Uh, why do we need the UN's approval again?

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough, but we're talking about sending in ground troops this time for a full-scale invasion, not just an air war and low-level peacekeeping involvement. The scale of the protests would naturally be larger. I was just pointing out that Clinton DID catch flak about Chelsea.

[Mr Bean]

Oh, I agree that quite a bit of anti-US sentiment is from ignorance. That's why it's so easy to simply dismiss all of it as ignorance.

But that would be a Hasty Gen and that would be quite idioic to do now would it not?


But Wong, sometimes its hard not to be increably cynical when you have thousands floking to see the Virgin Mary in a Can of Varnis in upstate New York or on the Beachs of Aussy Land
Enough that I would call the MAJORITY of Anti-US fokes are that way because of Ignorance

[phongn]

Well, President Bush is very good at waving the big stick and being threatening. Very easy for him to do it, none of his children will risk their lives if we go to war.

Oh give me a break. I don't recall any presidents in this country woth children in the military during wartime.

I'm almost positive FDR had his children in the military during wartime. That's the only exception that I can think of at the moment, however.

[Mr Bean]

Fair enough, but we're talking about sending in ground troops this time for a full-scale invasion, not just an air war and low-level peacekeeping involvement. The scale of the protests would naturally be larger. I was just pointing out that Clinton DID catch flak about Chelsea.

Not flack Orginzed by the National Democratic Party

Signs are expensive, money has to come from somewhere(As was pointed out while CNN was saying how Brave(More like idioic) the protesters where to be coming out in 20*F weather to exercise their right to protest)
Meanwhile it was all over the internet that the orginization and funding where provided by everyone from Sadamm himself to the Green Party and its more extremists off-shoot of the National Workers Party(Communists)

[The Dark]

I think this needs to be defined better. Are you saying no international decision should be made without international consensus, or merely that America should listen to what other nations say, think about it, and then make a choice based upon both internal and external pressures?

I don't know if a full consensus is necessary (or feasible). But I'm saying that if international opinion were FIRMLY against an action (although I don't think that's necessarily true in this particular case, but I digress), America should factor that much more heavily into their decision-making than they do. This "lead, follow, or get out of the way" attitude is rather insulting to everyone else, since it's really just another way of saying "STFU; I don't give a damn what you think".

I agree with that. Our leadership seems to think that "lead, follow, or get out of the way" does mean "STFU and do what we want." Personally I don't find the first motto insulting if treated the right way:

lead: provide us with a viable alternative (or)
follow: go along with our plan (or)
get out of the way: don't actively interfere with our plan

Unfortunately, that sort of simple logic is beyond Shrubby, and why international diplomacy will never be his strong point. Our politicians do need to look outside of America more often; it's unfortunate that it seems part of the upper-class American attitude seems to be a cultural elitism that is an over-compensation for the European view I've gotten (from people outside this board) that America is still the country hicks of the world.

[Mr Bean]

Our politicians do need to look outside of America more often; it's unfortunate that it seems part of the upper-class American attitude seems to be a cultural elitism that is an over-compensation for the European view I've gotten (from people outside this board) that America is still the country hicks of the world.

Aye! and we got the biggest boomstick of them all!
So geof our properta

[Edi]

As one of the Europeans on this board, I'll chime in.

Many Americans here seemed to take offense at the assertion that Americans don't care about world opinion and told that they do, but usually when somebody like me or Wong or any number of others who actually have rational positions on issues talk about American arrogance or disregard of others in international dealings, we aren't talking about Americans as individuals, but of Americans collectively, as a nation. And at that level, the allegations about not caring about world opinion (meaning here the opinion of the people in other countries, not just the governments) are true.

