or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USA Isolationism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USA Isolationism?

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
wtf is the USA doing? In the past few years the US has pulled out of many international treaties that are supposed to bring STABILITY to the world and other functions.

Kyoto went out the door, ICBM treaty out the window... Im starting to get worried the US just wants to take on the world by itself or something. "We dont like the current treaty, they arent advantageous enough for us.. heck, lets skip talking about it, lets just back out right away". This just makes people that despise the US even more suspicious and angry.

The latest US action:

[quote]
U.S. to back out of international court treaty

May 5, 2002 Posted: 7:31 PM EDT (2331 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will notify the United Nations that it has "no intention" of ratifying a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and no longer considers itself to be bound by provisions of the pact, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.

President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000, but amid concerns it might infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens and federal employees abroad, including members of the armed forces, it was never sent to the Senate for ratification.

"Since we have no intention of ratifying it, it is appropriate for us, because we have such serious problems with the ICC, to notify the ... secretary-general that we do not intend to ratify it and therefore we are no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective," Powell told ABC's "This Week."

A letter outlining the U.S. decision will be delivered Monday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, administration officials said.

"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ... the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," the letter says. "Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligation arising from its signature."

The letter requests that the United States be removed from any list of countries that have signed, or are party to, the treaty.

The State Department will send cables Monday to its embassies informing them of the decision and instructing the ambassadors to go to their host governments to explain the U.S. position, officials said.

Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, will deliver a speech Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington to explain why the United States sees the treaty as flawed and why it poses a risk to Americans, officials said.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pierre-Richard Prosper, ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, also are expected to lay out the U.S. position in briefings Monday to the news media.

One senior administration official said the removal of the signature "removes any argument that if you sign a treaty, you are obligated to it."

"Some people think it is not possible to unsign a treaty under international law," he said. "We think it is wrong, and we just did it."

Powell told ABC that "President Clinton, when he signed [the treaty], notified the world that the United States had no intention of sending it up for ratification, nor would he recommend to the ... Bush administration that we would send it up for ratification."

Powell insisted the United States has "the highest standards of accountability of any nation on the face of the Earth."

"We are the leader in the world with respect to bringing people to justice. We supported the tribunal for Yugoslavia, the tribunal for Rwanda, trying to get the tribunal for Sierra Leone set up," he said.

"We found that this was not a situation that we believed was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders."

The International Criminal Court would create a permanent forum to try cases involving charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.

Current war crime tribunals have been set up from scratch to handle individual situations such as Bosnia and Rwanda.

The Bush administration objects to the court on the grounds it does not give American citizens and U.S. military personnel the same protection afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution.

Officials said it also does not entitle Americans to the same defense allowed to them under the U.S. legal system.

It also contends the treaty bypasses the U.N. charter and the role of the U.N. Security Council relating to international law.

Another U.S. objection is that it "goes beyond the operation of legal institutions and can determine what is a crime of aggression," another senior administration official said.

"Can you imagine the danger of this for U.S. military personnel abroad?" this official asked.

The official said the next step for the United States is to obtain bilateral agreements from countries that are party to the treaty that U.S. personnel and nationals abroad are not subject to the rules of the court.

"These agreements will be essential if we are going to perform the international role we are expected to perform," the official said.
<hr></blockquote>
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #2 of 47
I think the US is just now realizing that the UN is a farce and oppossed many of its interests. As an American, I wouldn't mind seeing less aide to other countries (including Israel) and more aide internally to fight unemployment, poverty, crime, homelessness, etc.
post #3 of 47
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>I think the US is just now realizing that the UN is a farce and oppossed many of its interests. As an American, I wouldn't mind seeing less aide to other countries (including Israel) and more aide internally to fight unemployment, poverty, crime, homelessness, etc.</strong>[/QUOTE

This posting proves that American ingenuity are indeed still alive and well. I commend you for such a great post.

"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #4 of 47
Uhh... thanks. I think. I don't know if that was thinnly veiled sarcasm or a compliment.
post #5 of 47
I'll third Outsiders post. We have enough issues of our own to confront without mediating the tenuous relationships of the rest of the world. I don't think we want to rule the world so to speak but I think we are focusing more on our own homeland.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #6 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Uhh... thanks. I think. I don't know if that was thinnly veiled sarcasm or a compliment.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I did mean that sincerely...sorry for this misunderstanding. I too have felt for a long time that the US has been the police, banker, military provider etc. while passing over the homeless, hungry here at home. We need to take care of home first and "neighbors" second. No sarcasm intended here!

