http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/


Regardless of your political views google agenda 21 and see what we signed up for almost 30 years ago, I have always suspected that much of what happens in Oz is done for the benefit of someone else, not in our best interests such as impoting food, losing much of our manafacturing and exporting lots of our resources.

Now it seems agenda 21 was establshed originally by the league of nations who wher ethe winners of world war 2.

Part of the agreement is that 3rd world countries are to be the producers of food for the UN member countries, which explains why no one in government has ever stood up for our farmers and primary producers, why food imports are allowed from basket case countries. Look at the farmers loosing their land losing the right to farm on those lands

Agenda 21 is a policy that will see our country ruined, our farmers are doomed our food bowl is not going to be protected which explains why the Murray has been allowed to fall into disrepair.

There are much bigger forces at play that regardless of wether you vote lib/lab poo is going top happen beyong our control as the UN agreement over rides whatever we should do.


I think you all should read it and see how this country has been sold down the drain.

We need to get out of the UN and look after our own country.

Yes, mellie.

:D

I wouldn't worry about the UN.

A friend of mine from uni days is from Israel and made the comment "Don't worry about the UN. In Tel Aviv we stopped paying any attention to them decades ago and do what we want anyway"

The UN is toothless and has no say in anything. Look at Rwanda where they did nothing. The French nuclear testing. The Chinese consistent abuse of human rights. Rhodesia's abuse of white farmers and vote rigging. Iran's rigged election.

The UN - a toothless tiger with some deadbeat from the third world as a figurehead everytime.

;D

Quote:

Agenda 21 is a policy that will see our country ruined, our farmers are doomed our food bowl is not going to be protected which explains why the Murray has been allowed to fall into disrepair.

Actually, the Murray has fallen into disrepair because the public and our politicians are too spineless to stand up to whinging farmers.

Your climate change philosophy appears to be flowing over to this agenda 21, why would you let people starve because the greens say the Murray is dead.This is what would happen if farmers cant produce cheap produce for the poorer in our society,you and your socialist policies would be like the stupid policies of the communists under Stalin.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 5:03pm:

I wouldn't worry about the UN. A friend of mine from uni days is from Israel and made the comment "Don't worry about the UN. In Tel Aviv we stopped paying any attention to them decades ago and do what we want anyway" The UN is toothless and has no say in anything. Look at Rwanda where they did nothing. The French nuclear testing. The Chinese consistent abuse of human rights. Rhodesia's abuse of white farmers and vote rigging. Iran's rigged election. The UN - a toothless tiger with some deadbeat from the third world as a figurehead everytime. ;D

totally agree. the UN's only redeeming value is that it is slightly better than nothing at all. it is totally dominated by poorer left-wing countries and is possibly the least efficient and effective organisation on earth. nobody respects it, no one obeys it and it is at best a sideshow the highlights the nations differences.

HigherBeam wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

Your climate change philosophy appears to be flowing over to this agenda 21, why would you let people starve because the greens say the Murray is dead.This is what would happen if farmers cant produce cheap produce for the poorer in our society,you and your socialist policies would be like the stupid policies of the communists under Stalin.

If a society is wasteful, the poor suffer the most from that waste. Are you suggesting we institutionalise waste so that a little bit trickles down to the poor?

We are not short on food.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 7:44pm:

HigherBeam wrote on Oct 17th, 2010 at 7:25pm: Your climate change philosophy appears to be flowing over to this agenda 21, why would you let people starve because the greens say the Murray is dead.This is what would happen if farmers cant produce cheap produce for the poorer in our society,you and your socialist policies would be like the stupid policies of the communists under Stalin. If a society is wasteful, the poor suffer the most from that waste. Are you suggesting we institutionalise waste so that a little bit trickles down to the poor? We are not short on food.

We are not short on food yet but cutting of the irrigation allocation where are the crops going to grown,Uluru.The first thing that will happen will be that food prices will go up that will force up food prices causing the poor to go hungry.

