President Bush is giving his speech before the UN right now

[DealMonkey]

Bush might as well just stood up in front of the U.N. and flipped off each and every representative.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What a lame and useless speech imo. No effort to bridge the gap, no effort to give more info on iraq. Sad.

It's clear that we will get neither substantial troops nor money from the UN so why should Bush relinquish the reins of power? Bush's speech was for his base in the party and the American public. Bush is trying to shore up American resolve.

You're probably right but one would think that relinquishing some reins would consequently help deliver foreign troops and $ and that would be of value to this administration, particularly with the polls reporting a significant drop in support for Bush because of these issues.

If he's going to go it alone, he will win his battle but lose the war. He'll have the control needed to dole out the reconstruction contracts to american (and british) companies but will lose his bid for a second presidential term.

And then the dems will hand it over to the UN anyways. At that point the american firms will be the last on the list for future reconstruction contracts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Unfortunately I kept getting interrupted today, so I missed the transition from his opening remarks. I did hear AfghanistanandIraq. He was do anxious to link the two in the context of terrorism, that he barely separated the works.

As for the rest,

Slavery = Bad
Kiddy prostitution = bad


I agree with those two.

Now, BBD, I wonder when malaria will occur to him as an ill. As you know, this is much neglected, and not just by the US.

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Unfortunately I kept getting interrupted today, so I missed the transition from his opening remarks. I did hear AfghanistanandIraq. He was do anxious to link the two in the context of terrorism, that he barely separated the works.

As for the rest,

Slavery = Bad
Kiddy prostitution = bad


I agree with those two.

Now, BBD, I wonder when malaria will occur to him as an ill. As you know, this is much neglected, and not just by the US.

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

No it does not. You get DDT resistance quickly. That was becoming a problem long before the ban. Besides, DDT is a WMD to the insect world. The whole tropical ecosystem is incredibly dependent on insect populations.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith Unfortunately I kept getting interrupted today, so I missed the transition from his opening remarks. I did hear AfghanistanandIraq. He was do anxious to link the two in the context of terrorism, that he barely separated the works. As for the rest, Slavery = Bad Kiddy prostitution = bad I agree with those two. Now, BBD, I wonder when malaria will occur to him as an ill. As you know, this is much neglected, and not just by the US.

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

Everyone needs more ddt in their water supply. Tastes like chicken.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Unfortunately I kept getting interrupted today, so I missed the transition from his opening remarks. I did hear AfghanistanandIraq. He was do anxious to link the two in the context of terrorism, that he barely separated the works.

As for the rest,

Slavery = Bad
Kiddy prostitution = bad


I agree with those two.

Now, BBD, I wonder when malaria will occur to him as an ill. As you know, this is much neglected, and not just by the US.

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

Oh yea, that's a good solution.

 

[Tripleshot]

Here is what the people think of his speech, and who we are for having such a leader.Voices: Analysts react to Bush's U.N. speech

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Unfortunately I kept getting interrupted today, so I missed the transition from his opening remarks. I did hear AfghanistanandIraq. He was do anxious to link the two in the context of terrorism, that he barely separated the works.

As for the rest,

Slavery = Bad
Kiddy prostitution = bad


I agree with those two.

Now, BBD, I wonder when malaria will occur to him as an ill. As you know, this is much neglected, and not just by the US.

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

Oh yea, that's a good solution.

So is uncontrolled malaria.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

That's a very simple and wrong answer. Insecticides definitely have a role to play but they must be used judiciously. The most effective means of irradicating malaria would be 1) destruction of habitat (insecticides sprayed selectively around the house but not in the house, ecologically-reasonable draining of standing water), 2) reduced exposure (avoiding dawn/dusk activities, wearing long sleeves, using a repellant, using netting in the home), 3) developing a safe/effective vaccine (no thnx to Bush much thnx to Evil Empire Gates), and 4) BigPharma developing a next generation 'quine to replace chloroquine and mefloquine.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Lift the ban on DDT and a large chunk of the malaria problem goes away.

That's a very simple and wrong answer. Insecticides definitely have a role to play but they must be used judiciously. The most effective means of irradicating malaria would be 1) destruction of habitat (insecticides sprayed selectively around the house but not in the house, ecologically-reasonable draining of standing water), 2) reduced exposure (avoiding dawn/dusk activities, wearing long sleeves, using a repellant, using netting in the home), 3) developing a safe/effective vaccine (no thnx to Bush much thnx to Evil Empire Gates), and 4) BigPharma developing a next generation 'quine to replace chloroquine and mefloquine.

