What will Kerry do for us?

[atinymonkey]

I think the worst part about Kerry is that the control of our country will be controled more by people not part of our country, like the UN. I don't want to give away control to the country to some organization.

 

 

In what possible way can that be regarded as true?

[Mad Mardigan]

Reagan took office in January of 1981. John Wayne died in June of 1979. Spooky.

 

It was a figure of speech, He was a take no bullshit kind of guy.

[Phi for All]

In what possible way can that be regarded as true?

In the "If-I-have-to-listen-to-anybody-else-I-don't-wanna-do-it", kindergarten sort of way. AKA the "Consensus is bad" way.

[john5746]

I think the worst part about Kerry is that the control of our country will be controled more by people not part of our country, like the UN. I don't want to give away control to the country to some organization.

 

1) This issue comes up with regards to the control of OTHER countries.

 

2) Kerry brings this up in regards to pre-emptive strikes, which means we have not been attacked. He simply says we need to have better proof than we did when invading Iraq. After all, the US was WRONG this time.

 

We need a more thoughtful and patient person as President. Everyone has agreed that the terrorists must be eliminated. With regards to other issues, we need to work with others to resolve the issues.

[bloodhound]

I think the worst part about Kerry is that the control of our country will be controled more by people not part of our country, like the UN. I don't want to give away control to the country to some organization.

what i dont get is if the americans are so anti-UN then why in the bloody hell is USA still a member of the security council. they should just pull out. everyone complains how useless UN is, while forgetting that their country is itself a part of UN.

[Pangloss]

what i dont get is if the americans are so anti-UN then why in the bloody hell is USA still a member of the security council. they should just pull out. everyone complains how useless UN is, while forgetting that their country is itself a part of UN.

 

If the US pulled out of the UN it would have a hard time continuing to exist. They spend about $3 billion per year on their regular budget, and about $2-3 billion more on peacekeeping. Out of which the US contributes about $3 billion.

 

If the US were to pull out, *your* side of the debate would be screaming bloody murder. The U.N.'s failure would be blamed on -- you guessed it -- the United States.

 

So the answer to your question is that pulling out wouldn't get us anything. We'd still have the same basic problem -- getting blamed for stuff that isn't our fault.

 

By the way, what you actually said was "pull out of the security council". That would be an even more pointless course of action, gaining us nothing *and* making things worse.

 

Libya's demanding a permanent seat on the Security Council. Would you like them to have it?

[blike]

He simply says we need to have better proof than we did when invading Iraq.

It was enough for him at the time.

 

what i dont get is if the americans are so anti-UN then why in the bloody hell is USA still a member of the security council. they should just pull out. everyone complains how useless UN is, while forgetting that their country is itself a part of UN.

It seems to be mostly a formality; it's obvious we don't shape our policy according to the UN all the time.

[Sayonara]

Are you sure it's not just because the USA likes to be the country that stands alone, and going with the flow in an organisation called the "United Nations" detracts from that image?

 

[budullewraagh]

It was enough for him at the time.

THAT'S whats so scary about him

It seems to be mostly a formality; it's obvious we don't shape our policy according to the UN all the time.

the un acts more in the will of the world than the us. we have a responsibility to struggle for a better world

[bloodhound]

If the US pulled out of the UN it would have a hard time continuing to exist. They spend about $3 billion per year on their regular budget' date=' and about $2-3 billion more on peacekeeping. Out of which the US contributes about $3 billion.

 

If the US were to pull out, *your* side of the debate would be screaming bloody murder. The U.N.'s failure would be blamed on -- you guessed it -- the United States.

 

So the answer to your question is that pulling out wouldn't get us anything. We'd still have the same basic problem -- getting blamed for stuff that isn't our fault.

 

By the way, what you actually said was "pull out of the security council". That would be an even more pointless course of action, gaining us nothing *and* making things worse.

