is already known and, while there are laws against such things, there are no provisions for the enforcement of those laws.

In seven years’ time, the committee has been unable to build a statement as simple as:
Listen, folks. Developing, stockpiling and producing germ warfare agents is wrong. Anybody doing this should be unilaterally banned from the World Trade Market. Continued development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents will result in the members of the U.N. stepping into your country and making you stop, and if that involves replacing your government, then we’ll replace your government.

The administration says it is backing away from the conference. A four-year pause, though I think the time will be spent studying what the ROW decides to study regarding germ warfare agents more than anything else.

Maybe you’re in need of immediate results. Ain’t gonna happen. Global politics is extremely complex, especially when every nation involved in the Biological Weapons Convention is trying to get an acceptable draft written in such a way that the development, stockpiling and production of germ warfare agents isn’t really all that bad. Why?

Well, bio- & chem-weaponry is nearly as complicated as predicting weather, and the immediate fix for the weather was Kyoto, but then I prefer a system that works, rather than a system that just looks good on paper. Every nation that has concerns regarding bio- & chem-weaponry -- and there really aren’t all that many -- have been developing, stockpiling and producing germ warfare agents for decades. The U.S. included. Why?

To cure anthrax, you need to develop it. You need to understand it, inside and out. To produce a counteragent for mustard gas, you need to develop it. You need to understand it, inside and out. To treat radiation sickness, you need to develop it. You need to understand it, inside and out.

So, how do you word it so that it applies only to some of the world? How do you word it so that developing, stockpiling and producing germ warfare agents for the sole purpose of education and defensive counter attack is alright, and the bad guys can’t say they’re really good guys, too -- and that billion-gallon sample you found was just a test batch, honest.

Or...

What if the Biological Weapons Convention was nearly ready to draft an acceptable agreement -- one behind which there was plenty of room for certain tyrants to hide behind?

Closed-door sessions are a real pain for the outsiders, but that’s how it’s done -- and sometime you just have to trust the government. After all, they are people. They were voted into office by the majority (nbo, they really were), and they’re a hell of a lot more qualified than you or me.

And they’ll likely make mistakes. All you can really do is hope the mistake turns out to be survivable. If you need more input on the whys and wherefores of politics, try your representative.

“We will continue to reject flawed texts like the BWC draft protocol, recommended to us simply because they are the product of lengthy negotiations or arbitrary deadlines, if such texts are not in the best interests of the United States."



[ ... ]

"If a challenge inspection system is not geared to pursue violators aggressively, then it does not serve U.S. security interests," the 65-page report states. The participants strongly favored establishing mandatory standards backed by penalties and "robust" inspections, which goes significantly further than the proposed protocol backed by the EU and other nations.





There's a new sheriff in town, B, more than able to take on any and all callers.

Change is a good thing,
The Evil Dan