European Backsplash

Of course he is! Show me one politician who isn't. That's how they get re-elected. They should change the wording of the Constitution from "Of the people, by the people, for the people" to "Of the people with the most money, by the people with the biggest influence (read money), for the policies that will put the most money into our overstuffed wallets".

 

DU- actually I do know what you are talking about with the refugees being kept in that Norwegian ship and not being allowed to land. althought that was awhile ago.

Sheriff- I guess my issue with what you are saying is that you see the U.S. as arrogant if they take action regardless of other nations opinons. So my question is to you, what countries does the US need to consult with regarding its millitary actions? NATO? the UN Security Council? The General Assembly. Does the U.S. need to get the permissin of other countries or just have a debate for awhile and then do what they were going to do in the first place? You seem to me to be saying that the U.S.'s unilateral approach is what bugs you. So let me ask for an example of a multilateral action by nation beside the U.S. Anyway glad you decided to rejoin the tread :grin:

 

The Gulf War and the Kosavan Crisis are both examples of multilateral actions.

Although not UN sanctioned, they did have the backing of a number of countries, and can be considered (qualified) successes.

I'm not sure 'needing to consult' is the way I'd look at it. I'd say it's more a case that countries declaring an opinion/interest should not be ignored.

My problem isn't really just with or even mainly with the US Govt. Governments are all idiotic at various points in time. The stuff that bothers me is ordinary citizens talking as if US opinion is all that matters on this subject, and dismissing the opinions of other countries as irrelevant or insignificant.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-02-27 11:51 ]</font>

 

heh heh, I asked for multilateral action by a nation other than the U.S. In both the Gulf and Kosovo the U.S. was the primary actor. I realize that coalitions were at work but those coalitions were at the urging of the U.S.

 

Mulitlateral surely means including other countries. By definition the US cannot take multilateral action on its own. I'd not be too keen on viewing it as the USA taking unilateral action and the rest of us tagging along.

I can't think of an example of other countries taking multilateral action together but excluding the US or the US deciding not to get involved.

[EDIT]Scratch that, I just thought of two. WWI and WWII were both fought multilaterally for a couple of years without the involvement of the USA.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-02-27 12:22 ]</font>

 

Let me try to parse the question this way. It seems that people around the globe are pissed (not drunk, mad, not crazy, resentful) that America seems to do what ever they want regardless of the advice of other countries. So what I was asking for is an example of another country that modified its actions due to concerns voiced by other nations. Note this modification can not have taken place due to a threat of force by another nation.

 

Britain did not attempt to invade Sweden over the "Furniture Furore" of 1993, after the German foreign minister of the time advised "You won't like it, it's very cold"

Seriously, though, I would say negotiations and advice between world leaders occurs all the time. Just because the headlines don't read "Tony Blair views Jordan (the country, not the basketball player, not the model) with less hostility after quiet word from John Howard," doesn't mean these things aren't happening.

 

No argument from me there Fatman. I just think the U.S. is held to a different standard regarding its actions than other nations. B/c we are the most powerful nation at the moment highlighting those actions make for good press. Also the left still exists in Europe so they are looking to score political points off the U.S. I am not calling Europeans Commie's either in fact I mourn for our left.

 

Commie has never really been an insult here, as much. There is undoubtedly political point scoring going on from all the politicians from all the countries. It's what they do.

I think the article that started this thread had genuine concerns, though. While the USA is the most powerful country, the European community represents (on some issues) several of the other most powerful nations in the world (and many lesser, but still significant ones) and has mostly been one of the USA's closest allies (NATO, for instance).

Divisions between the two powerful forces should, I feel, be actively avoided.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sheriff Fatman on 2002-02-27 13:21 ]</font>

 

The loss of solidarity was not that great of a concern to me. While I don't want to be too cynical (think Wilde here) solidarity after a disaster is always rather ephemeral. I think about when the news reports a tragedy such as a hurricane and two months later you get nothing about the recovery in the news.
Now for something completly different the Japanese are unilaterally going to increase their whaling. Screw Afganistan and the questionalble treatment of prisoners at camp X-Ray, this really pisses me off.

