From heros to zeros!

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by kbilik
This is the main problem. The US government feels that certain UN rules or global treaties (Kyoto being one) that deal with \"foreign matters\" interfere with domestic policy. Kyoto for example will force US industry to cut back on production in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I understand that, only its not just kyoto its a whole list of these sort of global treaties signed by many countries and not by the usa. And above that the start of a war by the usa a large part of the world disagrees with. Especially since Bush became president this is the foreign policy.

Then again, it is hypocritical for the US to have that view and want regime change or influence other countries. I can see why some people hate US policies because they seem hypocritical.

If the usa doesn\'t allow influence whatsoever in their country by other nations then yes that would be hypocritical, but thats not the case i think. Every country gets influence from other nations and also influences other nations.

But the line must be drawn somewhere on how much influence global and often biased (or used as tools by the majority) organizations like the UN have. This is where the argument arises between people who are isolationist (or unilateralists) and those that want more global dialogue.

So basically three viewpoints:
1. The unilateralists see the UN as a bloated, biased, bureaucracy which takes too long to get anything done or is too biased to do it correctly.

2. The moderates, who want some dialogue but want to draw the line somewhere.

3. The pro-UN people who see unilateralism as foolish, misguided, dangerous, and rash.

Naturally a the global influence should be limited. Thats the same case as a state in the usa and a country in the EU, both have two opposite concerns between cooperation and not being controlled.
As in most cases the moderates are probably right.

[kbilik]

Originally posted by TheTaintedSoul
I understand that, only its not just kyoto its a whole list of these sort of global treaties signed by many countries and not by the usa. And above that the start of a war by the usa a large part of the world disagrees with. Especially since Bush became president this is the foreign policy.

That is understandable (that many other countries have signed on), but this does not mean it is acceptable to the US. Each country is unique and has its own economic forecasts and problems. That is the problem with wide ranging treaties like these. If I\'m not mistaken, certain countries with already low CO2 emissions will not have to make any kind of sacrifice economically for Kyoto to work - so of course they\'ll sign to gain prestige if nothing else.

Naturally a the global influence should be limited. Thats the same case as a state in the usa and a country in the EU, both have two opposite concerns between cooperation and not being controlled.
As in most cases the moderates are probably right.

I agree with the moderate position as well.

BTW a few updates. The 9/11 inquiry found that there is no evidence that Al-Quida was supported by Iraq in the 9/11 attack.

However, President Putin of Russia (who was against the war) passed intel to the Bush administration telling them that Iraq planned terrorist attacks on US soil (Possibly without Al-Queda aid) even before the invasion of Iraq started in 2003.

Here\'s the link to the Putin article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3819057.stm

And the 9/11 inquiry: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816021.stm

[TheTaintedSoul]

Originally posted by kbilik
That is understandable (that many other countries have signed on), but this does not mean it is acceptable to the US. Each country is unique and has its own economic forecasts and problems. That is the problem with wide ranging treaties like these.

Are you talking about treatys in general here or about kyoto? Anyway, countries also have a lot in common, any developed countrie trying to bring down its CO2 output for instance will suffer economically. Many countries accept the offer they have to make to work together worldwide. The usa is not so unique to have better reasons not to cooperate.
Since it was in the news again, here is another example:
The usa didn\'t want to sign the International Court of Justice (IJC) afraid their soldiers might become a target. Since no exception was made to american soldiers a law has been made in the usa. It authorizes the president to use force to free the soldiers when hold in the hague.
It is not just not signing treatys it is breaking them that matters the most. When you live in a village you don\'t do everything the way you like and expect the rest to accept that? The world is much the same, a global village of nations.

BTW a few updates. The 9/11 inquiry found that there is no evidence that Al-Quida was supported by Iraq in the 9/11 attack.

If evidence would have been found i had been really surprised. Connecting Al-Quida with Iraq was usefull to add to the list of reasons to invade but not that realistic.

However, President Putin of Russia (who was against the war) passed intel to the Bush administration telling them that Iraq planned terrorist attacks on US soil (Possibly without Al-Queda aid) even before the invasion of Iraq started in 2003.

Though i dislike and distrust Putin this does surprise me. To be honest i haven\'t seen it in the news (i only read the newspaper lately) here. This raises many questions too say the least.

[kbilik]

Another update:
Iraqi officer in Al-Queda, papers show

By Guy Taylor
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


A senior officer in Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein\'s security services was a member of the terrorist group that committed the September 11 attacks, a member of the commission investigating the suicide hijackings said yesterday.
    \"There is at least one officer of Saddam\'s Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda,\" said September 11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman.
 
    Although he stressed that the intelligence \"still has to be confirmed,\" Mr. Lehman told NBC\'s \"Meet the Press\" that the information came from \"captured documents\" shown to the panel after the September 11 commission\'s staff report had been written.
    The report, which received heavy news coverage when it was released last week, maintained that Osama bin Laden\'s al Qaeda network had ties with Iraq, but did \"not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.\"

Are you talking about treatys in general here or about kyoto? Anyway, countries also have a lot in common, any developed countrie trying to bring down its CO2 output for instance will suffer economically. Many countries accept the offer they have to make to work together worldwide. The usa is not so unique to have better reasons not to cooperate.
Since it was in the news again, here is another example:
The usa didn\'t want to sign the International Court of Justice (IJC) afraid their soldiers might become a target. Since no exception was made to american soldiers a law has been made in the usa. It authorizes the president to use force to free the soldiers when hold in the hague.
It is not just not signing treatys it is breaking them that matters the most. When you live in a village you don\'t do everything the way you like and expect the rest to accept that? The world is much the same, a global village of nations.