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel
-Kyoto treaty
-ABM treaty
-International Criminal Court
-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well).
-GMOs

All of those issues are seen as pretty important elsewhere, and on most of them most other countries were diametrically opposed (or nearly so) to the American position, and most of what the rest of the world was told was 'piss off, we'll do as we please'. The impact of international opinion on American decisionmaking has demonstrably been negligible on many major issues. The impact of international opinion on American decisionmaking regarding issues that are on their face domestic to America but defacto affect all the world has been completely non-existent (most of the DMCA and related IT legislation is the most glaring example).

I'm not saying that international public opinion should dictate American policy, but showing some more consideration, even if the ultimate outcome would remain unchanged, would go a long way. As it is, America as a nation often doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about even appearing to listen or care, which has also been characteristic of the wrangle over Iraq. Appearances and questions of ego and pride (on both national and sometimes personal scale) are very important in international diplomacy, and one ignores that at one's own peril (I don't like it either, but them's the facts).

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:
The UN and the whole international community of nations is based on the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination and the upholding of that principle, with the member nations being restricted in their actions by the relevant treaties (and restricted in their internal conduct by relevant human rights etc treaties if they're signatories). Part of this structure, which was in large part set up in order to prevent a reoccurrence of WW2, is the stipulation that war is justified only in self-defense (i.e. when somebody else violates the treaties), or by unanimous decision of the Security Council. This way nobody could just up and decide to whack his neighbor with impunity, or to seize resources or whatever.

If the US, which was one of the main architects of the UN, now decides to ignore that very same organization because it is inconvenient to them, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US, why not everyone else too? Why not North Korea, or Iran, or Syria, or Sudan, or Britain, or Djibouti, or Finland, or Israel (who already do so anyway) or Vanuatu or India or anyone, for that matter?
Somebody might retort that because we won't let them, which means just that that person is saying his nation will use bullying and force of arms to make them comply, or perhaps economic sanctions and whatever, which will lead to retaliation and perhaps measures by someone else sympathetic to whichever side, and soon you'll have possible trade wars and all sorts of shit that will bring down the international scene as it currently stands, UN, WTO (with everything that represents, decades of work) in short order, and everyone will be royally screwed over.

Even if, say, the US and some of its allies, or maybe China or whoever, managed to just get everyone else in line with threats, those will be the only ones that will keep them in line and only so long before they will see if the threat is carried out, or build alliances and coalitions that can't be similarly intimidated.

In short, the potential repercussions are very serious. Not all of it might come true, that's not a given, but I'm not optimistic, especially if national prides get offended. When something comes a matter of face in politics, things often get far beyond rational boundaries.

This is my single most important reason for opposing war in Iraq without UN blessing. I agree that Saddam should be removed for what he has done, and should have been removed 12 years ago already. You get the UN approval, put a bullet between his eyes, it's long overdue. But without approval, the situation is not as simple as Shrub and co. make it appear. Yes, I don't think much of the current American president, that's no secret, but it doesn't alter my point in the least.

I also see a lot of Americans castigating the French and the Germans for opposing the war because those nations have their own interests at heart (on one hand the desire of the current politicians to stay in power and on the other their substantial oil agreements with Iraq). It's funny how every time someone does something that would threaten US interests a huge hue and cry ensues from Washington, usually coupled with threats of dire consequences, and everyone else is told to shut up. Can't have American interests threatened after all. And nobody in the US seems to think this is wrong. In this case the French and the Germans are making noise over their threatened and legitimate interests, and the Americans bitching about that sounds just as pathetic as their bitching about your actions sounds to you. Just drop the hypocrisy in this respect.

Furthermore, their agreements are with the state of Iraq, which will hardly cease to exist with the removal of Saddam Hussein. Such deals aren't automatic writeoffs, which is certainly going to be a huge inconvenience to American oil interests that no doubt would love to get their hands on Iraqi oil fields if (or more probably when) the US decides that deals made with Saddam's regime are not to be honored. I'd be surprised if the US governorship of post-Saddam Iraq didn't heavily favor American interests. There's the economic half of the reasoning backing the French and German opposition to the war. The other is the desire of their politicians of staying in power. For myself, I couldn't care less for this particular spat.

