Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why should a state's vote be based on GDP and military might?

because that benefits the US, which is what Imran is saying we should do to these organizations. The WTO deals in world trade, hence its name, and the US accounts for 1/4th of all of that trade, and yet we just get 1 vote.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So it's ok for you to allocate political power based on how much money you got?

People are created equal. Nations are not.

There is nothing that makes one nation equal to another, except in name (And that is pretty meaningless). Is the EU one nation? Is it a number of nations? It has qualities of both.

according to your point of view, it would be best of the US declared that all of it's states were countries. It wouldn't have to change anything else, but would likely get close to 40 more votes in the UN.

That is just stupid, and shows that states are fundamentally different than individuals.

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

because that benefits the US, which is what Imran is saying we should do to these organizations. The WTO deals in world trade, hence its name, and the US accounts for 1/4th of all of that trade, and yet we just get 1 vote.

Why is that at all relevant? Do you think that Bill Gates should have a million times more votes than you because he's a million times richer?

because they reflect power

otherwise it would be the state giving up its power for nothing in return

not really fair to it or it's citizens I beleive

Why's is that "unfair"?

[Jon Miller]

maybe an analogy wil help

imagine two houses, yours with your small family, and a neighbor who has an extremely large family

imagine that your neighbor does stuff that you disagree with, like the father of the family has sex with his daughters and maintains an autrocratic hold on the household

now your family, much smaller, is relatively well off, and has weapons and nicer things

the other hosuehold mostly dislikes you and is jelous

now some of your hosuehold feels sorry for the other household, and want to combine your two households and make it democratic (which is sort of like your own)

what do you think is going to happen if suddenly your households are combined?

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

What if the more autocratic household is better off economically and has more weapons (for an example, see China which has disproportionate economic and military power in relation to India)?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Ramo

because that benefits the US, which is what Imran is saying we should do to these organizations. The WTO deals in world trade, hence its name, and the US accounts for 1/4th of all of that trade, and yet we just get 1 vote.

Why is that at all relevant? Do you think that Bill Gates should have a million times more votes than you because he's a million times richer?

That isn't a valid comparison to the WTO. He shouldn't have a million times more votes then me on determining what a law should be just because he is more wealthy(the WTO "shouldn't" do that but they now are), but at a microsoft stockholder meeting he should have much more a say in what his company does then 2 people with 1 share each. During the Steel tariff ruling, every country dumping on the US ruled that they weren't dumping.

[Barinthus]

Perhaps it's not irrational fear but instead more of an sinster agenda... like this...

[Shi Huangdi]

Which is mostly due to American bullyism...

Nice to see you have joined the blame America first crowd.

No, not really. For some reason we've convinced ourselves that we won't be treated fairly in international organizations, but that fear has never come to fruition, yet we continue on.

The Europeans would like to have it both ways here, spew venomous hatred agaainst our country, and then expect us to lovingly cede power to the "International Community". Anti-Americanism is a fact in the world today, and it's not a recent phenomon either. We simply cannot trust cultures in which there is widespread anti-US sentiment to produce people who will treat us fairly.

At least in this country, lawyers tend to lean towards the left. I don't know if that trend holds up to the same degree among legal professionals elsewhere, but if that is the case leftists abroad tend to be the most anti-US, leaving further room for concern.

As for examples of things that could lend to concern, the UN General Assembly Condemned our Cuba Embargo unanimously except for the USA and ISrael. The UN General assembly also routinely blasts our ally, Israel. It also made Libya the head of the UN Human Rights Council.

[Barinthus]

Comintern probably didn't help American inherent mistrust of international organizations either.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


So I take you would agree with David Floyd then that the Nuremburg Trials had no legitimacy?

Yes. Victor's Justice would tend to lack legitimacy in a moral sense.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Which is mostly due to American bullyism...

Nice to see you have joined the blame America first crowd.

There's the "blame America first" crowd, and then there's the "blame the United Nations first" crowd.


I take it you belong to the second crowd?

[Imran Siddiqui]

People are created equal. Nations are not.

How do you make that distinction? Why are people created equal? Each state has soveriegnty over its own people, shouldn't it be an equal on the world stage vis-a-vis other soveriegns? One soveriegn isn't more equal than another. Both of them have exclusive control over a set of people.

Nice to see you have joined the blame America first crowd.

Come on... even pro-American people have to realize that our history has many black eyes, which are the direct cause of people disliking us.

We simply cannot trust cultures in which there is widespread anti-US sentiment to produce people who will treat us fairly.

Then why should they trust the US who has been lording over them to treat them fairly?

the UN General Assembly Condemned our Cuba Embargo unanimously except for the USA and ISrael.

Unilateral sanctions are usually frowned upon. Personally I'd like to see the sanctions ended as well.

The UN General assembly also routinely blasts our ally, Israel. It also made Libya the head of the UN Human Rights Council.

I love how this is always trotted out, like Libya was elected head of it. 'L' comes after 'K', which is the reason Libya got to get to the head of the Human Rights Council. Alphabetical rotation of leadership will do that for ya.

[Dinner]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4057531.stm

An interesting article that may illistraite what some concervatives have been speaking about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A lawsuit against Rumsfeld was filed by a NEW YORK based group in Germany. Yep, those evil foriegners... oh wait, that's a domestic group... .

And as the article says:

What happens next will depend on the German Federal Prosecutor's office.

Nothing has happened except a filing of a suit. I would think fellow Americans would be familiar with frivolous suits.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


because they reflect power

otherwise it would be the state giving up its power for nothing in return

not really fair to it or it's citizens I beleive

Jon Miller

So what you're saying is that you're opposed to any international cooperative organization whatsoever. There is no way to be part of a cooperative organization without giving up at least a little of one's "right" to do whatever the hell one wants. That's the one of the chief points of such organizations--to level the field somewhat and give smaller nations some protection against the whims of larger powers.

As for "nothing in return," I find that a bizarre statement. Joining the ICC gives us plenty in return. For instance, the good will of other nations who are also joining the accord. Second, we then have a say and active hand in bringing real war criminals to justice under the aegis of an international body. And the legitimacy that grants will go towards blunting criticism of the U.S. for acting only selfishly in foreign affairs.

I must say, JM, I never figured you for an unilateralist loon.