Guest opinion by David Archibald
“Everybody Wants To Rule The World” was a 1985 song by Tears For Fears. Now in 2015, a number of parties are doing their best to that end – ISIS in the Middle East, Russia chewing up the Ukraine, China in the East and South China Seas and the UN Climate Change Commission. A draft document out of Geneva gives details of the UN plan to rule the world.
For most of us, the memorable thing from the Lima climate late last year was Greenpeace’s despoiling of an ancient Nazca figure of a hummingbird.
But the Lima conference has been quickly followed by another in Geneva. The purpose of the latter conference was to produce the negotiating text for the climate conference to be held in Paris in December. The Geneva meeting was conducted in a rush with no opening statements, even by the head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres. Ms. Figueres expectation of the climate treaty coming is that it will be “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”.
Just how different is shown by snippets of the Paris negotiating text. Let’s start with this one from page 5:
“All Parties to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas climate-resilient economies and societies, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their historical responsibilities, common but differentiated responsibilities / evolving common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in order to achieve sustainable development, poverty eradication and prosperity for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, taking fully into account the historical responsibility of developed country Parties.”
Animal Farm was supposed to be a cautionary tale about communism. The UN has taken “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” and turned into “All countries are common but some are more differentiated than others.”
How will the UN determine how much one country might be differentiated from another? That is explained on page 85:
“In reviewing and revising Annex I to the Convention, the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D. shall be added and divided by the current population of that Party. Based on the thus obtained per capita greenhouse gas emissions and population size of each Party to the Convention, the average global per capita emissions of greenhouse gases shall be used to evaluate the status of the greenhouse gas emissions of a Party to the Convention. Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions shall be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention, and the remaining Parties shall not be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention.”
Why 1750? Are the sins of the fathers are to be visited their sons even unto the 11th generation, which is us? Climate treaties used to be based on 1990 as the start date because that was convenient to the Europeans as the fall of communism in that year had curbed their coal consumption. The European countries were going to be the easy treaty compliers while the US was punished. That was the plan at the beginning. But now it is changed to 1750.
The significance of Annex 1 is that if you are on it, you will be paying for the whole circus – US$100 billion per annum for kleptocracies. What if you don’t want to be on Annex 1, because you know that global warming is nonsense or something? What might happen is hinted at on page 8:
“Option 4: Decides that the developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change, recalling the principles and provisions of the Convention”
The option says that developing countries are not to have unilateral measures taken against them but who would bother doing that? The implied target is elsewhere. Countries that are allocated to Annex 1 but don’t cough up the cash might have unilateral measures taken against them by “developed country Parties”.
Australia signed up for the UN climate treaty in 2007. Canada pulled out in 2011 and Russia and Japan have rejected new targets after 2012. Perhaps the US will keep us free – Ms Figueres has said that the US Congress is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.
So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.
David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you David for being the first person to point out – to me at least – the new starting point of 1750 for calculating emissions in the Paris drafts. The implications of that? I’m sure someone will be quoting Zhou Enlai before we’re done: it’s too soon to say.
Joking apart, what can the moral basis be for punishing whole peoples based on actions carried out over 250 years ago, when absolutely nothing was known about the radiative properties of CO2, let alone a well-worked theory of the radiative-convective greenhouse a la Manabe and Wetherald?
I think we should hit this moral vacuity as hard as possible, though I don’t doubt global power-seeking is present as well.
I noticed that everybody who is above the global average will help pay the whole bill.
1750??? That was a green era!!!
That is when wind power (the navy ruled the seas this way) and water power (river run mills) ruled… renewables!!!
But then, homes had coal fires, as did smelting. These were biofuels!!!! (and dung in many places).
I might be wrong, but in a per capita basis, I believe a single house coal heart or stove for cooking and warming might have generated a bit more CO2 than we do nowadays. Drinking water was often contaminated by raw sewage and garbage was left rotting in the street. Problems with the disposal of the dead often added to the stench and decay.
This on a domestic environment.