Hopefully most of you can see what I'm saying here instead of just labeling me another anti-American.

Edi

[Sea Skimmer]

As one of the Europeans on this board, I'll chime in.

Many Americans here seemed to take offense at the assertion that Americans don't care about world opinion and told that they do, but usually when somebody like me or Wong or any number of others who actually have rational positions on issues talk about American arrogance or disregard of others in international dealings, we aren't talking about Americans as individuals, but of Americans collectively, as a nation. And at that level, the allegations about not caring about world opinion (meaning here the opinion of the people in other countries, not just the governments) are true.

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel
-Kyoto treaty
-ABM treaty
-International Criminal Court
-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well).
-GMOs

All of those issues are seen as pretty important elsewhere, and on most of them most other countries were diametrically opposed (or nearly so) to the American position, and most of what the rest of the world was told was 'piss off, we'll do as we please'. The impact of international opinion on American decisionmaking has demonstrably been negligible on many major issues. The impact of international opinion on American decisionmaking regarding issues that are on their face domestic to America but defacto affect all the world has been completely non-existent (most of the DMCA and related IT legislation is the most glaring example).

I'm not saying that international public opinion should dictate American policy, but showing some more consideration, even if the ultimate outcome would remain unchanged, would go a long way. As it is, America as a nation often doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about even appearing to listen or care, which has also been characteristic of the wrangle over Iraq. Appearances and questions of ego and pride (on both national and sometimes personal scale) are very important in international diplomacy, and one ignores that at one's own peril (I don't like it either, but them's the facts).

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:

The US already has approval, so I'm not seeing why you feel you need to rant for a couple pages on why its a bad idea.

[Perinquus]

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:
The UN and the whole international community of nations is based on the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination and the upholding of that principle, with the member nations being restricted in their actions by the relevant treaties (and restricted in their internal conduct by relevant human rights etc treaties if they're signatories). Part of this structure, which was in large part set up in order to prevent a reoccurrence of WW2, is the stipulation that war is justified only in self-defense (i.e. when somebody else violates the treaties), or by unanimous decision of the Security Council. This way nobody could just up and decide to whack his neighbor with impunity, or to seize resources or whatever.

If the US, which was one of the main architects of the UN, now decides to ignore that very same organization because it is inconvenient to them, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US, why not everyone else too? Why not North Korea, or Iran, or Syria, or Sudan, or Britain, or Djibouti, or Finland, or Israel (who already do so anyway) or Vanuatu or India or anyone, for that matter?

We've kind of gotten into the whole U.S. vs world opinion, do Americans care or don't they debate. My original point, way back at the beginning is that U.N. approval is an empty gesture. After all, whatever the U.N.s beginnings might have been, however nobly itended it was at the outset, and whether the U.S. was one of its architects or not, what kind of moral authority can the United Nations POSSIBLY have left, when it appoints Libya, Libya for Pete's sake to chair a commission on human rights? Or Iraq - dictatorial, obfuscating, WMD chasing Iraq - to chair a committee on disarmament? It's a collosal fucking joke, only I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Perinquus]

Fair enough, but we're talking about sending in ground troops this time for a full-scale invasion, not just an air war and low-level peacekeeping involvement. The scale of the protests would naturally be larger. I was just pointing out that Clinton DID catch flak about Chelsea.

Fair enough. He did catch some flak, but I try to keep myself pretty well informed, and I hadn't heard of it. The Clinton protests, perhaps partly because they were smaller, just weren't being as widely reported, and I don't recall hearing any of the Hollywood crowd, who miss no opportunity to sound off about Iraq these days. The Hollywood liberals are particularly revolting not just in their hypocrisy, but in their intolerance for opposing points of view. Martin Sheen, for example, on the set of West Wing, won't allow any busts of Republican presidents to be displayed when he's around. At a recent pro-abortion rally, the actor Ed Harris expressed, not just disagreement with the President on matters of policy, he sneered at his manhood. When one of Bush's speechwriters, David Frum, recently encountered Barbra Streisand at an event on the west coast, and she was told who he worked for, she actually said: "eew" like he was something that just crawled out from under a rock. If you disagree with them, you aren't just someone with an opposing point of view; you're a bad person.

