Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The rest of you should have been a bit smarter. Kyoto is a horrible deal that won't ever amount to any world wide net CO2 reductions. Energy intesive industries will just move from capped countries (1st world) to uncapped countries (3rd world) where they will have even fewer enviromental laws.

Did you miss the point entirely? Clinton didn't have to get it ratified, just not give a middle finger to the rest of the world by 'unsigning' it.

But that would have left the treaty open to being ratified by future congresses even if the President didn't support it. Unsigning sent a clear message that the US thought Kyoto was fatally flawed and we weren't going to agree to a treaty that left 3/4 of the world free to pollute but put strict standards on us.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
So - Americans are worried about international organisations because they are always breaking international law and don't want to be punished for it.

CASE CLOSED!

More likely because "international law" is very poorly defined and is often used as a political weapon instead of an instrument of justice like it was intended to be.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by MalevolentLight
It's good that you feel outrage for putting underwear on some guy's head, but I don't see you screaming out in rage as the muslim monkeys lop off heads. Double standards rule.

Dude, if you have been following any of my posts or my other internet rants you would know that I was setting up my own counter-terrorism terrorist organisation to target the terrorists that target us. Also You would know that I did scream to shoot the islamists and their leaders in the Theo van Gogh -thread. So dont come giving me that bull**** about double standards. I just expect EVERYONE to use the standards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that would have left the treaty open to being ratified by future congresses even if the President didn't support it. Unsigning sent a clear message that the US thought Kyoto was fatally flawed and we weren't going to agree to a treaty that left 3/4 of the world free to pollute but put strict standards on us.

Before the Bush Administration, NO Administration has unsigned a treaty! NONE. It is unprecedented.

Heaven forbid a future Senate thinks the treaty was good law.

So - Americans are worried about international organisations because they are always breaking international law and don't want to be punished for it.

CASE CLOSED!

Bingo

[Az]

Since international law is a bunch of crap, I don't blame them.

[Whoha]

Re: Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Nothing irrational about it, they are quite often used to destroy our sovereignty and the sovereignty of other nations. the IMF, World Bank, and WTO being examples that effect everyone.

Oh, something else, I just googled "Red Cross Condemnation Al Qaida" and got Abu-Ghraib in the first couple of hits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Azazel
Since international law is a bunch of crap, I don't blame them.

The US doesn't say that when it backs their position . We've used international law on a number of occasions to get our way.

[Az]

HYPOCRISY FOUND IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, NEWS AT 10

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The US doesn't say that when it backs their position . We've used international law on a number of occasions to get our way.

Because (obviously) we don't think we're applying the parts that are crap, or applying those parts in the ways we think make them crap.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
More likely because "international law" is very poorly defined and is often used as a political weapon instead of an instrument of justice like it was intended to be.

Care to cite an instance where this has been done in the past either against the United States, or where the U.S. wasn't a key player on the side of those using it as a political weapon?

The U.S. here is objecting to the potential that it might be treated the same way it has treated other nations in the past, it seems to me. Talk about a double standard!

[chequita guevara]

I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

[Az]

Because (obviously) we don't think we're applying the parts that are crap

Not a valid argument, since parts are applied by you selectively, i.e. sometimes they're crap, and sometimes, they're jolly good. .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The U.S. here is objecting to the potential that it might be treated the same way it has treated other nations in the past, it seems to me.

No, legitmate fear of payback.

[Az]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Care to cite an instance where this has been done in the past either against the United States, or where the U.S. wasn't a key player on the side of those using it as a political weapon?

It doesn't happen to us because we don't let it happen to us.