Now, if you were to account of the emissions of all wastes dumped into the streets from chamber pots, massive environmental damage to rivers and streams from the industry, plagues and diseases caused by the lack of dirty fossil fuel technological advancements and so forth. Then tally all this per capita, then we would be comparing the same basis.
Oh, and people should have a life expectancy of <40 years and bells tolling for deaths were considered a nuisance (noise pollution). 1 out of five children did not see their second birthday.
To think we missed all those good days because dirty energy has made our lives miserable. We live past 80, we have clean environments, food over supply exists, we dress warmly with thin layers of clothing…. This sucks!! I want to die of tuberculosis!!
But well, some people (mostly politicians) seem to have biofuels firing their neurons.
My guess is it will be from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.
They don’t know any other way.
The winners are countries that have only a short history. Ukraine, for example, only became a country, in 1990 and already bits are changing hands. Europe has a long history of changing borders and states appearing and disappearing.. Australia was not a country until 1901 so that is a bit of relief. The last Labor (Socialist) government passed laws to shut down industries such as making aluminium, and steel and other efficient manufacturing so Australia should be OK unless they fiddle the table (very likely). The rules seem to be made to bring down the USA and some politicians in US are helping out. No where around the world at present except in China are there any leaders with foresight, skills and knowledge to improve the welfare of their people.
Australia was settled by the British in 1788, with indigenous inhabitants beforehand.
There is no record of bushfires burning at the time, but being January is highly likely. The question is how to determine those emissions?
NASA satellite shows current high emissions over northern Australia; a relatively uninhabited area with no manufacturing. Obviously not manmade. Australia is also a carbon sink. Are they studying net emissions or merely calculated new emissions?
I believe the real point of the calculation is to keep China off Annex 1. That way they are part of the payee group, not the payer group, despite the fact that they are now the largest producer of CO2 by far. Totally crazy, since IF you believe the CAGW guff you have to believe that absolute tonnage is what counts, not per capita output, and certainly not per capita output from 250 years ago.
China has had squillions of people burning cooking fires and metal/pottery works since 1750 far outnumbering anything even remotely similar anywhere else !
I think I hear tin foil rustling…
And the hummingbird was despoiled? Not.
Duh?? What you smokin’?
He is quoting their documnet you prat.
Thanks for the feedback Stephen. I shall cherish your most elegant opinion and endeavour to do better in future. Cheers.
So quoting the actual treaty is too crazy for you. I would suggest that being highly fact resistant is evidence of tinfoil abuse.
Hunter, be more nice to him… after all, it was hard for him to get his tinfoil hat on without hearing it rustle
😉
This is not the crazy of a few days ago.
This is looking at the costs of the new treaty being discussed. A real treaty quoted accurately and not picking to disbelieve the bits that don’t fit the paranoia. It’s not the crazy.
OK, it’s about trying to get rich rather than trying to rule the world but money does make the world go round. But that’s just the writer’s style.
That’s the problem with posting one mad story. All other stories are assumed to be delusions too.
No, the problem is that it is apparently ok to be hyperbolic here, but only if you appear to be on the correct team.
Christopher Paino
February 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm
The actual wording of a proposed treaty is quoted, and you think that is hyperbole?
The warming from the Little Ice Age has stopped, and now a 38% chance of an increase of a hundredth of a degree is trumpeted by politicians as being “the biggest threat facing human civilization” based on which this treaty is essential. And you call quoting the treaty ‘hyperbole’?
That rustling is your hat…
Try thinking about the total amount and bandwidth of electromagnetic waves filling the air from radio/TV/mobile services/satellites/etc. Maybe it’s not those vaccinations after all…. Probably all should be wearing metal hats (recommend aluminum sheet as it is cheapest).
Annex 1: That’s one hell of a naughty step.
Calculating per-capita CO2 emissions is a pretty poor method and is designed to punish highly developed and high-value power-intensive manufacturing
countriesparties with low populations.BTW, David, China is not just ‘in the east’; they are are all over Africa – and for those who like to bang on about Britain (and other European countries) having been a ‘bad’ colonial power, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
China has got it right with Africa. That “benighted continent” needs trade pure and simple, no strings attached, not the nauseating never-ending “aid” from the sanctimonious west which serves chattering-class egos not African economies.