They are busy comparing Bush to Hitler, but I don't recall any of them questioning Clinton's adventurism. And a lot of the people out there waving these anti-war signs were consicuously silent when Clinton was deploying troops. Much of this protest is politically partisan.

[Mr Bean]

Kyoto treaty

Would have killed our ecnomey rather fast, As they conventily left out when they ranted and raved when we did not sign is based on the treaty we would have to shut down roughly 14% of our Industry to met some of Kyoto's deadlines

-ABM treaty

We are the only one who could afford an ABM shield or even system, Why anyone else signed it is pretty obvious, they could not do it if they did not want to

If the US, which was one of the main architects of the UN, now decides to ignore that very same organization because it is inconvenient to them

Inconvenient? more like dangerous to us, War is a nessary tool of State-Craft and as long as France and China Sit on the secruity concuil its largly not an opition aside from bribing them to do what needs to be done

[David]

We've kind of gotten into the whole U.S. vs world opinion, do Americans care or don't they debate. My original point, way back at the beginning is that U.N. approval is an empty gesture. After all, whatever the U.N.s beginnings might have been, however nobly itended it was at the outset, and whether the U.S. was one of its architects or not, why kind of moral authority can the United Nations POSSIBLY have left, when it appoints Libya, Libya for Pete's sake to chair a commission on human rights? Or Iraq - dictatorial, obfuscating, WMD chasing Iraq - to chair a committee on disarmament? It's a collosal fucking joke, only I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Agreed, as I said before I don't believe that the UN represents, or has ever represented, the will of the people of the world. The problem with the UN is that it is based on a system that allows tiny nations, many times controlled by dictators or Communist regimes, to dictate policy to contries with populations in the millions or even billions. As far as I'm concerned the United States never should have been in UN. If we had followed along so blindly with UN resolutions in the 60's, 70's, and 80's we'd all be called each other Comrade.


Perhaps the reason Americans do not respect the UN or many of its nations is because for so long their intrests have been completely the opposite of our own. And because those nations have tried to use the UN system to force those intrests on to us.

[Stravo]

As one of the Europeans on this board, I'll chime in.

Many Americans here seemed to take offense at the assertion that Americans don't care about world opinion and told that they do, but usually when somebody like me or Wong or any number of others who actually have rational positions on issues talk about American arrogance or disregard of others in international dealings, we aren't talking about Americans as individuals, but of Americans collectively, as a nation. And at that level, the allegations about not caring about world opinion (meaning here the opinion of the people in other countries, not just the governments) are true.

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel ( A vital ally to the US and one might add that the International community is all but enamored with the Palestinians who recent evidence has pointed out carried out an organized attack against Israelis with suicide bombers with Arafat asking why more weren't killed. Oh Yes, I would much prefer to deal with Arafat. The whole situation is a moral and political quagmire, I will most certainly not deny that but at the same time, Israel has proven a far more valuable ally than teh Palestianins, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians or even Saudi Arabia could EVER be.).


-Kyoto treaty (Bean addressed this issue well. It would have hampered us economically on an issue that has not been scientifically proven.).

-ABM treaty (Oh my God, the US might nuke everyone now that we have an ABM shield. Oh yes, run and hide from the big bad US. After all they would want to nuke all their trading partners and send their economy into teh shitter. The ABM treaty is a vital interest of the US and a technology that far outstrips anything the EU or any other industrailized nation can put together.).