"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
"Blessed is the rebel..for without him there would be no progress"
Hugh Hefner
Reply
post #7 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by Robertp:
<strong>

No, I did mean that sincerely...sorry for this misunderstanding. I too have felt for a long time that the US has been the police, banker, military provider etc. while passing over the homeless, hungry here at home. We need to take care of home first and "neighbors" second. No sarcasm intended here!

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Generally agreed....but in some way we kind of have to be. We are really the only ones with the resources to do so. But, the foreign aid thing is out of hand.....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 47
From the article...

[quote]...it was never sent to the Senate for ratification.<hr></blockquote>

The U.S. Senate must approve all treaties, without going through the Senate it wouldn't be constitutional for our leaders to just say it is in effect.

I'll be damned if I support an international court that applies to my citizens. What freaks would support such an idea?

War Crimes Tribunals, sure, but this is ridiculous.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #9 of 47
It is past Isolationism now. Sorry, but too late. US can not, by any means it will practice, be an isolationist. Earth has turned into a global village since the end of the cold war. We, nations of planet Earth, are interdependent.

Anyway ... the next article talks about the same thing, but it feels very disturbing at the end if it actually means what I understand, so please correct me if I am wrong. (US MIGHT pull out of all international treaties, not just this one)

<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=8947213" target="_blank">US to shun deal on international criminal court.</a>

What I grasp from the above linked article, is that the treaty deals with war related crimes.

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
post #10 of 47
Thread Starter 
ignoring what goes on around you does not make it go away.

I *totally* agree that charity starts at home, because it does, but reveling in shunning everyone else wont make things better. At all.

If the US (or any other 'rich' country) contributes to the bettering of another poor country, the wealth will go around in the end.

Why do you think poorer nations are a breeding ground for terrorists and the such? They are desperate and have nothing to lose. 'lets go and destroy the evil rich countries because they just exploit us...'. That is what happens.

Bottom line, spreading the wealth and trying to get some common rules we can ALL live by just makes things beter for everyone.

I'm afraid of reactions like yours groverat. US citizens feeling so superior that the thought of having or sharing power with others is unacceptable. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Its not good.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #11 of 47
Zo, this is just a power struggle and you're trying to make it sound like you are on the side of the angels. The idea that this means we are isolationist is asinine. You pick and choose your "facts" to make your case but you don't have a case. The U.S. is deeply involved around the world. Just because we won't participate in this court - a court that will almost certainly be driven more by political agendas than by an even handed pursuit of justice - that doesn't make us isolationist.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #12 of 47
The US is not backing out of a treaty, because the international court treaty wasn't legal in the first place. Just because Clinton signed something, it does not make the treaty legal. The Senate has to ratify all treaties before they become legal. Second, this court treaty would seriously infringe upon some people's rights, and remove legal power from some countries. While a court trying people for genocide is a good thing, the treaty leaves some serious loopholes. Of course that also brings up a point of weather or not someone who kills 5,000 of there own people should have a trial in the first place (Immediate execution should be used in clear cut cases).
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
post #13 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>Zo, this is just a power struggle and you're trying to make it sound like you are on the side of the angels.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well put Spaceman_spiff. I agree that there is a power struggle between the USA and the EU. Europeans such as EU President Romano Prodi are blatantly anti-American, whose hatred is fueled by jealousy of American economic, military, and cultural power as well as the failure of the EU to establish itself as the supreme government of Europe. These treaties are an attempt to weaken the power and sovereignty of the USA and lessen its influence abroad. These treaties are constructed such that they would remove power from the US Congress and President and would therefore be unconstitutional. When the inevitable objection are raised the EU can then put on their holier than thou attitude and ridicule and insult us on the world stage.

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</p>
post #14 of 47
The International Criminal Court had the potential to deny americans thier constitutional rights. So ... Bush is defending that. A slap in the face to people who think that the US being in the Court was a good idea.
post #15 of 47
With the number of treaties and international agreements that Bush has either withdrawn from or not signed, it appears to be a pattern. It doesn't seem like he evaluates them on a case-by-case basis; he's just against the principle of international agreements. More evidence of this is that he tends not to propose alternatives to the treaties he pulls us out from. It's not that he doesn't like the specifics, and proposes changes to those specifics - he just doesn't like international cooperation.

