Article

2004-03-25 International-UN-NGOs

Senate wants to deed ownership of 7/10âs of world to UN?

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-25 3:14:53 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 After reading this entire article, I can't imagine ANY US administration EVER supporting such a treaty. It's just insane, given the treaty's provisions and powers. "No" just won't do -- "Hell No! Are you INSANE!" is more appropriate.

It is stupefying that the Senate committee tried to sneak this through - and then play the voice vote slam dunk.

Every US politician favoring this amazing surrender of technology and mineral assets should be publicly identified - and targeted for defeat in November. EVERY ONE. Period. If anyone finds further info on this identifying who's involved, please post the info! This is just astonishing.

Kill the UN - or follow the SUNS (Snellenr's UN Solution) Protocol - before more such asinine suicidal legal schemes float out of its nether end.

Posted by .com 2004-03-25 5:32:01 AM|| 2004-03-25 5:32:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Frank Gaffney, a bona-fide non-idiotarian at NRO, hits it hard here.

Free Republic post

The Conservative Liberty Committee

Accuracy in Media

Excellent summary: This CATO Institute article does a good job of covering the myriad issues involved in LOST - and demonstrating that most of the supposed positives for the treaty are empty or pointless - while the negatives are a future minefield with particular risk to advanced technology nations --- Can we get a "f**kin' Duh" here?

This is a classic fuckup looking for a time and place to happen.

Posted by .com 2004-03-25 6:04:33 AM|| 2004-03-25 6:04:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 AHhh...but there is the potential to BUILD SHIPS. No doubt Mr. Lott is over this one like Seagulls on a fishing vessel.

Posted by B 2004-03-25 7:23:27 AM|| 2004-03-25 7:23:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Why all the fuss? The law is invalid as it is overridden by Rule Britannia which declares that the United States Navy inheired the oceans from the Royal Navy in 1943.

Posted by Shipman 2004-03-25 8:20:59 AM|| 2004-03-25 8:20:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Holy crap, this is scary stuff. The UN can't do anything useful as it is; now it wants to police the seas?

What are the odds that American companies are going to turn in their data, be denied contracts, and the sites then given to countries with dictatorships, the kind the UN loves?

Deep-six this thing, and fast.

Posted by The Doctor 2004-03-25 9:00:13 AM|| 2004-03-25 9:00:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 FUCK THE u.n. FUCK EVERY GODDAMN ONE OF THE COMMUNIST BASTARDS

Posted by Texan 2004-03-25 10:06:20 AM|| 2004-03-25 10:06:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 There are some legitimate issues like piracy, over-fishing, and pollution that need to be solved in a carefully considered way. Declaring the UN to be the new Neptune, ruler of the deep, is not very carefully considered. Several Sicilian mafia families or Rainbow Push could probably do the job more transparently with less graft than the UN. The mafia might even have a "friend in the business" that could repaint the hulls of whatever of the decommissioned FFG-7 class we have lying around. I understand that they partial to tasteful pin-stripes.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-03-25 1:33:15 PM|| 2004-03-25 1:33:15 PM|| Front Page Top

02:08 ex-lib
17:17 Rhodesiafever
03:27 Super Hose
02:23 Super Hose
00:21 Anonymous TROLL
00:15 Anonymous
00:15 Old Patriot
23:59 Robert Crawford
23:59 Super Hose
23:47 Barbara Skolaut
23:47 Anonymous TROLL
23:44 Jen
23:43 Anonymous TROLL
23:42 Texan
23:40 Anon1
23:39 Anon1
23:28 Anon1
23:25 Robert Crawford
23:23 meeps
23:23 Anon1
23:15 Scooter McGruder
23:04 BH
23:04 Anonymous TROLL
22:46 Raj