-International Criminal Court (Ah, yes. The name sounds so good and HOW could we oppose such a fine organization...that appoints judges whose decisions cannot be appealed and who would have jurisdiction over US soldiers on peace keeping missions who are accused of warcrimes. Considering how BALANCED European opinions are of the US I can definately see a fair trail on the horizon. PLEASE, you want to prosecute War Criminals and the like? Feel free, just leave our boys out of it.).




-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well). (Good to hear some agreement here. While it SOUNDS like a nice humanatarian plan, unfortunately when you have troops sitting on the DMZ facing a million man army that has suiddenly become a VERY real threat, landmines look VERY nice.).

-GMOs (I'm sorry no idea what this is).


Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:
The UN and the whole international community of nations is based on the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination and the upholding of that principle, with the member nations being restricted in their actions by the relevant treaties (and restricted in their internal conduct by relevant human rights etc treaties if they're signatories). Part of this structure, which was in large part set up in order to prevent a reoccurrence of WW2, is the stipulation that war is justified only in self-defense (i.e. when somebody else violates the treaties), or by unanimous decision of the Security Council. This way nobody could just up and decide to whack his neighbor with impunity, or to seize resources or whatever.

If the US, which was one of the main architects of the UN, now decides to ignore that very same organization because it is inconvenient to them, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US, why not everyone else too? Why not North Korea, or Iran, or Syria, or Sudan, or Britain, or Djibouti, or Finland, or Israel (who already do so anyway) or Vanuatu or India or anyone, for that matter

Problem here is that Iraq has been constantly violating UN sanctions and mandates from the begining. Their most recent admisison to this was on teh U-2 issue. They told insopcetors they could not assure the safety of teh U-2 flights because they regulalry fire on coalition aircraft. Guess what BY UN MANDATES THEY CANNOT FIRE ON COALITION AIRCRAFT. They have been doign this for over TEN YEARS. But I guess since they're just American planes and pilots who gives a shit right? The fact of the matter is the UN cannot act because there is no will to act. There is no leadership coming from the UN except some meally mouthed BS that smells suspiciously like appeasement..



This is my single most important reason for opposing war in Iraq without UN blessing. I agree that Saddam should be removed for what he has done, and should have been removed 12 years ago already. You get the UN approval, put a bullet between his eyes, it's long overdue. But without approval, the situation is not as simple as Shrub and co. make it appear. Yes, I don't think much of the current American president, that's no secret, but it doesn't alter my point in the least.

I also see a lot of Americans castigating the French and the Germans for opposing the war because those nations have their own interests at heart (on one hand the desire of the current politicians to stay in power and on the other their substantial oil agreements with Iraq). It's funny how every time someone does something that would threaten US interests a huge hue and cry ensues from Washington, usually coupled with threats of dire consequences, and everyone else is told to shut up. Can't have American interests threatened after all. And nobody in the US seems to think this is wrong. In this case the French and the Germans are making noise over their threatened and legitimate interests, and the Americans bitching about that sounds just as pathetic as their bitching about your actions sounds to you. Just drop the hypocrisy in this respect.

There is a HUGE difference betwene a nation PRETENDING to be opposed on a moral high groound issue and one that ACTUALLY Opposes on self interest issue. Germany and especially those lying little turds, France, have consistently painted their position as opposed to the war based on sovereinty and world peace grounds BULLSHIT they have MILLIONS in oil contracts and they don;t share this fact when they loudly oppose us yet inprivate back channels have asked for assuranbces that those contarcts would be honored after the war. Where are these high and mighty ideals. I woudl have far more respect for the French if they actually came out and said that they were opposed because they were worried about their investments. (not to mention the large volume of ILLEGAL oil they get from Iraq...oh those wacky French. To quote the Bard:"God gives you one face and pinat yourselves another")

It is not so much the reasons for French opposition as it is the WAY they go about it, disguising it in these higher moral issues when they veneer is tissue thin. Your view of it is skewed in that sense. We don't castigate them because they are opposed to it, we castigate them because they are DISHONEST in their opposition. At least Bush made it VERY CLEAR in the State of Union address why we were doing it. VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST in accordance with the Bush Doctrine.