I dont think i ever said DDT or other insecticides should not be used judiciously. DDT is inexepensive as a pesticide and quite effective.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria.


Take your pick.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it?

How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it?

How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available.


But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available.

But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

That's right, people are easily replaceable, whereas the environment is not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

 

[amok]

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

Of course they do. People are inherently self-centered, and their own survival takes precedence over just about everything else. We are more than willing to screw over future generations in exchange for the possible betterment of our own lives.

It happens a lot with enivornmental issues, but it occurs often with other issues as well. Deficit spending and SS are examples of the same phenomona fiscally and politically.

I will agree with you that one can't wait for a perfect solution before tackling a problem. The problem isn't in a perfect solution, its in not using a solution that's potentially worse than the original problem, especially when you factor in the long-term effects. What's the benefit of saving one life if the method you use cripples/destroys 3 later?

Btw, good to talk to you all again .

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

That sounds like a Bush environmental policy cop-out. Frame the scenario as "either - or." Either we have jobs or we have the environment. Nonsense.

90% of all malaria cases & deaths occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of those who die are children aged under five years. They die because they are unprotected from mosquito bites and are not treated quickly enough with anti-malarial drugs to prevent the disease from killing them. A third of malaria deaths could be prevented if children at risk slept under insecticide-treated nets. Currently, however, less than 5% of children at greatest risk of the disease sleep safely under these nets.

Read more at MassiveEffort.org

So you see pesticides aren't the solution at all. The solution is a $4.00 mosquito net and $0.14 per tablet anti-malaria drugs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

You did not argue in favor of pesticides. You chose instead to focus on the DDT ban.
I think nuclear power has advantages. I do not favor shoddy construction and poor design to get it. If reactors were built as such, then I would be against nuclear power.

If you were to promote the limited use of shorter lived pesticides along with other actions, you would find more support for your position, if that is indeed your intent. If you are calling for the reintroduction of a more dangerous product when better can be used, your argument loses weight.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

You did not argue in favor of pesticides. You chose instead to focus on the DDT ban.
I think nuclear power has advantages. I do not favor shoddy construction and poor design to get it. If reactors were built as such, then I would be against nuclear power.

If you were to promote the limited use of shorter lived pesticides along with other actions, you would find more support for your position, if that is indeed your intent. If you are calling for the reintroduction of a more dangerous product when better can be used, your argument loses weight.

I argue in general favor of the proper use of pesticide including DDT. DDT is a low cost effective pesticide and like any other pesticide it should be used properly. There are safer products that could be used, but those are more expensive. The solutions are never simple.

If a country could not afford something safer than DDT, should they then have to suffer the consequences of malaria? These are the tough decisions many countries have to make

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

You did not argue in favor of pesticides. You chose instead to focus on the DDT ban.
I think nuclear power has advantages. I do not favor shoddy construction and poor design to get it. If reactors were built as such, then I would be against nuclear power.

If you were to promote the limited use of shorter lived pesticides along with other actions, you would find more support for your position, if that is indeed your intent. If you are calling for the reintroduction of a more dangerous product when better can be used, your argument loses weight.

I argue in general favor of the proper use of pesticide including DDT. DDT is a low cost effective pesticide and like any other pesticide it should be used properly. There are safer products that could be used, but those are more expensive. The solutions are never simple.

If a country could not afford something safer than DDT, should they then have to suffer the consequences of malaria? These are the tough decisions many countries have to make

We currently spend about a billion dollars a week in Iraq. In terms of costs, how many days of funding would it take to help prevent upwards of 2.5 million deaths annually? DDT is not needed, nor is a pesticide which lasts for years required. The difference in costs of pesticides is chump change compared to what we are spending in our current war.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

You did not argue in favor of pesticides. You chose instead to focus on the DDT ban.
I think nuclear power has advantages. I do not favor shoddy construction and poor design to get it. If reactors were built as such, then I would be against nuclear power.

If you were to promote the limited use of shorter lived pesticides along with other actions, you would find more support for your position, if that is indeed your intent. If you are calling for the reintroduction of a more dangerous product when better can be used, your argument loses weight.

