The World Hopes for Its First President

[SkepticLance]

Hey guys.

I carefully used the term 'cooperative'. That is NOT world government. I am not pushing for world government. Just a world in which various nations work together. Cooperate. Get it?

 

And a refusal to cooperate is not freedom. It is bloody mindedness. Something like agreeing to restrict land mines is not an attack on American sovereignty. It is plain good sense. And saves thousands from death and maiming.

[Mr Skeptic]

Freedom includes the freedom to not cooperate, and also the freedom to do stupid things. That's what's so annoying about freedom.

[jackson33]

To jackson

 

The fact that the US fails to conform to many international laws and treaties is a very sore point to non Americans. Outside the US, we see this as another example of the unbelievable arrogance of the US administration.

 

For example : land mines are a dreadful weapon which kills and maims thousands of innocents around the world each year. There is a comprehensive land mine ban to which all civilized nations have signed. The conspicuous absense is the USA. Is this because the US military wants to continue to use this dreadful and indescriminate weapon and continue to kill and maim innocents each year? Is it because they are arrogant and callous? Is it some kind of ridiculous gesture towards independent choice of action? In any event, it is reprehensible that the world's largest military power refuses to sign that treaty.

 

The world, like it or not, is shrinking. Because of instantaneous communication, and rapid transport, no nation is an island any more. Trade and trans-cultural influences bring us all closer. We all have to work together and try to form a harmonious world cooperative. Nations that refuse to cooperate are a pain in the arse!

 

Why the CLINTON administration didn't get the treaty signed by the US Congress in 1997 is not the issue. (Dig at GWB unwarranted!!!). Princess Dianna or a multitude of publicity around this issue, was in fact a premise on how to conduct WAR, I assume the US Military with some strange concept of protecting their troops decided against. I do know the US is actively involved in removal of mines around the world, most of which were placed by other than the US and dating back to WWII. I won't bore you with how such a law could be enforced or prosecuted, other than to the victor...

 

My post, was pointed at 'Common Interest' of all Nations, where laws can be enforced. Diplomatic immunity, for instance is a law the US abides by to protect National Interest, whether friendly or not. What goes into space or placed on the Moon, for instance involve all countries whether they ever get into space or the moon. Trade agreements or treaties among two or more Nations can be interpreted by international courts. There are many areas where the United Nations and/or world courts can be useful. What needs to be understood is that added jurisdiction will lead to further jurisdiction, eventually over ridding some National Laws. I don't want US Laws practiced anyplace, they are not wanted and I darn well don't want laws in many Muslims States practiced in the US. I have four grown daughters....

 

I also tried to show the comparison of the US and our Union of 50 sovereign States and the real differences between all of them to the differences of the 200 Nations on this planet. Were now a rather docile Republic compared to what has been, yet have maintained that sovereignty. Were 200+ years from this being anything close to an international comparison, regardless of international interactivity...

[SkepticLance]

Imagine you were living in a street that was afflicted with large amounts of rubbish, and other eyesores and sources of disease, such as mosquito infested pools of water. Imagine that the neighbours got together to carry out a clean up. Imagine that one such neighbour refused to cooperate, and even refused to let anyone onto his property to spray his own infested ponds. Now think how you would feel about that person.

 

That neighbour might be exercising freedom. He might be within his legal rights. He will still be seen as antisocial. When the USA refuses to go along with necessary international duties, this is how we feel about the US administration.

 

I am not anti-American. I have American neighbours and they are lovely people and good friends. I love much of what makes up American culture, and certainly American science. But I am not blind to certain aspects of the government of the USA and their approach to the rest of the world. Because the USA is so powerful, what they decide to do matters. It matters very much. And when they fail to be a good international neighbour, everyone suffers. That is the reason why the rest of the world follows the US presidential elections. That is why we are concerned.

[ecoli]

Imagine you were living in a street that was afflicted with large amounts of rubbish, and other eyesores and sources of disease, such as mosquito infested pools of water. Imagine that the neighbours got together to carry out a clean up. Imagine that one such neighbour refused to cooperate, and even refused to let anyone onto his property to spray his own infested ponds. Now think how you would feel about that person.

 

This analogy isn't applicable in probably 90% of all cases though.

 

but just to play along... what if by cleaning up percieved rubbish you're destroying the natural habitat of wildlife? What if your taking jobs away from others by doing for free what others used to collect a wage for? What if you think its necesary to use deadly, toxic chemicals to clean the neighborhood? What if the commitee used to organize the street cleaners begin to enact other rules that aren't actually necesary to build a functional society, but a few take advantage to build power for themselves?

 

Unintended consequences bite.

[SkepticLance]

ecoli

You push analogy beyond what is intended. I am sure you get the point, anyway.

 

The thing is that nations are like neighbours. Everything works better when they cooperate. Things are less pleasant, or even nasty, when they do not.

[ecoli]

ecoli

You push analogy beyond what is intended. I am sure you get the point, anyway.