 

Libya's demanding a permanent seat on the Security Council. Would you like them to have it?[/quote']

UN is dead as so far as i am concerened. It was weak before the war. Bushes "multilateral" action in iraq has sealed its fate.

[Pangloss]

Is it possible that the US might not be the only power responsible for its weakness?

[bloodhound]

I never said that US contributed to UN's weakness. The war in Iraq just highlighted the incapacity of UN to do any work. either to join the war, or to restrain US led "multinational" forces.

 

Like I said, the iraq war also shows that the UN policy of containment of saddam hussien, using sanctions were working. (i am not justifying it)

[Sayonara]

Is it possible that the US might not be the only power responsible for its weakness?

That was more than implied in what Bloodhound actually said.

[Pangloss]

I think Bloodhound is capable of defending himself.

 

The war in Iraq just highlighted the incapacity of UN to do any work. either to join the war, or to restrain US led "multinational" forces.

Like I said, the iraq war also shows that the UN policy of containment of saddam hussien, using sanctions were working. (i am not justifying it)

 

On these points you and I agree, and it's a big part of why I think the war in Iraq was a huge mistake.

 

It's not criticism of the US that I object to. It's when people oppose anything the US stands for or does, no matter what it is, *because* the US did it or said it. If that's not the opinion of anyone here, fine, I'm glad to hear it.

[Sayonara]

I think Bloodhound is capable of defending himself.

He doesn't need to defend himself against that comment because you were straw manning him. Highlighting this is actually part of my mandate as a member of staff.

 

 

It's not criticism of the US that I object to. It's when people oppose anything the US stands for or does, no matter what it is, *because* the US did it or said it. If that's not the opinion of anyone here, fine, I'm glad to hear it.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people here share that sentiment (and probably at which people too). Perhaps if you are always expecting to find a thing wherever you look, you always will.

[bloodhound]

It's not criticism of the US that I object to. It's when people oppose anything the US stands for or does' date=' no matter what it is, *because* the US did it or said it. If that's not the opinion of anyone here, fine, I'm glad to hear it.[/quote']

I would like you to list some examples pls, and then we could argue over policy differences.

 

so what are the things that most pple critisise US of:

 

not keeping Greenhouse gases under check?

Breaking WTO trace rules on various times forcing retaliatory sanctions?

undying support of Israels policy no matter what they do?

[Phi for All]

If the US wants to keep leading the world, we need to go back to the idea of leading by example. During the Cold War, I think one of the reasons we were looked up to was because we opposed communism, which was supposed to revere the worker, with a capitalism that actually did revere the worker. We were strong because business relied on happy, healthy, prosperous employees, and I think business has forgotten that. Today's US worker lives in fear of speaking out against poor conditions and unfair practices. In an effort to cut costs (more often than not to pay for upper management bonuses), many businesses are cutting out some of the simple things, like coffee and water coolers, that may seem to waste time but actually make the job a lot more bearable.

 

On the flip side, employers have to contend with employees who have a spreadsheet open on one screen, while looking for a better job on Monster.com on another. It's not a one-way street.

 

If you don't lead by example, you have to fall back on "might makes right", and I don't blame the rest of the world for resenting that approach. If China were to suddenly become the economic superpower we know they are capable of being, and were to expect the US to follow their "might", we'd be the first to cry foul. I love this country but we've got to do some major overhauls. This isn't the same world it was thirty years ago.

[Skye]

I guess the question then, in light of the thread title, is whether Kerry is likely to embark on that course.

[Pangloss]

I agree with Phi's post above. I can certainly understand why Europeans are so upset with the US. The devil, unfortunately, is in the details. What I object to are generalizations about Americans bringing this all on themselves, and causing all the world's ills. You bet we've caused some of these problems. I'm responsible. Me. Personally.

 

So are *all* of *you*.

