Double Naught Spy
New member
In response to Handy's query about the US caving into the UN via peer pressure, I don't see how the UN has any more powerful means to get compliance from the US. Unlike other countries in need of help, the UN isn't running any food or medical programs in the US as they do in some less developed countries. The UN isn't acting as a peace keeper between fighting factions within the US. So what can they actually do to us given we don't exactly need their charity or supervision? They can't cut off aid to us when we aren't getting aid from them. Also, as a major player in the UN, the US is a major benefactor to UN peace-keeping and food and medical relief efforts. If the US left the UN and with the separation stopped its contributions to the UN's efforts, UN operations would suffer on a literal global scale.
So if the UN needs the US and its resources and since the US does not need aid or supervision from the UN, then the notion of conforming with the UN's wishes may actually be nothing more substantial that peer pressure and it is not popular peer pressure, but statesman peer pressure where the US's representatives have peer pressure from the representatives from other countries, and vice versa.
The US's ability to deal with the UN may be somewhat hampered if we get out of the UN, but so what. It isn't like the US has all that many genuine wishes to benefit other countries.
-------
So strike-hold, have you actually read the treaty or are you just copy and pasting propoganda from some web site? The reason I ask is that there isn't anything in the treaty pertaining to national parks or mandatory giving of land or control to the UN. The sign at the park simply means the park meets the parameters of the biodiversity treaty, not that control of the park has been turned over to the UN or that the UN owns the park.
What strikes me as so stupid in the propoganda garbage you copied and pasted is the blatant misrepresentation of facts. The so-called precious resource owned by American citizens for over 200 years was land stolen from Native Americans as part of manifest destiny and by governmental law. The Removal Act of 1830 was to clear away any Native Americans east of the Mississippi. At the time, the Native Americans were not considered Americans by the US Gov. per se. As about the only reasonable opposition to the Removal Act, the Cherokee from the area now comprising the park challenged the law and their challenges were upheld by the Supreme Court. President Jackson ignored the ruling and one of the results was the infamous Trail of Tears in 1838.
With the Indians gone, the area now comprising the park was settled primarily by whites.
In 1929, there were some 1200 farmsteads in the area that is now the park. Areas not occupied by farms and areas extremely difficult to reach were overharvested by the timber companies. In 1934 and as a result of a lot of effort, the gov purchased back privately owned lands and surrounding areas that now comprise the park and the park was established.
What does all this mean? The so-called precious resource owned by American citizens for over 200 years that is now Great Smoky Mountains National Park was NOT owned by American citizens for over 200 year. While the US may have claimed to own the land, it was still very much Native American territory into the 19th century. It became 'owned' by the US citizens only after eradication of Native Americans from the area.
So how did the area owned by US citizens get treated as a precious resource? As was typical of the time, the land was over-utilized and radically altered by farms and the timber industry (and others) with no concerns of the damage being caused to the area or relative to the future. It was precious only in the sense that people could live there and resources could be mined/harvested/extracted and sold for profit. It was only after becoming a park in 1934 that the land was allowed to be reclaimed by nature.
So when you talk about a precious resource owned by the American citezens for more than 200 years that comprises the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, then you don't actually know much about the park. When referring to such ownership, lands owned by American citizens usually refers to the public owned aspect, not privately owned lands. Of course, the park didn't become part of the whole public ownership issue until being purchased from individual owners about 72 years ago. While the land might have belonged to the US according to US territory claims, the land obviously was not in the control of the US government until the US government stole the land from Native Americans.
So, premise of your post,
is just about completely false.
Just curious, when did the US become official signees of the treaty? Clinton signed it in 1993, but it failed to make it through both Houses of the 103rd Congress in 1994. As of 2000, it was still unratified by the US. Given that it is not ratified by the US, the US has not agreed to the treaty in any sort of legal manner. In other words, the US isn't a party to the treaty. So all this garbage about how the National Parks belong to the UN is garbage on just about every level of the text posted by strike-hold.
