COMMENTS:
I would like to know...
Because it can then continue with abusing international law,continue economic terrorism without being accountable. This gives it the edge on everyone else as they can't play on a level playing field.
by isay on Fri Apr 15, 05 9:32am
[+]
Being THE ONLY superpower has its advantages.
Because the US government thinks these should not apply to the US as we are the "good guy" and these would unnecessarily restrict the US in being the world's policeman. But, we do expect everyone else to sign and abide by them. The odd thing is that most americans support all of the listed items and many think the US has agreed to them.
Your wrong fiddle faddle. I'd like you to show facts and sources to back up your statements. Alot of people I know oppose the Kyoto Protocol. You are stating your opinion and trying to pass that off as a legitimate fact.
As is typical for you RRW, you spout of nonsense. Look at any available poll out there and you will see that the majority of people have favored it. They also favor the other items listed. I'm sorry RRW, I get my statistics from things other than Rush Limbaugh. And, even in the unlikely event that I am wrong, you still haven't addressed the other items.
A strong majority of Americans have indicated their support for the Kyoto Treaty. In an April 2001 ABC News poll that presented both sides of the argument 61% expressed support (see graph). In June 2002, The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations reasked the same question and found support had increased to 70% for the Kyoto Treaty. (Graph below should be manipulated to add-in the Harris/GMF/CCFR data. Additional columns should show 70% for 'Should Join', 25% 'Should Not Join' and 5% for Not Sure/Decline.) An April 2001 Los Angeles Times poll that also presented both sides of the argument found 59% support.
I guess the Council on Foreign Relations is a lefty source, now isn't it? I can find a whole bunch more if you like. It took me all of 5 seconds to find those.
Websites please. I don't get my sources from left wing websites. We are the worlds on super power. We can do whatever we wish.
In almost the same sense. France and Germany do what ever they want in the EU.
You see RRW it's people like you who make people like me wish the US of A would just sink into the sea.
by B_P on Fri Apr 15, 05 11:58am
[+]
Idiots like John Bolton enjoy bragging that the US is the world's only superpower, yet Bush's nose is firmly planted in Chinese buttcrack. Some superpower, Irish_Scandinavian.
RRW, look it up for yourself. I provided the evidence. Try ABC News, Harris poll, LA Times. etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to find them. Hell, try any poll, gallup, zogby, etc. Even fox news would say the same thing.
You are stating your opinion and trying to pass that off as a legitimate fact
AND YOU HAVE ALOT OF CREDIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO FACTS AS YOUR PAST COMMENTS ARE LITTERED WITH CONTRADICTIONS AND LIES.
NOW THATS A FACT FOR YOU.
HOWS LIFE IN COUNTY CORK THESE DAYS!
by isay on Fri Apr 15, 05 12:20pm
[+]
Grow up Isay and Cranky. You keep continuing the alias game. I have denied it and I don't have to participate in your little games. Thank you fiddle faddle, I will look into it.
Irish_scandanvian was pretty mean. I don't think RRW is him, either
by aya on Fri Apr 15, 05 12:46pm
[+]
A) signing aggreements that would have jurisdiction over US courts would be unconstitutional.
B) The rest of the world seems to be very inept, which means these would all be a waste of time.
C) it's pretty much a given that any treaty we sign would be used primarily against the US, while other nations get off scot free.
I'm with Fiddle. I would have just naturally assumed we had signed most and I do also think most Americans do. As for the Internation Court, well, sorry, but there is SO much criticism heaped on us for stuff we have nothing to do with by foreigners...can you blame us for being apprehensive about that one? I mean come on, just yesterday, Jacques Chriac, in an effort to get French citizens to approve the EU constiution, used this as a MAIN reason "It will benefit the US if you do not sign."
Come on!! And this guy is an allie!?!? No wonde we won't sign that one.
The rest of the world seems to be very inept, which means these would all be a waste of time.
Still the master race then eh, whats inept is the fools who follow a fool.
