Why do Americans have an irrational fear of international organizations?

[Sandman]

Propaganda is the reason.

The UN is placed under an unremittingly harsh spotlight by the right-wing American media. Individual crimes and mistakes become a failure of the whole organisation.
Allegations of corruption become grotesquely embellished 'facts'. A tiny budget and limited powers becomes 'weakness' - despite these being the very qualities right-wing Americans seek in the federal government.

[Jon Miller]

there is being unilateralist

and there is being not stupid

they are not neccesarily the same thing

now the proper response to the two household question, and what the US and europe do not do enough of, is to spend money and effort in to making the poorer, more autocratic house wealthier and happier (and less autocratic)

it is a gradual process though, and not one that can be done instantly or by giving everything you have away

Jon Miller
(as for what happens when the stronger (militarily) power is autocratic? well an autocratic power would not even mess arround with this silliness so this idea would not even be a possibility in some people's minds)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
there is being unilateralist

and there is being not stupid

they are not neccesarily the same thing

But your words say you equate any international cooperative body as being "stupid," because you think being "stupid" means giving up some sovereignty. Any cooperative body will entail giving up SOME sovereignty.

Why is this black/white, all-or-nothing for you? That's certainly not reality. Joining the ICC will not in any way end our sovereignty instantly, you know.

Certainly, not blatantly sabotaging the ICC regardless of our joining, like the current administration is doing, isn't going to effect or sovereignty negatively.

it is a gradual process though, and not one that can be done instantly or by giving everything you have away

Um, what we're talking about here IS gradual. This is such a blatant strawman, I'm amazed you'd post it. Nobody is talking about anyone totally giving up their sovereignty.

[Jon Miller]

I am not refering to the gradual process of giving up sovereignty

I am refering to a gradual process of bringing them to the same position as you, so that they look out for your interests and see the world in a similiar way as you

this can be done with no loss of sovereignty

Jon Miller
(I am all in favor of a one world goverment, I just don't tihnk the world is ready for it)

[Drake Tungsten]

I see the Imran Siddiqui project is going well.

You are the man, che.

[DinoDoc]

I'm still kind of waiting for a compelling reason why we should join.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I gave you my reasons. You may consider them compelling or not, but I, personally, believe them to be compelling.

[Boris Godunov]

If you can't condense it in a sentence with fewer than 20 words, DD doesn't find it compelling.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I gave you my reasons. You may consider them compelling or not, but I, personally, believe them to be compelling.

I kind of believe that history gives lie to the question of if we care about gross human rights abuses in other countries. I've also seen no real reason why we should. That makes me find your reasons less than interesting atm.

PS I'm not interested Boris. Stop trying to flirt with me.

[Boris Godunov]

Don't flatter yourself. I like men with attention spans.

[Shi Huangdi]

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.

You said they hate us because we bully others. In some cases there are legitimate greviances, true, but that does not mean anti-Americanism is always justifiable and rational.

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

That's up to the foreign governments to decide whether or not they want to follow us on any given policy.

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

Then lobby your own government to have them ended. It is each nation's soverign right to allow or disallow trading in any given circumstance.

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.

Whatever the case, a body that will allow and accpet Libya becoming head of the Human Rights Council is a serious problem. And while this may be the normal procedure to go alphabetically, it is not a hard and fast rule, as Israel is always passed over for this role.

[DinoDoc]

Whatever.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

Whatever the case, a body that will allow and accpet Libya becoming head of the Human Rights Council is a serious problem. And while this may be the normal procedure to go alphabetically, it is not a hard and fast rule, as Israel is always passed over for this role.

GAH! I am agreeing with Shi on something . . . . .


AGAIN.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You said they hate us because we bully others. In some cases there are legitimate greviances, true, but that does not mean anti-Americanism is always justifiable and rational.

The anti-Americanism discussed here is, however. Our actions on the ICC has been deplorable. And a lot of anti-Americanism you may consider non-justifiable and irrational may be as a direct result of our bullying (such as Iran, for instance).

That's up to the foreign governments to decide whether or not they want to follow us on any given policy.

And it isn't in the US's interest to have foriegn governments follow us? I'm sure we'll want them on board when China rises.

Then lobby your own government to have them ended. It is each nation's soverign right to allow or disallow trading in any given circumstance.

You mean like UN sanctions on South Africa and Iraq? I guess the US gladly ignored soveriegn rights there.

a body that will allow and accpet Libya becoming head of the Human Rights Council is a serious problem

Frankly I don't think it is. So it gets to bang the gavel and keep time. Big deal. Oh, and Libya has been out of the HRC since 2003.

as Israel is always passed over for this role

They haven't been part of the Human Rights Commission since 1970. Perhaps it is because they won't be voted onto it, but if they were, they would get their turn as well.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

[MalevolentLight]

Imran yet again showing his true colors. Republicans in the north east must be very very different from the rest of the country. It's shameful that you have a picture of Arafat in the same place that Reagan once stood. Disgusting. Please stop insulting Republicans and call yourself what you are...a liberal apologist that has a soft spot for terrorists.