I\'m talking about treaties in general here. I was making the point that under Kyoto, some countries do not have ANY obligations to lower their output since it is deemed low enough under the treaty (read somewhere that Japan for instance would be obliged to lower emissions by 0%). So no, this does not seem fair in the least.

Brings back my other point that a global treaty runs into problems with generalizing and making it worse for others while giving advantages to some.

BTW, about the IJC- if you do not sign the treaty, then you cannot break it. On the other hand, Iraq did sign various UN charters and mandates but did not abide by them. This is not rare (other countries do it all the time), but under the circumstances it is clear why the US saw Iraq as a threat (look at all the recent news about threats and intel before the invasion).

[derwoodly]

Tainted,

I am still reading this post with intrest.

Its good to know you don\'t hate the USA, but I am not making any travel plans outside of the USA.

[ edit 6/25: looks like the tread is dead now, BTW I even though the world does not see the US as heros I believe time will prove otherwise ]

[kbilik]

Another update. Ever wonder why you don\'t hear as much about the cleric al-Sadr in the news anymore?

Army unit claims victory over Sheik:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040622-113720-3352r.htm

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Army\'s powerful 1st Armored Division is proclaiming victory over Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr\'s marauding militia that just a month ago seemed on the verge of conquering southern Iraq.
    The Germany-based division defeated the militia with a mix of American firepower and money paid to informants. Officers today say \"Operation Iron Saber\" will go down in military history books as one of the most important battles in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

...

Once he had targets, Gen. Dempsey could then map a battle plan for entering four key cities ? Karbala, Najaf, Kufa and Diwaniyah. This would be a counterinsurgency fought with 70-ton M-1 Abrams tanks and aerial gunships overhead. It would not be the lightning movements of clandestine commandos, but rather all the brute force the Army could muster, directed at narrowly defined targets.
    Last week, Sheik al-Sadr surrendered. He called on what was left of his men to cease operations and said he may one day seek public office in a democratic Iraq.
    Gen. Hertling said Mahdi\'s Army is defeated, according the Army\'s doctrinal definition of defeat. A few stragglers might be able to fire a rocket-propelled grenade, he said, but noted: \"Do they have the capability of launching any kind of offensive operation? Absolutely not.\"
    The division estimates it killed at least several thousand militia members.

 

Although this is a good development for the coalition forces, it certainly doesn\'t eliminate the threat they are facing. But the more stability in that war torn country, the better.

[TheTaintedSoul]

Ill stop discussing this matter, im getting bored  and said most of what i wanted to. I can\'t really say i changed my opinion much, but i did enjoy the discussion. And it was interesting to learn about the ideas and opinions here others had.

I hope to see you all some day ingame and perhaps talk about PS politics

So this is my last response:
 

Originally posted by kbilik
Another update:
Iraqi officer in Al-Queda, papers show

If this is true that would be a good support to the warcause. Still id like to wait and see if this is correct. Seems too much like a political damage control after the to Bush bad report.

I\'m talking about treaties in general here. I was making the point that under Kyoto, some countries do not have ANY obligations to lower their output since it is deemed low enough under the treaty (read somewhere that Japan for instance would be obliged to lower emissions by 0%). So no, this does not seem fair in the least.
Brings back my other point that a global treaty runs into problems with generalizing and making it worse for others while giving advantages to some.

Emission might be lower in some countries since they already control it despite economy. And yes some will have to cut down more then others. If that enough countries do that (disadvantaging themself) others have little excuse not to.
With kyoto btw, the usa wanted African countries to sign it as well, meaning that nations that have very little should cut down on economy...

BTW, about the IJC- if you do not sign the treaty, then you cannot break it. On the other hand, Iraq did sign various UN charters and mandates but did not abide by them.

Other treaties were broken. Im not really sure but i believe nuclear missile control treaty was broken.

About a stable Iraq, well we can all agree that thats important. To me more because of the iraqis then soldiers, but every dead person is one to many.

Derwoodly, why don\'t you want to travel outside the usa? Afraid you\'ll be pointed after as america?
Well to be honest i won\'t leave europe as well, for now, im really a home keeping guy actually. Far countries don\'t appeal much to me. hm I really need the vacation to Italy, ive planned
Oh and i think no country wil ever be seen as heros.

To conclude positively: The usa have withdrawn the un resolution to grant them immunity to the ICC/IJC? There was to little support this year.
Hopefully the Hague Invasion Act won\'t be withdraw. American soldiers landing on the beach while im on it, would be a great free show. Please bring some choppers

And despite of differences the USA and Europe need each other more then ever. Maybe the strength lies not in the way of the US or Europe but in the combination. That the USA has the will and power to force nations while Europe tempers this and encourages talks.

Together it could be a well balanced stimulus to make the world more democratic, free of oppresion, safe and equal.