I argue in general favor of the proper use of pesticide including DDT. DDT is a low cost effective pesticide and like any other pesticide it should be used properly. There are safer products that could be used, but those are more expensive. The solutions are never simple.

If a country could not afford something safer than DDT, should they then have to suffer the consequences of malaria? These are the tough decisions many countries have to make

We currently spend about a billion dollars a week in Iraq. In terms of costs, how many days of funding would it take to help prevent upwards of 2.5 million deaths annually? DDT is not needed, nor is a pesticide which lasts for years required. The difference in costs of pesticides is chump change compared to what we are spending in our current war.

It is chump change, but which chump are you going to take it from to cure all the worlds ills?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc But people that must live in the same place as they spray must consider a bit more than cost and effectiveness . . . particularly in delicate ecosystems where the people eat what they grow.

Delicate ecosystems or runaway malaria. Take your pick.

You may not have read about the affects of DDT muchless other pesticides, but if we couldn't keep it out of our water system how would you propose that 3rd world countries do it? How about "investment into a malaria vaccine" or "a babies born with 3 arms and no legs". Which would you prefer for your [future] wife and family?

I have no problems with a malaria vaccine being developed. I have no problem with responsable use of pesticides till such a vaccine is available. But i guess you would prefer to save the environment and let people suffer until such a vaccine is available.

There is no such thing as "responsible use" of ddt near populated areas.

This is an issue of birth defects and other nerve related illnesses that come with letting ddt into the water supply and ingesting it.

You can't solve a problem by creating another, specifically one that has as much destructiveness as your short-sighted suggestion does.

And you cant ignore a problem, just because you cant find a perfect solution. I am sure the worldwide malaria victims have a greatly different view of pesticides and its effect on the environment.

You did not argue in favor of pesticides. You chose instead to focus on the DDT ban.
I think nuclear power has advantages. I do not favor shoddy construction and poor design to get it. If reactors were built as such, then I would be against nuclear power.

If you were to promote the limited use of shorter lived pesticides along with other actions, you would find more support for your position, if that is indeed your intent. If you are calling for the reintroduction of a more dangerous product when better can be used, your argument loses weight.

I argue in general favor of the proper use of pesticide including DDT. DDT is a low cost effective pesticide and like any other pesticide it should be used properly. There are safer products that could be used, but those are more expensive. The solutions are never simple.

If a country could not afford something safer than DDT, should they then have to suffer the consequences of malaria? These are the tough decisions many countries have to make

We currently spend about a billion dollars a week in Iraq. In terms of costs, how many days of funding would it take to help prevent upwards of 2.5 million deaths annually? DDT is not needed, nor is a pesticide which lasts for years required. The difference in costs of pesticides is chump change compared to what we are spending in our current war.

It is chump change, but which chump are you going to take it from to cure all the worlds ills?

We have hundreds of billions of dollars to "fix" the world, as evidenced by our "fixing" Iraq. It would be beneficial if politicians so free with funds for war were to sit down and figure out what can best be done with those dollars. What is a bigger threat to human life? Saddam or malaria? Too late to use those four billion a month on anything else. Still, if Bush wanted to ask for ten more billion to help with this, that would be a hundred times more than is being spent now. Europe should kick in for these kinds of things too. I am not letting them off the hook. Can we collectively cure all the worlds ills? No, but by prioritizing and funding effective programs we could save the world from threats ten times worse than Saddam was thought to be by the most fervent neocon. We won't though, because we chumps are funding war, not helping in more meaningful ways.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
We have hundreds of billions of dollars to "fix" the world, as evidenced by our "fixing" Iraq. It would be beneficial if politicians so free with funds for war were to sit down and figure out what can best be done with those dollars. What is a bigger threat to human life? Saddam or malaria? Too late to use those four billion a month on anything else. Still, if Bush wanted to ask for ten more billion to help with this, that would be a hundred times more than is being spent now. Europe should kick in for these kinds of things too. I am not letting them off the hook. Can we collectively cure all the worlds ills? No, but by prioritizing and funding effective programs we could save the world from threats ten times worse than Saddam was thought to be by the most fervent neocon. We won't though, because we chumps are funding war, not helping in more meaningful ways.

We may have hundred of billions to spend on world problems, but the world has hundreds of trillions of problems.
Personally I am glad Saddam is gone, because having a 2nd North Korea in a couple decades is not a desirable option either.
We will have to disagree with this policy and go back to debating bug spray.