What's the down side? It's that if we say "screw you" to other countries, they're going to be more inclined to say "screw you" right back. Right now we need cooperation because of the war against terrorism. And there are plenty of other issues that need international cooperation, like global warming, nuclear non-proliferation, trade, and on and on. We withdrew from a biological weapons treaty at the same time we were being attacked with anthrax. WTF?

Of course we don't like global warming, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, etc. So why don't we work within the frameworks and try to make these international agreements more like we want them?

Pulling out of all these international agreements may be red meat for the right-wingers in the short term, but long term, they weaken our credibility and our ability to achieve cooperation when we want it.
post #16 of 47
[quote]Of course we don't like global warming, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, etc. So why don't we work within the frameworks and try to make these international agreements more like we want them?<hr></blockquote>

It's interesting you should say that... Bush has done more than any other president to cut down on the number of nuclear weapons.

Which do you prefer: A president that is up front and honest about which treaties will move forward and which will fail or a president that gives political handjobs to everyone and never acts on his words?

Clinton had 8 years to move forward with Kyoto, but it was doomed from the start and he knew it. So he sat on it and talked about its importance while doing nothing to help it along.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #17 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
... We withdrew from a biological weapons treaty at the same time we were being attacked with anthrax. WTF? </strong><hr></blockquote>

And a treaty would have stopped them in their tracks? You don't really believe that, do you?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #18 of 47
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
<strong>

Europeans such as EU President Romano Prodi are blatantly anti-American, whose hatred is fueled by jealousy of American economic, military, and cultural power as well as the failure of the EU to establish itself as the supreme government of Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLMAO <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Oh god... that was hillarious... HAHAHA

The EU jealous of the US CULTURAL POWER?!?! OMG Thats just too damn funny.

If you mean the ability of the US to influence the lifestyles (mostly in negative from what I have seen) of most populations and cultures of the world, then sure.

Romano Prodi is not a strong character for sure, but he seems to be doing good things too. Just kinda of a flat personality. He is a Professor first, then a politician. Guess that could explain some things.

I feel the EU is more geared 'getting along' rather than 'domination'. The French may feel they have to dominate... but the rest of Europe is pretty much over that.

The HOPE is that the EU WILL become a sort of controlling power for all members of the Union where ALL MEMBERS have a say. Its not THAT much more different idea than what the USA is today. 50 states run by a 'super' entity (Federal Gov) based in a 'neutral zone' (DC). And yet each State has much freedom.

Sure, many people hate the Federal Gov, but you can't make everyone happy now can you?

Maaaan... so much hate for the EU and half of you probably barely know anything about it.. let alone lived here! Europe is great! Give it a spin then bitch! Yeeesh.

(and why does this ALWAYS end up being a USA vs EU battle of somekind??? I was just voicing my concern that the USA appears to be making decisions that are leading it to isolation rather than collaboration!)
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #19 of 47
I would have to agree that the general sentiment of the EU is anti-American. And evidently our culture sells better, given the rampant success of American-esque cultural exports.

Think about it.

I would say that America is perhaps the least isolationist nation left in the world today. We fight for free trade policies and in general offer low import tariffs, even to countries (hint: Japan, EU) that put high tariffs on our exports.

The UN is a joke. It's an international bureaucracy where credentials aren't based on worth, which in my books is the same as wealth. America has held up the UN since we essentially started it after WW2. Now it is becoming less useful, and it should be abandonned, at least by the United States. We'll end up dealing with the world's shit for at least another 50 years anyway.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #20 of 47
[quote](and why does this ALWAYS end up being a USA vs EU battle of somekind??? I was just voicing my concern that the USA appears to be making decisions that are leading it to isolation rather than collaboration!)<hr></blockquote>

Why? Because from press releases we (at least I) get this drift that the EU bureaucrats consider America to be a second class nation, for some screwy reason that can only be explained in the bastardized rhetoric of their liberal cannon.

No, in economic truth, which is far more objective than bastardized rhetoric, Europe's nations are indeed the second class. I think a lot of Americans are just plain sick of hearing the European view on the matter, since it is so illogical.