So you think we should destroy our rivers so that we can continue exporting huge amounts of food, at great cost to other industries (even other farmers) who could put the water to better use, all to shield the poor from the true cost of food?

Wouldn't it make more sense to just give the poor a bit more money to buy the food than to destroy our rivers and distort the entire economy so a tiny fraction trickles down to the poor? Or maybe the poor would be better off with one of the jobs that gets created when our society becomes less wasteful.

How much exactly do you think the price will go up?

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

So you think we should destroy our rivers so that we can continue exporting huge amounts of food, at great cost to other industries (even other farmers) who could put the water to better use, all to shield the poor from the true cost of food? Wouldn't it make more sense to just give the poor a bit more money to buy the food than to destroy our rivers and distort the entire economy so a tiny fraction trickles down to the poor? Or maybe the poor would be better off with one of the jobs that gets created when our society becomes less wasteful. How much exactly do you think the price will go up?

What a load of puss,now you want to bankrupt the economy with more money we have not got.You want to borrow more money to give to the poor when the solution is staring at you,compromise,unlike you and your hair brained ideas,the authority has backed down and is looking at the socio-economics of draconian cuts to water in the food bowl of australia and the impacts.Next you will drag out the bradfield scheme.

Captain Bligh found out to her dismay what mother nature is all about with the hair brained water grid that people are suffering for.Mother nature will provide and we did not need a multi million dollar water grid now all dams are full.Water being pumped one way down water pipelines,that's logical.Desal plants ,the water is three times more expensive.Waste water recycling, no-one will take the water and is being pumped back into the ocean.What brilliant left wing greenies come up with these ideas.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

So you think we should destroy our rivers so that we can continue exporting huge amounts of food, at great cost to other industries (even other farmers) who could put the water to better use, all to shield the poor from the true cost of food? Wouldn't it make more sense to just give the poor a bit more money to buy the food than to destroy our rivers and distort the entire economy so a tiny fraction trickles down to the poor? Or maybe the poor would be better off with one of the jobs that gets created when our society becomes less wasteful. How much exactly do you think the price will go up?

FD is right. if we want to protect our food growing capacity then we have to protect the environment in which it is grown. to do that we need to make sure that our farming practices are sustainable and that includes useing way less water. some people seem to think that sustainable farming is a CHOICE. it isnt. it is where we will end up no matter what we do. but if we CHOOSE to do it now the end result will be very good rather than long-term food shortages.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 17^th, 2010 at 5:03pm:

I wouldn't worry about the UN. A friend of mine from uni days is from Israel and made the comment "Don't worry about the UN. In Tel Aviv we stopped paying any attention to them decades ago and do what we want anyway" The UN is toothless and has no say in anything. Look at Rwanda where they did nothing. The French nuclear testing. The Chinese consistent abuse of human rights. Rhodesia's abuse of white farmers and vote rigging. Iran's rigged election. The UN - a toothless tiger with some deadbeat from the third world as a figurehead everytime. ;D

I have been saying that for years..


how are you andrei and well the hell are you?

L4N this is their answer to world poverty.. lets not ask about all the money we have poured into these countries.. its probably all sitting in Swiss Banks.by now..did you see where we are now expected to write off Pakistans world debt.. Osama will be beside himself..

dont they realise the more charity we dish out the worse off they will be. do something about the corruption first might make a bit of difference.I dont know what the answer is, but so help me nothing that has happened since WW11.. has changed a bloody thing as far as I am concerned.

do the Greek Cypriots like the Turkish Cypriots any better. they have had UN forces there for years.

HigherBeam -  you are right on the money there.  Of course we need our exports, especially now that the unions have wiped out a great deal of our manufacturing industry by pricing our good out of the market.

As for giving the poor money for food -  What food, if our growers can't afford to grow it ?   More money for China as we would have to resort to eating fruit and veg from there.    No thanks.  Support our own farmers, and our own economy.