SO much criticism heaped on us for stuff we have nothing to do with by foreigners...can you blame us for being apprehensive about that one.... What has the US been falsely accused of that would bring it to an international criminal court?
Oh and Aya this is what happens when RRW forgets who he really is.. aka Irish_Scandinavian..
Fuck Bush idiot and the dumb shit Americans who voted for him. Americans are a bunch of arrogant gun nuts who deserve to die.
by Republican_RightWing on Jan 07, 2005
I think that proves something to the fools who follow him.
by isay on Fri Apr 15, 05 2:28pm
[+]
Because most of them are bullshit.
Isay, you missed my point. The US has been accused of everything under the sun. I am not going to debate this with you. The ICC is one treaty we should not sign at this time. Reading your posts, one can see why.
Chirac: 'No' vote on E.U. benefits U.S.
PARIS, April 14 (UPI) -- A "no" vote to the European Constitution would weaken the EU and benefit the United States, warned French President Jacques Chirac, Thursday.
Appearing on a live televised debate with a group of 83 young French citizens aged 18-30, Chirac replied during two full hours to questions from the public, trying to promote a "yes" vote.
Chirac said a European constitution is important to help build a stronger Europe in the face of other powers.
"Europe must be strong, it must have the power to survive in tomorrow's world," said the French president.
Chirac said that France and Europe would in the future face other super powers such as the United States, China, Russia and even Brazil and the rest of Latin America.
The French will vote May 29 in a national referendum if they should support the European constiturion. For the moment, the "no" appears to have a slight edge.
Copyright 2005 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.
ps., Isay, are you British? Umm, IF you are, you do know that it has been said, even by France, that Britian could be brought before the International Criminal Court (at least some of its military leaders). You may not be British, but if you are, before you get your knickers in a twist about the US, take a look in the mirror!!
Isay, listen. totally disregard my posts to you. I keep forgetting that you are the user in some battle with Republican Righwing. Thought you'd be over it by now---PLEASE, just ignore my posts.
I am not in battle with him patch. However he thinks he is.
Your question is not entirely correct, Euro. It is the United States government that is hesitant to sign international treaties. I'm just a lowly citizen.
Personally, I support most of the treaties you mentioned (particularly the Kyoto Protocol), except the International Criminial Court. I feel that there should be certain things within the pervue of the Court (I.E. systematic crimes against humanity--particularly, if not exclusively related to crimes against humanity committed by separate nations, and the result of the actions of more than a handful of rogue individuals), and certain things that should not (I.E. crimes committed by a single nation that can and will be resolved by that nation). It's open for debate.
Because we're leaders, not follers. In all honesty, I support many of those listed, but if we don't like them, who is to say we are wrong? What about other nations who don't agree to them?
followers*
Not me, I'm a foller.
"A) signing aggreements that would have jurisdiction over US courts would be unconstitutional."
You're the world's largest superpower. Who's going to ensure jurisdiction over your courts? The UN? That organization that you boast as worthless? You've entered into treaties before, no other organization has had rights over your courts.
"B) The rest of the world seems to be very inept, which means these would all be a waste of time."
So then there's no worry that any other organization would have jurisdiction over your courts, is there?
C) it's pretty much a given that any treaty we sign would be used primarily against the US, while other nations get off scot free. "
I fail to see how that would work with the first three. Even Afghanistan has signed on to the first one, at least paying lip service.
by aya on Fri Apr 15, 05 4:03pm
[+]
This only further tarnishes your international reputation, you can at least put on a show for effort that you care about these things
by aya on Fri Apr 15, 05 4:05pm
[+]
Hey, aya, it't not always good to care about what others think. How do you think we became the superpower we are, by kissing ass?
Cletus, we became a superpower primarily because the Nazi's chased the entire Manhattan Project leasership to the United States.
By the way, here's a little quote from your leader:
If they pre-decease or die early, there's an asset base to be able to pass on to a loved one.
—George W. Bush, on Social Security money held in private accounts, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, March 30, 2005
YOU VOTED FOR THIS GUY?