Go China – we need to learn a big lesson from them in Africa, end our trade embargo on that continent (have the balls to tell the French farmers where to go) – and get over ourselves into the bargain.
Yep… Chinese companies couldn’t care less about whether they’re dealing with dictators or “freely-elected” despots in Africa…
The irony is that the more these Chinese companies help build industry and infra-structure in these developing countries, the economies improve and more people with money find it easier to replace scumbag despots with less tyrannical despots that will allow them to keep more of their stuff.
The new despots eventually learn that they get wealthier if they decide to steal less of more, and allow some free-market principles to be adopted….
I love the smell of irony in the morning…. It reminds me of…..victory.
Samuri; you might like to google De Souza and Tyranny. Insightful thoughts on cabals etc. Once the general benefits of economic growth change the payoff table, tyrannies implode.
I for one hope you are right but China is a prison Nation ruled by fear, non democratic. The most likely outcome is a continuation of current African corruption where China and the host Govt share the spoils.
Dr. Archibald. Thank you for the very fine and concise post. With regard to your statement
“So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process.”
We here at WUWT already knew that, but your posting certainly brings it into sharp focus.
Thanks
How about divestment of the U.N? The poster child for worthless bureaucratic behemoth. Nothing like backward assed third worlders in polyester suits trying to run the world. That thing needs to go away.
+1 That should be our end game. What started as a means to diplomatically sooth competing interests of nations morphed into a policy generating entity seeking world governance.
Logos– 20,000 years ago during the last glaciation, NYC was under 1 mile of ice…
Imagine, the UN building under 1 mile of ice…. Sweet!
Anyway, I agree with you. The US should get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US…
Why should the US pay money to and be involved with an organization whose long-term goal is the destruction of the US and the formation of a one-world dystopian government…
+1 from me, on getting out of the UN.
I think UN derailed when they let the NGOs and radical environmentalism in when establishing UNEP, UNFCCC and etc. The UN slogan now is “Stronger UN, better world” and the UN statement that the climate treaty means “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”, democracy end game, begs a national policy to make the life of the UN very different?
Politicians graduate from National politics to World politics at the UN. Once hard up for cash the money is now pouring into the UN via CO2 warming…..suspicious ?
a blizzard of cumbersome language.
but a thing of beauty if you wish to be able skew its “meaning” at a future date… it will mean whatever they want it to mean, since it doesn’t really say anything.
How did you plow through it MBK? Sheer gibberish.
Countries should be rewarded for increasing their CO2 emissions. There is no identified downside, and plenty of obvious benefits. No matter how much CO2 is emitted, it will still remain a tiny trace gas.
But really, CO2 is only the pretext.
+1
GAIA invented humans to combat CO2 suicide by stupid plants.
Plants cannot photosynthesize below 290ppp CO2 so if we were to lower it by 100ppm like the Greens propose we would be at 300ppm which is dangerously close to an end to all terrestrial life !
I swear, this reminds me so much of this 10 second Family Guy clip, it could have been written by their writers…
http://youtu.be/McKW5z3mNTQ (warning… the kids don’t know, but we do)
“Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions ….”
A simple per capita formula? So, in addition to being penalised for being productive, Northern countries (“the West”) will be further penalised for emmisions associated with keeping their homes warm and their populations alive during the winter months? Oh wait, I forgot, under the plan winter will be a thing of the past ….
Awww… 1985… those were the good old days when being a nerd was cool… and science was pure.
“Everyone wants to rule the world” is the terrific theme song for the greatest nerd flick of all time, 1985’s “Real Genius”, staring Val Kilmer. That movie made being a nerd popular.
1985 is also the year “Back to the Future”, another brainy-makes-good flick, came out. It’s great theme song, “Power of Love”, was sung by Huey Lewis. Lewis played a bit part in the movie as a pent-up teacher who rejected Marty McFly’s rock band from playing Lewis’s own song at the prom because, he said, “I’m afraid you are just to darned loud”.