In tracking the history of the Biodiversity Treaty, I was amazed to find that the only folks who seem to think the US has turned over lands to the UN are the folks who don't understand that the treaty was never ratified by the US.
Yellowstone was our first national park and become so in the 1870s.
Great Smoky Park opened in 1934
So if the UN needs the US and its resources and since the US does not need aid or supervision from the UN, then the notion of conforming with the UN's wishes may actually be nothing more substantial that peer pressure and it is not popular peer pressure, but statesman peer pressure where the US's representatives have peer pressure from the representatives from other countries, and vice versa.
The US's ability to deal with the UN may be somewhat hampered if we get out of the UN, but so what. It isn't like the US has all that many genuine wishes to benefit other countries.
-------
So strike-hold, have you actually read the treaty or are you just copy and pasting propoganda from some web site? The reason I ask is that there isn't anything in the treaty pertaining to national parks or mandatory giving of land or control to the UN. The sign at the park simply means the park meets the parameters of the biodiversity treaty, not that control of the park has been turned over to the UN or that the UN owns the park.
What strikes me as so stupid in the propoganda garbage you copied and pasted is the blatant misrepresentation of facts. The so-called precious resource owned by American citizens for over 200 years was land stolen from Native Americans as part of manifest destiny and by governmental law. The Removal Act of 1830 was to clear away any Native Americans east of the Mississippi. At the time, the Native Americans were not considered Americans by the US Gov. per se. As about the only reasonable opposition to the Removal Act, the Cherokee from the area now comprising the park challenged the law and their challenges were upheld by the Supreme Court. President Jackson ignored the ruling and one of the results was the infamous Trail of Tears in 1838.
With the Indians gone, the area now comprising the park was settled primarily by whites.
In 1929, there were some 1200 farmsteads in the area that is now the park. Areas not occupied by farms and areas extremely difficult to reach were overharvested by the timber companies. In 1934 and as a result of a lot of effort, the gov purchased back privately owned lands and surrounding areas that now comprise the park and the park was established.
What does all this mean? The so-called precious resource owned by American citizens for over 200 years that is now Great Smoky Mountains National Park was NOT owned by American citizens for over 200 year. While the US may have claimed to own the land, it was still very much Native American territory into the 19th century. It became 'owned' by the US citizens only after eradication of Native Americans from the area.
So how did the area owned by US citizens get treated as a precious resource? As was typical of the time, the land was over-utilized and radically altered by farms and the timber industry (and others) with no concerns of the damage being caused to the area or relative to the future. It was precious only in the sense that people could live there and resources could be mined/harvested/extracted and sold for profit. It was only after becoming a park in 1934 that the land was allowed to be reclaimed by nature.
So when you talk about a precious resource owned by the American citezens for more than 200 years that comprises the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, then you don't actually know much about the park. When referring to such ownership, lands owned by American citizens usually refers to the public owned aspect, not privately owned lands. Of course, the park didn't become part of the whole public ownership issue until being purchased from individual owners about 72 years ago. While the land might have belonged to the US according to US territory claims, the land obviously was not in the control of the US government until the US government stole the land from Native Americans.
So, premise of your post,
is just about completely false.
Just curious, when did the US become official signees of the treaty? Clinton signed it in 1993, but it failed to make it through both Houses of the 103rd Congress in 1994. As of 2000, it was still unratified by the US. Given that it is not ratified by the US, the US has not agreed to the treaty in any sort of legal manner. In other words, the US isn't a party to the treaty. So all this garbage about how the National Parks belong to the UN is garbage on just about every level of the text posted by strike-hold.
In tracking the history of the Biodiversity Treaty, I was amazed to find that the only folks who seem to think the US has turned over lands to the UN are the folks who don't understand that the treaty was never ratified by the US.
Yellowstone was our first national park and become so in the 1870s.
Great Smoky Park opened in 1934