I would like to see collaboration myself, but right now I don't think the governing forces of the EU have enough collective brain power and resolution to get much of anything done that would improve their:
A) economic output
B) foreign relations
C) reputation as autonomous individuals

From my point of view, the creation of the EU was the creation of one big European clique: very isolationist, very deaf to outside voices of reason. And it makes a libertarian sick.

At the very least, American politicians have a resolve and a bottom line, which is a superbly rational constitution. We also have a more progressive view on trade, in my opinion, than does the EU, which is still very feudal about such things.

I'm probably THE GUY who everyone refers to when they mention USA vs EU. My bottom line is that I'm very aware of EU policies, and that based on economic models they are foolish -- far more foolish than their American counterparts. So when I hear people come up with these claims that "America is stupid" or "America need to be like this" or "America is isolationist" I just see it as whiny loser-talk. I don't really want to hear it. Face it, America supports the rest of the world. The numbers here don't lie. If you don't like it, then stop voting for the same old nonsensical liberal politicians that are the European norms! Clearly they're not making a difference!
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #21 of 47
ZO:

[quote] feel the EU is more geared 'getting along' rather than 'domination'. The French may feel they have to dominate... but the rest of Europe is pretty much over that.<hr></blockquote>

ALL NATIONS act in selfishness.

Since Europe doesn't have the power it is in their best interest to team up and work together. I refuse to believe that Europe actually gets along together in happiness, what with politicians being assassinated, racism running rampant and a genocidal holocaust half-a-century ago.

The stated purpose of the EU is to make Europe a superpower once again.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #22 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>It's interesting you should say that... Bush has done more than any other president to cut down on the number of nuclear weapons.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's promised to cut down the number of US nuclear weapons. But you know, those aren't the ones we should be worried about. The fact that he has decided to ignore the treaty banning nuclear testing will encourage other countries, like China, to test further and expand their arsenal. We can do anything we want on our own. A treaty helps us to get others to do the same.
[quote]Which do you prefer: A president that is up front and honest about which treaties will move forward and which will fail or a president that gives political handjobs to everyone and never acts on his words?<hr></blockquote>But Bush doesn't seem to select. He just torpedoes them all. And one thing the world needs more of is handjobs. Bush just backhands everyone else. I don't think it's smart.
[quote]Clinton had 8 years to move forward with Kyoto, but it was doomed from the start and he knew it. So he sat on it and talked about its importance while doing nothing to help it along.<hr></blockquote>I think the Kyoto meeting was in 1998, so it wasn't 8 years. But the point is that Clinton was doing something by being involved in the negotiations over the treaty, rather than simply ignoring them.

[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>And a treaty would have stopped them in their tracks? You don't really believe that, do you?</strong><hr></blockquote>A tad patronizing there, spaceman. No I don't think a treaty would have stopped the ongoing anthrax attacks. But the attacks should have made us more aware of the problem, and driven us to try to prevent future similar problems in whatever way possible. Even if that meant &lt;gasp&gt; coming to agreements with other countries.
post #23 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
The EU jealous of the US CULTURAL POWER?!?! OMG Thats just too damn funny.<hr></blockquote>

Name the top 5 TV shows, movies, or songs in Europe. I bet a large number of them are American. Now I will name the top European ones in each of these categories sorry, there are none. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]If you mean the ability of the US to influence the lifestyles (mostly in negative from what I have seen) of most populations and cultures of the world, then sure. <hr></blockquote>

You mean how you are sitting in front of an American computer, behind a monitor whose technology was developed in America, connected to the Internet that was created in America, powered by electrical grids that ultimately trace their creation to Americans. You sure are being affected negatively. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
American contributions so far outweigh any negative aspects that it is ridiculous and insulting to claim otherwise.

[quote]Romano Prodi is not a strong character for sure, but he seems to be doing good things too. Just kinda of a flat personality. He is a Professor first, then a politician. Guess that could explain some things. <hr></blockquote>

His being a professor explains his anti-Americanism? How? That does not make any sense.

[quote]I feel the EU is more geared 'getting along' rather than 'domination'. The French may feel they have to dominate... but the rest of Europe is pretty much over that. <hr></blockquote>

The EU is basically a power struggle between Germany and France, with the lesser countries like yours going along and trying not to get trampled.