Hopefully most of you can see what I'm saying here instead of just labeling me another anti-American.

Not at all, I welcome other opinions, particularly from Europe because as has been pointed out before in this thread - what we hear and see in the media may not be what a people of a nation are feeling. It is not anti-American to disagree with us.

Edi

[The_Nice_Guy]

Just for variety's sake, I'm from Asia, I live in Asia, and I agree completely with Bush's stance on Iraq. Saddam is an asshole, and he needs to be taken out fast before he gets any funny ideas on how to use his new nukes when he gets them. Then resolve the entire Mid East situation. I'm getting tired of islamic fundies threatening to kill all infidels.

Next on the list is North Korea. I don't like the threat of an unstable nation hanging over the entire continent either. Take them out, or at least take Kim out. Perhaps China can be persuaded to help.

It all boils down to how much I trust the US. Well, I believe I can trust the US to do whatever is best for its nation and economy, which in turn my well-being and wealth is quite closely related to. In addition, I would rather the policeman of the world be a democratic nation like the US than some other shithole like Cuba or Iran.

The Nice Guy

[DocHorror]

At least Bush made it VERY CLEAR in the State of Union address why we were doing it. VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST in accordance with the Bush Doctrine.

And what are these vital national interests? And why are they any more vital than France, Germany or Russias interests?

[Knife]

Edi wrote:

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel
-Kyoto treaty
-ABM treaty
-International Criminal Court
-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well).
-GMOs

Israel: Ok, political quagmire and the two sides are pretty much solid in
their thinking. But I can see your point.
Kyoto treaty: Of all the nations that were in Kyoto, how many signed the
thing? Heres a hint, the US was not the only one.
ABM treaty: A treaty with a nation that no longer exsists and one that
the new nation in its place decided to end as well. We didn't
break it, we mutualy ended it with Russia.
ICC: Quite frankely against US consitutional law, and a political tool to
use against US foreign policy.
Land Mines: Sounds good until you need one in the field to stop an
approching force.

I'm not saying that international public opinion should dictate American policy, but showing some more consideration, even if the ultimate outcome would remain unchanged, would go a long way. As it is, America as a nation often doesn't seem to give a flying fuck about even appearing to listen or care, which has also been characteristic of the wrangle over Iraq. Appearances and questions of ego and pride (on both national and sometimes personal scale) are very important in international diplomacy, and one ignores that at one's own peril (I don't like it either, but them's the facts

How much more consideration do you want, Bush has been on the WarPath for about a year now and has so far waited for "international" opinion and has gotten a UN resolution. That does not sound like we are disreguarding world opinion too me. And yes, sometimes it seems that we push on without world opinion but sometimes it is because the "world opinion" is on of apathy. When the world opinion is nothing exept perhaps, what ever is against you, why should we listen? It is not all ways this attitude, but their is hypocracy on both sides.

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:
The UN and the whole international community of nations is based on the principle of national sovereignty and self-determination and the upholding of that principle, with the member nations being restricted in their actions by the relevant treaties (and restricted in their internal conduct by relevant human rights etc treaties if they're signatories). Part of this structure, which was in large part set up in order to prevent a reoccurrence of WW2, is the stipulation that war is justified only in self-defense (i.e. when somebody else violates the treaties), or by unanimous decision of the Security Council. This way nobody could just up and decide to whack his neighbor with impunity, or to seize resources or whatever.

Iraq broke the treaty.