Now all we got is science tainted and data manipulated to support a political agenda. Sad, isn’t it?
Now this is a subject, finally!
I’ve been on this bulls#%t for years, and i can tell you…. i know as much about this U.N garbage as Maurice Strong. So, let me get right to the meat and potatoes of how they accomplish this mission: Its called I.C.L.E.I. (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) some of you may have already known this, but figured, hey why not inform those who don’t.
Here in Canada, ICLEI works as a arm/branch of the U.N. and they work with local municipalities/cities (corporations) to help implement a so-called greener more “sustainable” long-term plan within the jurisdiction that the corporation (State,City or Municipality) operates within or covers. All of this is made possible under the guise of conservation and global warming/climate change. Most… if not all local conservation authorities, environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy of Canada and Nature Conservancy (U.S) are all working in concert to help implement this Agenda 21 type plan.
Catchy phrases or titles etc like A Sustainable King…or A greener tom’w. That’s all bull!!!. its all intended to depreciate land value, close roads and it actually gets people to believe that all this pseudo environmental crap applies to them and their property. Well, i got news for you- IT DOESN’T!
For any kind of conservation or encumbrance to take place, there has to be a contract with the property owner/holder. Easements etc go on title, but you first have to agree.
Any group that cries wolf in the name of conservation is simply trying to deceive you into giving up the right to your land. Its a lot more complex than what i just previously explained, but hopefully you get the gist of it.
This is how the U.N. are taking hold of this world, by legally seizing your property through coercion.
If you control the land you control the people.
Unfortunately our local governments just change the zoning to not allow things – like using your land. So you have the use rights removed. In effect there are few use rights left and legal title is a hollow shell as all one is left with is the requirement to pay government rates and taxes. For example, not allowed to collect dead and fallen timber for fire wood, not allowed to cut grass and vegetation, not allowed to take vehicles onto it, not allowed livestock on land without development permits. Unfortunately all this is already done without going near the legal title.
The Australian Federal government achieved their greenhouse and carbon targets and avoided paying billions in carbon reparations by getting the states (so the Federal Constitution was not directly contravened too blatantly-but it may be unconstitutional subject to a court case) to pass legislation confiscating the native vegetation on farming land – thus making it illegal for farmers to plough land, spray any native plant, cut native grasses – trees too of course but most people forget the legislation applies equally to grasses and shrubs. Basically, the UN has the benefit of vast slabs, probably more than half, the area of rural land in Australia, to their agenda.
And these naive folk think we have tin hats on? It has already happened!
“It is worse than we thought!!”
Whenever you pay government rates and taxes you’re NOT the owner. I bet the UN (like the church) is not paying taxes for the land it owns.
Not dissimilar to how the EPA limits land usage in the USA with wetlands regulations.
Republicans in the US Congress need to cut the US contribution to UN funding. $0 sounds like a fair amount, does it not?
Beside cost savings, that will give have additional benefits: less global damage from ill-conceived programs, more people working on productive efforts, and increased living standards for all.
The UN clearly has no ability to affect the number and intensity of world, regional or local conflicts, and may increases them, (perhaps inadvertently).
And the UN certainly will increase political conflicts, waste and economic disasters with these type of policies.
And the best way to do that is to write your congressman, US. Senator, Mitch McConnell (Senate Majority Leader) and John Boehner (Speaker, House of Representatives). Just do an Internet search and it will link you to their websites where there is a place to submit you comments. They are read and some will generate a response.
Agreed, but are we not coming full circle? The original Climate “strategy” was a result of GLOBALISTS (Club of Rome) advocates who kept striking out when trying to advance measures against their elitist academic fears of overpopulation and resource depletions (and we know the “gurus” who provided the “science” to convince them they HAD to act – can you say Paul and Anna Ehrlich and their protege John Holdren? Not to mention Carl Sagen.) The group’s name comes from John Rockefeller’s estate near Rome. (Subsequent members include Presidents from Carter to Bush Sr, and of course Euro Socialists and 3rd world dictators.) When polling showed that “global warming” struck fear in the population Maurice Strong was off and running and of course got the gullible and receptive UN leaders to take up the banner.