[quote]The HOPE is that the EU WILL become a sort of controlling power for all members of the Union where ALL MEMBERS have a say. Its not THAT much more different idea than what the USA is today. 50 states run by a 'super' entity (Federal Gov) based in a 'neutral zone' (DC). And yet each State has much freedom. <hr></blockquote>

This is why you will never see Great Britain join your little group. While the EU officially claims not to have the goal of superceding the individual governments, it is easy to see that is what it really wants.

[quote]Maaaan... so much hate for the EU and half of you probably barely know anything about it.. let alone lived here! Europe is great! Give it a spin then bitch! Yeeesh.
(and why does this ALWAYS end up being a USA vs EU battle of somekind??? I was just voicing my concern that the USA appears to be making decisions that are leading it to isolation rather than collaboration!)<hr></blockquote>

I love how you use American urban street talk, byatch. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
We are the supreme, ultimate country. We are free and independent. Collaboration is for weak shits like Belgium. I believe that the US should do what is necessary to protect its interests and crush those that stand in the way, and I know others here feel the same way.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</p>
post #24 of 47
The fact that you don't live in the US doesn't keep you from bitching about US actions and policies, so we'll bitch about the EU all we like.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #25 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS :
<strong> I believe that the US should do what is necessary to protect its interests and crush those that stand in the way, and I know others here feel the same way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now, this is a little too far. I hope it is an emotional reaction, and nothing more.

(I apologize for having your handles mixed up in the original post)

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
post #26 of 47
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>ZO:



ALL NATIONS act in selfishness.

Since Europe doesn't have the power it is in their best interest to team up and work together. I refuse to believe that Europe actually gets along together in happiness, what with politicians being assassinated, racism running rampant and a genocidal holocaust half-a-century ago.

The stated purpose of the EU is to make Europe a superpower once again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

omg... man... Groverat, I officially invite you over to stay as long as you want. The only time we don't "get along" is perhaps during the World Cup (soccer) when each nation is at eachothers throats. But there isnt any true antagonism. Sure, you hear the French complain about the Germans, the Brits complain about the Germans, the Germans complaining about the Fench, you still have towns throughought Europe that 'hate' eachother (Verona and Perugia, Milano and Torino, etc etc) becasue of facts thatt happened over 600years ago. You still have the Flemish revel in the Battle of the Golden Spurs where the Francophone forces were, for the first time, decimated and brutally killed... that happened something like 500 years ago) but then again, if you consider the strides made forward in 50 years since WW2 and the fact there is over 2000 years of history to mull over... I'd say we were doing pretty damn well. The US doesnt have these kinds of problems... it basically started out from the same basic types of people (of mainly European decent btw) that wanted to do away with the limitations of the time.

For those who don't know yet I am American and lived most of my life in NYC. I clearly remember the antagonism we had against New Jersey folk... how they were the provincial 'guidos'. We (USA) has North-South antagonism, NYC vs LA antagonism. I was in bording school for years and I clearly remember how we were pretty clearly divided into two groups: kids from southern states, and northern states. The international kids were either on their own or sort of recruited.

So, don't give me any shit that the USA doesn't have internal rivalry or problems as well. heck, if anything I would say racism is worse in the south of USA (y'all know them niice country folk from West hickville...) who still hunt down colored folk... and give outsiders a stare from death (and yes I have experienced this...).

To make a long thing short, the US, as the EU is too, is a far cry from perfection. We all have our 'ideal' worlds, and to be honest I think we would be WAY much worse off if we were all still divided and rivaling eachother.

Nonetheless, yes Groverat, one of the main reasons behind the creation of the EU is economic... and to be a great economic power there must be stability. I highly doubt, and I'll be the first to say it, that the EU will ever be more powerful than the US. I dont think that is the POINT of the EU. The point is to make the citizens living within the EU live better. If we collaborate and pool resources, you avoid waste, you have better understanding of one another.... and you dont have atrocities like WW1 and WW2 which still marr the countrysides of France and Belgium.... over 80 years later.

One step at a time man. And the trip is that much easier if we help eachother, not destroy.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #27 of 47
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by FotNS:
Name the top 5 TV shows, movies, or songs in Europe. I bet a large number of them are American. Now I will name the top European ones in each of these categories sorry, there are none.
<hr></blockquote>

You ignorant kid. Sure, there is tons of US made media around here. US makes great superficial spectacular stuff that can easily entertain the masses.