 

The thing is that nations are like neighbours. Everything works better when they cooperate. Things are less pleasant, or even nasty, when they do not.

Sure. And it's easy for us to cooperate with nations we consider our equals. We have our differences with other western nations, but trade mostly goes both ways and conflicts are generally settled peacefully.

 

My problem is not with international cooperation, but with international law supposedly for the common good, but which really protects the interests of the leaders of the more powerful nations.

 

I'm not taking about international treaties which establish general guidelines for warefare, the treatment of POWs, etc. These are generally benign, I think.

 

However, when international law intrudes on national law, I tend to have a problem. I think the UN is a great platform for international discussion, but I don't think international legislation is necessary for the smooth cooperation to resolve international problems.

[Pangloss]

Hey guys.

I carefully used the term 'cooperative'. That is NOT world government. I am not pushing for world government. Just a world in which various nations work together. Cooperate. Get it?

 

And a refusal to cooperate is not freedom. It is bloody mindedness. Something like agreeing to restrict land mines is not an attack on American sovereignty. It is plain good sense. And saves thousands from death and maiming.

 

You know, you say that, but then something like Kyoto comes up, which WOULD have passed had the United States lead the way in accepting it, and yet which in hindsight everyone seems to agree was a bad idea.

 

Just because everyone wants you to do something doesn't make it a good idea. But that's what you mean when you say we refuse to "cooperate". I don't think you're anti-American and I think Americans and our leaders need to be more open-minded and worldly aware. But meeting you halfway doesn't mean doing what we're told.

[jackson33]

Skeptic; What you picture is what many people do with their neighbor today. Of course you know there are many broken laws (community/city) in your scenario, but getting past that all people have different ideas what is acceptable/unacceptable behavior.

 

Sticking to my point of a diversified, complex, multi cultural group of States conforming to laws on a National basis considered in the 'Interest' of all States, that difference in your scenario already exist. People in Small Town' Nebraska, traveling through nearly any US urban area, would think the same of many communities as I would that one neighbor.

As I mentioned, my opinions of how women or little girls are treated in many places is deplorable but understandable with a little study/interest in their culture. It would not or should it be acceptable to the urban folks or cultural difference, for me to impose my standards on them or that they try and impose theirs on me.

 

Again you mention an administration, knowing your own issue (land mines) was from the previous. Has it occurred to you that the actions/inaction of any administration can in part be from the previous or from those well into the past or even from other than the Executive. We virtually can change governments with in any one, doing just that in 2006, 2004 and 2002. The first attack on even the Twin Towers, happened in 1993 and the decision of government was to treat as a law enforcement problem. I don't blame Clinton and understand he had to submit to the Democratic Congress and the public sentiment of the times.

 

My first comment on this thread, complimented the interest in our election. I do feel the interest is based on the historic value, possibly to some degree on GWB and what I feel is a world wide effort to sell papers or keep ratings up. If Obama does take office in January, your going to be sadly disappointed, as will be many Americans. He will raise taxes on every one, offering only token deduction to a limited few. I don't think he will leave Iraq taking the defeat, but if he did or somehow lets up on keeping order in the Middle East, oil flows will be disrupted and he will be tested by interested parties from several direction. He will raise the other taxes (SS/Capital Gains), yet increase public spending toward his base and obvious voting block and will not need to reach across any isle. Investment that have already stopped will remain stopped, international trade discouraged and trade agreement worth nothing. The very people in the world he wants to help, will be hurt the most. I see nothing good about any of it and fear what I can imagine. To be fair, not a whole lot would be different under McCain. He will maintain a certain portion of the status quo, will leave the Bush Tax Cut alone, but slowly turn the country to the right. He may be doing nothing more than prolonging obvious problems, since IMO the electorate as already turned well right of center...

[JohnB]

Yes, we watch. If the POTUS screws your economy, the fallout is worldwide.

 

And if he really screws up militarily, the fallout is also worldwide. Don't you think the rest of us might have a passing interest in the person you lot hand the big, red button to?

[ParanoiA]

Here are the top 3 issues playing into my "we're one planet" concept:

 

• Global Warming
  
• Human population growth
  
• Carl Sagan
  

 

 

But wait, none of these require interventionism. Cooperation? Yes. But not interference. Interference carries the baggage of implied eventual force.

 

The outdated concept that Americans can't seem to shake is the false obligation that we have a duty to choose a side and bomb the other in any conflict that we have an interest in. And with, 144 military bases I think ecoli reported, and trade with over half the planet we cherry pick our battles enough that we become a de facto world police power, but not enough to be even handed about it - which is why we haven't "solved" Myanmar like we "solved" Iraq.

 

There's a huge difference between interventionism and isolationism.

 

Now, about this one world thing...

 

As you know, humans "group" themselves, in hundreds of ways. We are designed for grouping and competition. Have you thought about how this benefits the human race in the face of the costs? Will a one world pysche still provide the necessary structural adversity for humans to compete and advance?