 

We can certainly agree on that (except for the bit about screwing prisoners - I'm married).

 

http://www.warroom.com. "America Strikes Back" yeah!

These people really wants US as the evil empire of the world. They are a far bigger threat to America than any islamic fundamentalist ever will be. And they have a lot in common too.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gonk on 2002-02-27 15:15 ]</font>

 

What if it was a woman's prison and there was a shower scene, and they had big knockers, and they had a towel fight and......I gotta go be by myself

 

When I said that the rest of the world should get out of the US's (or, rather, Dubya's) way, I was serious.
Let's explore a few options.
Nations of the world protest the actions of the Dubya administration. Dubya listens carefully to their concerns, then does what he wants.
Nations of the world protest, Dubya ignores them and does what he wants.
Nations of the world protest and threaten to attack the US. Dubya dares them to just try it. WWIII ensues. Only the cockroaches and high-level polticians survive. Then Dubya does what he wants.
Nations of the world protest and threaten to stop trading with the US. American gourmets find that escargot is prohibitively expensive. Dubya decides that we must insure our supply of oil, so the US and Israel take over the Middle East. Dubya does what he wants.
You see, when I say that the rest of the world should get out of the way, I'm not being arrogant. I'm being realistic. What is the alternative? Dubya can't be controlled. Even Congress can't stop him, because, technically, we're not at war.
As it stands now, Dubya can run a pipeline through Afghanistan. His next plot is to finish off Saddam, to make up for his father's failure. Then he'll find a new target, because he wants another term in office. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a sitting President has failed to be re-elected in war-time.
Oh, Dubya has a long-range plan, and it scares me. But if you question his actions, you're declared unpatriotic. The whole situation in America is becoming a little Orwellian. So I say to everyone, "Get out of the way!"
I'd move to Switzerland if I could afford it. But Dubya will probably get around to them eventually, too.

 

ahhh feel much better now.
Went to www.warroom (don't look for a link i still can't quote other posts), give me a second to compose myself... I really am kind of worried after visiting that site I am now on some FBI Millitia watch list. My favorite so far is that democrats are hypocrits b/c ken lay slept at the clinton white house and was an advisor on energy issues. Well you Fucking morons if the GAO did not have to sue Cheny to get his files on who advised him I might take your gripe more seriously.
Sorry off topic but if you don't like don't dangle links in front of me. I suffer from poor impulse control.
Oh Feldon I know it was not technically a war but what about LBJ? The estimate for current expenses in Afganistan is 30 billion and Bush wants to expand to Iraq, put troops in Georgia and Yemen too. The strain will be too much for the economy. I don't think Keynesian debt spending will help the U.S. right now. He'll tank the economy and loose just like daddy.

 

I'm just gonna say, - "I'm all for Europe!"

And here it goes:

I'm all for Europe!

 

I thought they we're a shitty band.

*SINGING/SHRIEKING*

"It's the final countdowwwwn!"

 

Vacuum?

 

Feldon you can always move to Australia. We aren't nearly as crowded as the USA (the biggest city here is around 1.5/2 million people. Most likely Sydney, which is a shit hole. Melbourne is a bit better, and Brisbane is much better :smile:. Don't even think about Adelaide :grin.

ThreeDogs, the asylum seeker business that DU was talking about is always going on. The Tampa crisis (Norwegian boat) was just the biggest part, but we get hundreds of refugees landing each month, demanding all sorts of shit that most of the country doesn't want to give.

 

Yeah I know the Tampa (thanks for the proper name) was the one covered in the NY Times you got to read the Guardian or Economist to hear about the other stuff. :grin:
What about Perth
_________________
"It is as you think, you do not need to look, your leg is gone."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ThreeDogs on 2002-02-27 18:02 ]</font>