European or non American movies, songs, litterature? Umm, Luc Besson (5th Element, Leon, Nikita, etc), Fellini (La Bella Vita, etc), the two brothers that made Lord of The Rings, Almadovar from Spain. U2, Spice Girls (oh joy), Kylie Minogue, Blur, Bob Marley, Monica Bellucci, Sean Connery... good lord... the list is just too damn long and I really dont have to waste on this crap.

[quote]
You mean how you are sitting in front of an American computer, behind a monitor whose technology was developed in America, connected to the Internet that was created in America, powered by electrical grids that ultimately trace their creation to Americans. You sure are being affected negatively.
American contributions so far outweigh any negative aspects that it is ridiculous and insulting to claim otherwise.
<hr></blockquote>

My GOD you better shut up before you look any more ignorant. My iBook was most likely designed by an English guy called Jonathan Ives, with a TFT screen made somewhere in Asia. The Internet was also developed in Switzerland (at CERN) as well as at DARPA. There are many internet connection/nodes in the USA as well as the rest of the world.

[quote]

His being a professor explains his anti-Americanism? How? That does not make any sense.
<hr></blockquote>

His being a professor (in economics) explains why he has to choose the strongest economy to rival. I have never seen actions or statements from Prodi to the effect that he hates the USA.

[quote]
The EU is basically a power struggle between Germany and France, with the lesser countries like yours going along and trying not to get trampled.
<hr></blockquote>

Belgium is far from being 'my' country. When people ask my friends and I where we live, I say "in the EU". My best friends are Finnish, Dutch, Italian, French, Belgian, Austrian, English, German... We get along incredibly well and we have all visited eachother's countries. WE are the future of Europe... the dinosaurs are on their way out. Its a great time to be in Europe.

[quote]

This is why you will never see Great Britain join your little group. While the EU officially claims not to have the goal of superceding the individual governments, it is easy to see that is what it really wants.
<hr></blockquote>

Umm, since when is Great Britain not part of the EU? The UK has been 'separated' from the rest of... anything really... since forever. Of course they feel a bit hesitant. But Blair is totally behind the Euro and the UKs involvement in EU affairs.

[quote]

I love how you use American urban street talk, byatch.
We are the supreme, ultimate country. We are free and independent. Collaboration is for weak shits like Belgium. I believe that the US should do what is necessary to protect its interests and crush those that stand in the way, and I know others here feel the same way.<hr></blockquote>

Because ya dumb mofo, if I can speak streetsmart its because I grew up in NYC. Get a friggen life.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: ZO ]</p>
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #28 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>A tad patronizing there, spaceman. No I don't think a treaty would have stopped the ongoing anthrax attacks...</strong><hr></blockquote>

It would have been patronizing had I not offered the speculation that you didn't really believe what you were suggesting.

[quote]<strong>... But the attacks should have made us more aware of the problem, and driven us to try to prevent future similar problems in whatever way possible. Even if that meant &lt;gasp&gt; coming to agreements with other countries. </strong><hr></blockquote>

And what if &lt;gasp&gt; those agreements didn't really address the problem? Is it so hard to imagine that someone who would use a biological weapon doesn't give a rat's a$$ about some piece of paper?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #29 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<strong>I think the Kyoto meeting was in 1998, so it wasn't 8 years. But the point is that Clinton was doing something by being involved in the negotiations over the treaty, rather than simply ignoring them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Big deal. He pushed forward a treaty that had NO support in the Senate. It was feel good politics and nothing more.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #30 of 47
Europe is not the fantasy happy land people here make it out to be. All of my immediate family has lived there for all of their lives and many have then emmigrated to the US. Good place to visit (not great, good) but I don't think I'll be returning anytime soon.
post #31 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>


To make a long thing short, the US, as the EU is too, is a far cry from perfection. We all have our 'ideal' worlds, and to be honest I think we would be WAY much worse off if we were all still divided and rivaling eachother.

Nonetheless, yes Groverat, one of the main reasons behind the creation of the EU is economic... and to be a great economic power there must be stability. I highly doubt, and I'll be the first to say it, that the EU will ever be more powerful than the US. I dont think that is the POINT of the EU. The point is to make the citizens living within the EU live better. If we collaborate and pool resources, you avoid waste, you have better understanding of one another.... and you dont have atrocities like WW1 and WW2 which still marr the countrysides of France and Belgium.... over 80 years later.