The whole situation is “begging the question”.
Are we not battling the lack of intelligence among the the world’s richest and also the most powerful politically elite?
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/munzen.html Give some explaination?
The globalists will have their Utopia nothing can stop that now. The question is how long will it last before collapse?
I give it three years from the point of global citizen/bank account signup.
These people are the biggest danger facing mankind. Not ISIS not Russia not global warming; it is these green terrorists that will do us in. I am 95% certain of that. Probably as significant as anything these climate fraudsters will ever say.
And 97% of informed people agree with you! (If they don’t, then they are not informed.) ;< )
So much hot summer air pontificated out.
All blown away diminished null:
LENR comes on line gone.
As you can see there is NO Conspiracy ie “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
They are completely open about it, world domination, or as they like to call it governance.
maybe some of the details are more secret than others though.
There is a fascinating juxtaposition between the willingness to violate laws intended to protect the environment (the Nazca Lines) and the expectation that the whole rest of the world should honor the NEW laws they seek to impose on us – ‘to protect the environment’.
If it were merely about CO2, the treaty would be simple. The activists know this
Since it is about ideological values and the redress of perceived historical wrongs, “success” this year in Paris is not important. The ending of capitalism and the end of the improvement of individual lives through consumption of goods, services and the energy that those require, can be achieved at 500 ppm as well as at 350. The eco-green struggle for CO2 reduction is classic bait-and-switch.
We are in the midst of an economic, asymmetric war. The less developed cannot compete with the developed for cultural, not historical reasons. Individualism and democratic capitalist principles take the group further than sectarian ideologies and tribal sel-interesrd.
The battles in this war must be, for the less developed, ones of word rather than of deed. India and China won’t reduce their CO2 emissions, and have said so. But by saying the emissions “must” come down, they win the word-war. In this way the eco-green becomes a fifth columnist working from the inside without seeing what “victory” entails. He is Stalin’s “useful idiot”, promoting an outcome he doesn’t understand or even want.
For all the sensitive socialist feelings of the eco-green green, he is playing to the elites of the world. The end result will not be the empowerment of the poor but the further entrenchment of the rich and powerful. Improvements at the bottom will be collateral to the improvements at the top and at the expense of the middle.
Al Gore and Robert Kennedy will not lose their mansions in the country, but the bearded Birkenstocker will be bicycling to Walmart. And somehow he will cheer when a Gore or Kennedy says “they” have won.
Conviction, not truth, is the currency of our times.
hops://tallbloke.wordpress.com/suggestions-9/
With ISIS carving up Lybia and establishing a nation state just across the Mediterranean from Italy, Boko Haram carving up Nigeria and creating a nation state in the African heartland, China building islands to claim territory and mineral rights in the South China Sea, and Putin scrambling to reestablish alliances with North Korea, Cuba, m’thinks the remaining world community will need a strong United States of America, Australia, and Great Britain in the near future….. and they won’t give a damn about how much CO2 gets emitted (again) in the process of saving their sorry arses from the wannabe world dictators.
Why do they need to go back to 1750 when the bulk of CO2 emissions have occurred since 1950?
Perhaps because, expressed as emissions /capita, those early emissions can weight the total against the “developed” nations. This is to obfuscate that it is ONLY through the fruits of the industrial revolution, which replaced manual/slave labour with fossil fuel derived energy, that the populations of the “developing” world were able to expand to their present extent and it is only fossil fuel which renders these population levels sustainable. That is possibly the underlying motivation for the “green” imperative – the reduction of the population , targeted at the third world.
The “developing nations” are, of course, well aware of this and the consequences are shown in this post – that the “developed world” must immolate itself so that the others can survive.