 

For not asking enough of the right questions, for not holding politicians accountable, for not paying attention to who is being elected, what their policies are, and what they intend to do. We all share blame here. Getting ugly and pointing at Americans isn't going to solve *anything*.

 

In response to Bloodhound's questions:

not keeping Greenhouse gases under check?

Breaking WTO trace rules on various times forcing retaliatory sanctions?

undying support of Israels policy no matter what they do?

 

I agree that the US should have signed the Kyoto accords, even if they were unfair to the US (and I'm not convinced that they were). So you won't find any argument from me there. It's part of why I agree with Phi's statement above.

 

I also agree that we shouldn't be breaking WTO rules, even if other countries we're dealing with have done so. Unfortunately for the US, the political reality is that we're on a pedestal and we're pretty much everybody's whipping boy for the time being. So the only way to really make progress here is, again, as Phi said, to lead by example.

 

As for the last statement, what would you have us do? Not only is America one of their few allies, but European nations often (if unintentionally) support Arab nations and their anti-Israel policies (as do flawed American approaches, such as with Saddam Hussein, who started as our ally and turned into our enemy).

 

My point is that the rest of the world has no moral high ground to lord over Americans. Complain and criticize, sure. But let's drop the crass overgeneralizations that aren't supported by history. They're not getting us anywhere.

[bloodhound]

 

even if other countries we're dealing with have done so. Unfortunately for the US' date=' [/quote']

Can you give us articles to verify that claim please. It was infact, US who started the trade war with EU with its illegal (WTO's ruling) steel tarrifs.

[bloodhound]

My point is that the rest of the world has no moral high ground to lord over Americans. Complain and criticize' date=' sure. [/quote']

thats a bit of a oxymoron. come to think of it , most of the times its the americans critisizing and complaining about rest of the world, and most of the times towards Brits and French

 

edit: ANYWAY..... there is no point of this arguement. The cycle of Power will continue. America a Hyperpower will someday be equalled or surpassed. then pple will have another country to criticize. (THE END)

[Pangloss]

Isn't it a bit self-evident that many countries have ignored free-trade agreements? I already agree with you that the US should not ignore them.

 

thats a bit of a oxymoron. come to think of it , most of the times its the americans critisizing and complaining about rest of the world, and most of the times towards Brits and French

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately I guess that makes you an ideologue, just like the boycott-France pinheads in my country. Maybe someday you'll learn that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

You certainly won't hear me advocating a boycott of France. But it sure seems to be politically correct to do the same to America.

[bloodhound]

Maybe someday you'll learn that two wrongs don't make a right.

 

You certainly won't hear me advocating a boycott of France. But it sure seems to be politically correct to do the same to America.

I dont know what u meant by the first statement and dont bother explaining. I will take that as a insult.

 

you keep saying things without proof, pls can you give me a list of boycotted american products in western industrialised countries.

 

 

http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/france-04.htm

 

list of products that are french to help people in US boycott them..

 

 

anyway. leave it to that.

[Pangloss]

Once again, I'm opposed to a boycott of France. If there's one thing I believe I've made clear here is that I oppose ideological closed-mindedness.

 

No matter what side it comes from.

 

 

Now, you asked me if I could give examples of free trade violations by other nations. I asked you if we could simply stipulate that, since it's rather obvious, but you ignored me and went on to say that I was making claims without proof.

 

At any rate, this page from the WTO web site lists all standing disputes, including those of the United States. It's quite obvious that there are disputes involving MANY coutries. Once again, my point was that the US should not violate WTO even if other coutries are doing so, because we should stand as an example. I don't really think you disagree with that point.

 

Incidentally, you'll note that some of these disputes were brought against the EU by other countries (not the US). What's that old saying about people who live in glass houses...?

 

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

 

NOW the discussion can be over, if you like.

[john5746]

Once again, I'm opposed to a boycott of France. If there's one thing I believe I've made clear here is that I oppose ideological closed-mindedness.

 

And you support BUSH? HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!