One step at a time man. And the trip is that much easier if we help eachother, not destroy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good post ZO.
It's strange how the perception of EU from USA is different from the perception coming from EU.

First of all : the EU start as a economic treaty of free exchange. an another point of the treaty is the free circulation of goodness and people : that's mean that i am free to go in belgium to exercice my job and in the contrary the reverse is possible. When i was a student one friend of mine who was belgium use to study in France. I know there are english MD in the ski resort Val d'isere.

Now some states are member of the euro. Many people said euro is shit : it's not true : for the industry it's a very important thing when you export : imagine that you sell product in yens and then the yen go down : you waste many money just for financial conjoncture. For busisness man stability of money is very important. And the euro is much more stable than every former currency. As a citizen it's a pleasure to go in belgium or in germany and to pay with the same currency. Germans people who went skying in France where happy to pay in euro : trip in europe become much more simple for the money problems.

The eurocratia has reverse effects and everyone complains about this , but it brings good things too : better control of the quality of food all over europe, CE norm ...In generally i'lls said that europeans norms bring complexity but they bring also quality for all.

Europe is not in his final developpement at the different of US. The EU foreign policy is just in the beginning stage of developpement like the policy of defense. So for the moment there is no comparison possible between US and EU it's too different systems.

Concerning our history and our quarrels : europe is an old world with a two milleniums history (if we start the modern history with the romans). The more old you are , the more quarrel we have. But now we have learned to leave peaceffully together. Saying that there will be now a new war between germany and France for example is an absolute joke. EU has bring one thing to us and to the world : stability and peace. Only for this reason , EU is gold for me. And i will go further , EU is good thing for USA : europe is a peacefull aera now, USA do not have to do the policy here has in the past during the two last WW. And you know how many americans people dye during this.

So even if some of you say that EU is a bullshit i'll say that EU is a good thing for the world.

PS : EU is not perfect : but who is perfect ? What is perfection for a community of nations ? what is not perfect ? : war certainly : war destroy people and goodness, anything that prevent war is a good thing.
post #32 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Europe is not the fantasy happy land people here make it out to be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but Europe's also not the backward communist economically depressed nightmare that American conservatives make it out to be.

On many quality of life stats, Europeans are on average better off than Americans. Sure, the US has more rich people. We're great at making rich people. And with Bush, we're going to make even more rich people. That's a good thing. But it's not the only measure of quality of life in a country.
post #33 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>It would have been patronizing had I not offered the speculation that you didn't really believe what you were suggesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm really not interested in the highly personalized, sour pissing matches that threads to which you post have seemed to degenerate into over the past few weeks.
[quote]<strong>And what if &lt;gasp&gt; those agreements didn't really address the problem? Is it so hard to imagine that someone who would use a biological weapon doesn't give a rat's a$$ about some piece of paper?</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not hard to imagine, but I can also imagine lots of situations where that piece of paper might prevent terrorists from getting their hands on stuff like anthrax in the first place. My understanding is that anthrax is not like a pipe-bomb that anyone can make in their garage. It requires the type of high-tech labs that govts fund. I even understand why we don't support the land mines treaty; I think there are probably ways to work within it, but I understand it. But this one doesn't make sense. Why do we want to continue producing this stuff, when it was probably our own govt anthrax that was being used against us?
post #34 of 47
BRussell, we are back to disagreeing.

The US has the highest standard of living in the world. Period. The largest group of people in the nation are middle class Americans....and they live better than many middle class europeans. This is because we aren't totally sapped by taxation and liberal/socialist programs yet....though we're getting there.

Now on Bush: Anyone that could argue against a missle defense system after something like 9/11 has got to be kidding himself. There are nations out there that would launch a nuke at us right NOW if they could....and it is only a matter of time until they can. The ABM treaty would prevent us from DEVELOPING (yes, I know it isn't ready yet) a missle defense system. And, it was crafted in an era when the main threat to the US was the Soviet Union. It is outmoded, obsolete if you will.

Kyoto has many provisions which would cause harm to US interests, from what I understand.