If the US, which was one of the main architects of the UN, now decides to ignore that very same organization because it is inconvenient to them, it sets a dangerous precedent. If the US, why not everyone else too? Why not North Korea, or Iran, or Syria, or Sudan, or Britain, or Djibouti, or Finland, or Israel (who already do so anyway) or Vanuatu or India or anyone, for that matter?
Somebody might retort that because we won't let them, which means just that that person is saying his nation will use bullying and force of arms to make them comply, or perhaps economic sanctions and whatever, which will lead to retaliation and perhaps measures by someone else sympathetic to whichever side, and soon you'll have possible trade wars and all sorts of shit that will bring down the international scene as it currently stands, UN, WTO (with everything that represents, decades of work) in short order, and everyone will be royally screwed over.

The US is not ignoring the UN, we went and got a UN resolution that satifies (sort of) the US and the world. People keep saying that we ignore the world and the UN but we have done nothing but work through these channels in our quest to fuck Saddam up. This has nothing to do with the credibility of the US (in a lot of peoples minds) but the credibility of the UN and the future of the UN when and if it can back its resolutions up.

As all ways, IMHO.

[HemlockGrey]

Let's be honest with ourselves. The reason America doesn't care about world opinion is that 90% of the time world opinion sucks ass.

[His Divine Shadow]

The US needs UN approval so that they can continue to tell themselves that they're not an overbearing imperialist state.

Which is a crying shame since a Finnish Empire could be so much more overbearing and imperialistic than the US.

[Perinquus]

Hmm, I see Mike split off the Clinton vs. Bush parts of this thread while I was typing my reply. Hopefully, he will come back and move this one over to the new thread where it now belongs.

[Colonel Olrik]

The mods cannot "glue" posts. Just post it in the new thread, and David will eventually delete this extra posts

[Perinquus]

I reposted it over there myself. I'd delete it from this thread now that I've done so, but I observe that I do not have that option on this forum.

[tharkûn]

News flash Mike NOBODY gives a rat's ass about world opinion when push comes to shove. The Americans are by no means alone in this wanting to appear to care but not backing down when views differ. How many times have Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, Israel, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Argentina, etc. all told the UN they can take their opinion and stuff it up their ass? Here's a hint - what do every one of those countries have in common?

Let's be honest. Respecting world opinion is far, far down on any nation's list of things they give a damn about (except in a Machiavellian sense). Tell me if world opinion said Canadian healthcare monopsopy was viewed as evil by the world ... would Canadians change their system? Or worse if world opinion said Canadians could no longer participate at world hockey competitions ... how long before the riots start ?

Europe doesn't give a rat's ass if their petrol taxes violate WTO principles, nor if various nationalized industry are within world opinion. Europe doesn't give a flying frik if GM crops are safe the world over and every food exporting country in the world wants them to drop the ban (and it is so bad that countries have allegedly refused aid because it is possible that future cash crops can't be sold due to genetic contamination). Europe does what europe wants and to hell with world opinion.

The only time people care about world opinion is:
1. When it is unimportant.
2. When world opinion agrees with their position.
3. When they can leverage concessions to go along with it.

Nobody minds sacrificing something trivial that costs them virtually nothing (like signing another worthless nonbinding resolution). Everbody loves to trumpet world opinion when it is in their court. For instance how many times do Islamicists talk about UN resolutions against Israel ... how often do they talk about the UN's position on something as basic as women's rights (and forget abortion, let's try something simple like being able to NOT GET BEATEN BY YOUR HUSBAND)? How often does Turkey join in the condemnation of Israel ... and still support Denktash with Turkish troops? And of course let us not forget the time honored tradition of bribery. Do you have any idea how many votes make it through because of simple quid pro quo? How many nations agree to some popular idea not because they like it, but because they can expect to be compensated for their change of heart?

I've been on four cotinents and unless something is remarkedly different in Australia and South America ... nobody cares about world opinion except how it can further their own goals.


As far as the UN. The UN is a pathetic joke. NAURU has as much voting rights as JAPAN. Frikking ANDORRA votes equal to INDIA. Why in hell should the UN matter? Judging how much people care about foreign opinion by the UN is laughable. The UN no more represents world opinion that the US Congress, the British House of Commons, or the bloody Knesset. You get a better sampling of world opinion by starting a conversation on a New York subway than going to the UN.