When considering the contradictions and impossible demands in this “negotiating text” you can see that the inevitable compromises are going to render the concluding “agreement” will have even less meaning and consequence than those that have proceeded it. The global warming narrative
is sinking fast into the mire. This is the Last Hurrah. World domination my arse. Look at Iraq, Syria, Libya and all the other regions fast deteriorating into anarchy. How will they “dominate” that.
To circumvent the constitution of the USA one of the clearest documents ever put together by a group of very diverse clear thinking humans. ( and I am not sure if there were any Big Oil companies around)
At the risk of being too political here is verse 25 of the Impeachment song: (As if sung by President Obama)
Climate change our biggest threat,
If worse, I will break out a sweat.
Global Governance, you bet!
My war on King Coal not over yet.
(The whole song: ( http://lenbilen.com/2015/02/18/verse-25-of-the-impeachment-song-climate-change-and-the-end-of-capitalism/ )
“perhaps the US Congress will keep us free”
Picking myself up off the floor, I wouldn’t count on it. The PNAC, Neoliberals, Neoconservatives, Neocolonialists neo-whatever da’s have near the entire globe wanting free of us.
Brilliant analyses of Minsk agreement, by intl’ criminal lawyer Christopher Black
http://journal-neo.org/
http://andrevltchek.weebly.com/
Putting the Dollar in Jeopardy
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/01/putting-the-dollar-in-jeopardy/
The Global De-dollarization and the US Policies
http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/02/rus-dedollarizatsiya-i-ssha/
That’s why there is such an effort to enact strict gun control in the U .S.
First they take your money,
then they take your guns,
then they take your freedom.
and then they take your life.
Hey UN, go screw yourselves!!😒
Ukraine….?
” Russia chewing up the Ukraine” ??? WTF? Russia overthrew the democratically elected government? The one that signed a sweetheart deal with Russia instead of taking the EU’s table scraps? Really? You can’t be serious.
No that one lies at the doorstep of the USA. The EU had an agreement with all the parties to settle the situation but your assistant secretary of state said “F* the EU”.
You can make all the excuses you want to overthrow dictators but when you do it to a democratically elected government it shows your true colors. Quit drinking the koolaid.
The Ukraine was molested into giving up their nukes under the promise that Europe and the U.S. would protect them from Russia. How’d that work out?
Tom in FL,
Exactly right, and there is a painful lesson in that.
Ukraine was pestered until they handed over the 200 nuclear weapons that they inherited after the old Soviet Union imploded. If they had kept those nukes, Putin would not have dared to molest them.
Other countries should not trust the U.S., not because America is a double-crosser or dishonest. But every 4 years there can be big political changes, and unless there is a treaty that we are bound to uphold protecting small countries like that, what seemed like a good idea at the time turned into a giant blunder.
It’s like your neighbor convincing you to give up your shotgun. Then when you are unarmed, he sells his house and moves. A new neighbor comes along with kids who are gang bangers. Then if your your house is invaded and your wife and daughters are raped, you will wish you had that shotgun back.
This isn’t 1946, where no one dared to mess around with U.S. allies. It’s a different world out there. Russia is engaging in its old shenanigans again, and people are belatedly realizing that the old KGB never went away, it just changed its name to the FSB. But the playas are still the same.
Bush I did at least carry through on the not-quite-a-secret confiscation of the USSR nuclear n=bombs, and their conversion to US power plant fuel rods. Fortunately, Clinton failed to stop this program – or at least, was not told about it so he could stop it. Anyway, Russia nuclear bombs did fuel US reactors, but that gave the democrat administration the excuse to stop U238/Pu239 enrichment here! Carter had long time previous stopped US burner program, which would provide a near-infinite power supply.
Let’s not forget this gem. It all makes sense now.
dbstealey February 18, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Tom in FL,
Exactly right, and there is a painful lesson in that.
———————————–
Yeah!
You’d have to be really, really stupid to believe anything Obama says.
Just ask Goober. He knows about lying.
The town that was just recently Liberated by the Rebels in the Ukraine seemed quite happy for the rebels to take over from Kiev.Why is that so?
What happens if you haven’t existed as a country since 1750?
How do they deal with countries who’s borders have changed since 1750?