I am with the President on both of these issues. And saying that "he is pulling out of treaties [left and right]" is insane. As if the administration just says "**** it!....we're gone". .....give me a break.

[ 05-08-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>With the number of treaties and international agreements that Bush has either withdrawn from or not signed, it appears to be a pattern. It doesn't seem like he evaluates them on a case-by-case basis; he's just against the principle of international agreements. More evidence of this is that he tends not to propose alternatives to the treaties he pulls us out from. It's not that he doesn't like the specifics, and proposes changes to those specifics - he just doesn't like international cooperation.

What's the down side? It's that if we say "screw you" to other countries, they're going to be more inclined to say "screw you" right back. Right now we need cooperation because of the war against terrorism. And there are plenty of other issues that need international cooperation, like global warming, nuclear non-proliferation, trade, and on and on. We withdrew from a biological weapons treaty at the same time we were being attacked with anthrax. WTF?

Of course we don't like global warming, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, etc. So why don't we work within the frameworks and try to make these international agreements more like we want them?

Pulling out of all these international agreements may be red meat for the right-wingers in the short term, but long term, they weaken our credibility and our ability to achieve cooperation when we want it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is what I was looking for.......this is the biggest joke of a post I have seen in awhile. there are too many ridiculous parts to quote individual sections. the first part is the best, though. What unsubstantiated crap.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 47
Hey Swiss people : what is your level of life : is it higher or lesser than the US one ?

Warning : if is ask this question it is because i have not the answer. I just think that swiss people have a high level of life. But life in swiss is very expansive too.
post #37 of 47
The real question is how do you quantify a better standard of living? Making more money? That's easy to measure and compare. But does money make a better standard of living? Can you measure someones happiness? Can you compare it to someone elses?
post #38 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>The US has the highest standard of living in the world. Period. The largest group of people in the nation are middle class Americans....and they live better than many middle class europeans. This is because we aren't totally sapped by taxation and liberal/socialist programs yet....though we're getting there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think it's wrong to say that we have a better system in some uni-dimensional sense, as if there's only one way to measure a country. IMO, we are better for getting rich, but Europe has higher ratings in many other quality-of-life types of measures. Yes, that's simplistic, but not quite as simplistic as "we are better, period."

Health care is one good example that's pretty representative of other quality-of-life issues, and one that I know a little about. The US excels at certain things, like hi-tech treatments, clean and private hospital conditions, not waiting, and other things. Everyone always says that foreign heads-of-state come to the US for treatment.

That's true. But the other side is that we don't compare very well at all in many other health measures - we have the costliest system, huge number of uninsured, and poor overall basic health stats like life expectancy and infant mortality.

Although Europe tends to have more social welfare policies, it's not true that they have wrecked their economies because of it. They have fewer rich, for sure. But it's not as if all of Europe is in economic depression or something.
post #39 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>The real question is how do you quantify a better standard of living? Making more money? That's easy to measure and compare. But does money make a better standard of living? Can you measure someones happiness? Can you compare it to someone elses?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agree at 100 %. I can't even say if i have a better living standart compared to my friends.
post #40 of 47
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>

Health care is one good example that's pretty representative of other quality-of-life issues, and one that I know a little about. The US excels at certain things, like hi-tech treatments, clean and private hospital conditions, not waiting, and other things. Everyone always says that foreign heads-of-state come to the US for treatment.

.</strong><hr></blockquote>

France is according to OMS (world organisation of health in geneva : excuse me for the translation) first for the health. Even if France is first , we have problems with healthcare. Basically because that medecine recquieres more and more high tech, that people want to have more and more quality of life , that we live older (and old people cost more for health than the young ones) medecine is costing more and more. Worse the cost of medecine is increasing faster than the increase of our economy.

Professional of health are becoming upset to support more and more the prize of health.Our fees have been frozen by the last 10 years of governement and to get the same amount of money we are oblige to work more and more. A general practicionner in France is working an average 58 hours per week. Comparing to the official 35 hours it's a joke. Being a MD is no more money valuable in France, you will earn more money in Great Britain even if this system is not very good. (7 % of the national income is using for health , comparing to 12 % in France and 13 % in US).

If the situation will go on like that , there will be less and less doctors in France (it's the case in the campaign where people have a very low life quality : too much work night and day).

So you can be ranked first and have many problems to solve.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › USA Isolationism?