'You're the world's largest superpower. Who's going to ensure jurisdiction over your courts? The UN? That organization that you boast as worthless? You've entered into treaties before, no other organization has had rights over your courts.'
So we should go ahead and sign this thing, knowing that we have no intention of following it, because we could always say 'we're strong, so fuck off we don't have to listen to you' at a later date? Somehow I doubt that would go over well.
'So then there's no worry that any other organization would have jurisdiction over your courts, is there?'
Inept doesn't mean they aren't corrupt as hell and downright evil. Everywhere the UN has gone in to help it has ended up worse in the end, unless the US was in charge. These are not the people who should have any say over the lives of US citizens.
'I fail to see how that would work with the first three. Even Afghanistan has signed on to the first one, at least paying lip service.'
They are inept at doing the right thing, at blaming the US (and israel) they are very experienced. And do you really want an agreement made up of people who are simply playing it lip service? What's the point then?
Who do you think you are fooling, Yokel? The Bush family created a wealthy, powerful dynasty based on ass kissing. Prescott Bush kissed the ass of the Nazis. George Senior kissed Reagan's ass all the way into the White House, and George Junior plants his lips firmly on every set of rich conservative buttocks he can find. It works for them.
Oh sorry patch you toss a couple of paragraphs at me then you don't want me come back at you, why is that i wonder?
I simply replyed to herzog calling the rest of us inept, thats an elitist insult.
Isay, you missed my point. The US has been accused of everything under the sun.
I didn't miss your point, thats why i asked for some false reasons that the US has been accused of and should be brought to the ICC because of those reasons. What part of that don't you understand?
Oh and by the way i think Blair should be brought to justice for lying to the British people and won't be getting my vote. I see things in black and white, not like some over patriotic fool who believes what they are spoon fed by a controlled muppet with someones hand up his arse.
And lastly you don't seem to be bothered by RRW's insulting comment i made Americans aware of but you take exception to my comments, so what doe's that make me think.
by isay on Fri Apr 15, 05 6:47pm
[+]
Well, this ballot has done a lot of good. It's refreshing to see that we can all have a conversation that is objective, impersonal, that demonstrates a mature understanding of the importance of exercising restraint and patience when tempers flare, values truth and reason above personal pride, shows our capability of compromising in order to accomplish something valuable, and ackowledges that black-or-white thinking is nothing more than a cognitive distortion, as is the naive assumption that we know what others are thinking.
I feel like we're right on the verge of contributing something useful to ourselves, each other, and the juggernaut that is internet politics--which would be in danger of sinking into the quagmire of total miscommunication, senseless anger, and petty bickering, were it not for our ability to attempt to understand, acknowledge, and transcend the limitations we all possess that might otherwise keep us from communicating with each other as adults.
Isay, I simpy do not want to be part of the war of words between you and RRW. That is all. I promise I did not mean to be rude of disrespectful. I really meant no harm. Sorry.
I wish I could explain it to my own satisfaction. The best I can come up with is that common sense doesn't always stand in good stead in matters of government.
Because those treaties don't have protections against the abuses of the communistic-facistic states of Germany and France from destroying and the political and civil liberties that Americans cherish.
Just because some frogs and krauts sign a treaty doesn't mean that the US has to sign also you know.
The US is a soviergn nation and SURPRISE, we don't necessarily care about what you think.
Pene, we should care. The US doesn't own the planet, we share it. Even if we opt not to sign it, we have an obligation to at least listen to what other nations think. I support our right to say "no," but we still have to have good reason and we have to treat all other nations the way we expect to be treated.
Look that would be fine, if on balance we were given the same respect and treatment.
Especially by the French and the Germans who want to refight wars about Alsace-Loraine endlessly.
I am not accusing the US of anything. I made this ballot because I was curious as to why so many treaties are unsigned. I am open to the possibility that these treaties are heavily flawed. If they are flawed then I would like to know. I have heard many arguments formed against the Kyoto Protocolm and the International Criminal Court, but what about the others? If there is something wrong with them, then they are worth being discussed.
|
