US calls for a Netherlands Invasion Clause

[Arrian]

Agreed, Mike and Imran. Unilateral actions with a strong whiff of arrogance match up pretty well with Rome and Imperial Britain. Not that I find that surprising. The Brits learned it from the Romans and passed it on to us.

The issue here is that the US government has gotten to the point where they don't trust anyone (again, excepting Britain, Israel, and Canada, which I left out the first time... oops). That's bad. I was just trying to point out that there are external, as well as internal, reasons for it.

-Arrian

p.s. cross-post with Roland. Of course bad US policy has resulted in some of the hostility. That's so self-evident I didn't feel the need to mention it. And I agree about steel tariffs, but after all, I seem to remember something about EU agricultural protectionism as well. Again, the sword cuts both ways.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The issue here is that the US government has gotten to the point where they don't trust anyone (again, excepting Britain, Israel, and Canada, which I left out the first time... oops). That's bad. I was just trying to point out that there are external, as well as internal, reasons for it.

That is true, however, I think the mindset of the US is one towards distrust of others. Remember, it all started when Washington warned of entagling alliances. For some wierd reason, we Americans haven't grown out of that (which made sense back then) and still distrust those who are not American, even though Americans are a vastly diverse group ourselves.

It really is wierd. We joke about how some people think about black Sikorsky helocopters with 'UN' on the side... but it might not be a joke to a lot of people.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Arrian
The issue here is that the US government has gotten to the point where they don't trust anyone

I'm not so sure this is a matter of trust. Sometimes it seems to be a matter of understanding problems. When Cheney spells out a ban on criticising Bush because he's a war time president, it is so absurd it makes my toenails dance the mambo.

[Arrian]

That, Imran, is what you get when you take a fundamentally isolationist nation (in that its people want to be isolationist) and thrust it onto the world stage. This is what happened with the US following WWII. The government became interventionist - getting involved in conflicts all over the world, and taking a leading role in Nato and the UN. But the average American didn't really want that. I think there is a mindset here that the US got sucked into world events we wanted no part of, and then got blamed for screwing up. That's a simplistic argument, but hell, most Americans are simple (at least when it comes to their view of the outside world). And as the criticism continues from all over, we get more and more reactionary. It's called polarization, I believe, and I don't like it. I'm just trying to understand it... and maybe bring others to as well. I think Tony Blair was trying to get at it in his recent speech. He was largely ridiculed for being an American lacky, but he had a point.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a simplistic argument, but hell, most Americans are simple (at least when it comes to their view of the outside world).

Simple in many other things as well .

I agree with all your points, Arrian. However, I (and I think you'll agree) believe that Americans have to wake up! They have to realize that we are a superpower and the hegemon, and thus lead by example. Internationalism isn't a bad thing at all. In fact, most instances of internationalism are good things!

One thing Americans don't understand is that RIGHT NOW we should internationalize, because the organizations and structures that are formed will be based on our ideas, because we are the superpower. We will have, probably, the greatest say in how it comes about. This is the time to take advantage. If we wait (like we are now) then international structures which we'll have to join, because we won't be able to go it alone, will take the ideas of the superpower hegemon of that future time.

[DinoDoc]

You people would have to start an interesting thread while i am on vacation, wouldn"t you?

[Arrian]

Good point, Imran. Very good point. And you're right, I agree with you.

US foreign policy is terribly reactive, and has been so long as I can remember. We should be more proactive. We should be flooding the UN with proposals of our own. Instead of just rejecting treaties we don't like, we should be coming up with alternatives. At the very least, it would be good PR. But seriously, successive US administrations have squandered a period of unprecendented US hegemony by failing to step up and lead by moral example. Why in the hell didn't WE propose and set up a court for war crimes? Because we've been reactive instead of proactive... and paranoid to boot. Silly, really, and potentially tragic.

-Arrian

[Roland]

Looks like the vacation didn't become you anyway...

[Ecthy]

a vacation didn't become him? what is that supposed to mean?

[DinoDoc]

My Poly addiction got the best of me, Roland.

[rah]

The top dog traditionally has had to look at the bottom feeding scavangers rummaging through it's garbage and wonder if they're planning on working together to topple him.

Paranoia at it's best. A sorry state of affairs, but predictable.

RAH

[Ned]

Stepping aside from the American bashing for a moment, why is this treaty necessary? What is wrong with the current system were the Security Council authorizes war crimes trials in particular instances?

From the selfish American point of view, if the Security Council has to authorized war crimes trials, America can protect itself from malicious accusations by its veto. Why should we give up this power?

All told, this clearly is a power grab by those who want the bypass the Security Council in invoking war crimes prosecution. In my humble opinion, this is not a good idea.

[DinoDoc]

Ned, no one (least of all Roland) has been able to answer that question. Here's hoping that you have better luck.

[Roland]

"why is this treaty necessary? What is wrong with the current system were the Security Council authorizes war crimes trials in particular instances?"

Would you want a legal system where a bunch of government official sit around and decide "well, in this case we could do a court... but sorry, your dad's killers won't go to trial, nothing personal, it's politics, you know..."

[Arrian]

Any international court will be political. I'm not saying that's a reason not to have this new court, but come on, you know there will be all sorts of political wrangling going on.

-Arrian