[CmdrWilkens]

Mike,

I want to respond this way because perhaps I have become a tad involved in the response but my point remains that both polling of the American populace AND response from denizens of this baord has shown a great deal of American's believe that international consensus is a key factor in US involvement overseas. My objection is that you have countered that this is not the case without ever addressing the point I raised before and again in this post. I object because your posts seem to reflexivly stae that American's do not take international opinion to heart when making considerations about policy decisions which has not yet addressed my points raised about polling data and the response of denizens on this baord and in this thread in particular.

[CmdrWilkens]

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel
-Kyoto treaty
-ABM treaty
-International Criminal Court
-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well).
-GMOs

Israel - This is a sticky issue wherein I don't think there is a clear right or wrong but the US is certainly not alone in supporting Israel.

Kyoto Treaty - As others have mentioned we aren't the only ones who pulled out and at the same time the US is the only nation at those accords to have continued to pass resolutions and laws aimed at reducing emissions (such as the zero-emission car). Of the nations attending the US has enacted the most aggressive pro-environmental legislation while we were already a lesser per capita polluter than many of them. In other words the Kyoto Treaty has been a tool with which to bash America for not signing onto something that set arbitrary limits that, nonetheless, the US has made more progress towards than any other participant or signatory.

ABM Treaty - I think Knife already put this about as succinctly as I ever could. Same with ICC and the Land Mine Treaty.

[Edi]

As one of the Europeans on this board, I'll chime in.

Many Americans here seemed to take offense at the assertion that Americans don't care about world opinion and told that they do, but usually when somebody like me or Wong or any number of others who actually have rational positions on issues talk about American arrogance or disregard of others in international dealings, we aren't talking about Americans as individuals, but of Americans collectively, as a nation. And at that level, the allegations about not caring about world opinion (meaning here the opinion of the people in other countries, not just the governments) are true.

Examples of such include but are not limited to:
-Israel ( A vital ally to the US and one might add that the International community is all but enamored with the Palestinians who recent evidence has pointed out carried out an organized attack against Israelis with suicide bombers with Arafat asking why more weren't killed. Oh Yes, I would much prefer to deal with Arafat. The whole situation is a moral and political quagmire, I will most certainly not deny that but at the same time, Israel has proven a far more valuable ally than teh Palestianins, Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians or even Saudi Arabia could EVER be.).

Ally, yes, but one that has been in violation of UN resolution after UN resolution for far longer than Iraq has been on the bad side of the US. Not to mention that the US actually doesn't need Israel, Israel is contributing fuck-all toward US goals on the wider level and supporting it makes adversaries of many who would be neutral otherwise.


-Kyoto treaty (Bean addressed this issue well. It would have hampered us economically on an issue that has not been scientifically proven.).

-ABM treaty (Oh my God, the US might nuke everyone now that we have an ABM shield. Oh yes, run and hide from the big bad US. After all they would want to nuke all their trading partners and send their economy into teh shitter. The ABM treaty is a vital interest of the US and a technology that far outstrips anything the EU or any other industrailized nation can put together.).

I don't actually give much of a damn about this one myself. If there was ever a nuclear war between Russia and US, we'd be fucked anyway because of proximity to St. Petersburg, ABM shield or no ABM shield on either side. With Russia in the state it is in, it's hardly going to increase its nuclear weapons arsenal, so the point is moot. And if Bush wants to spend a shitload of money and effort on a defensive system that is unreliable at best and costly as hell, it's not money out of my pocket but the American taxpayer's pocket instead (unless it sends your economy down and indirectly causes a depression here too). It's still fucking stupid because it's practically no value for a shitload of cash that could be spent much better. The rest of the world may have different reasons for disagreeing, these are mine.

-International Criminal Court (Ah, yes. The name sounds so good and HOW could we oppose such a fine organization...that appoints judges whose decisions cannot be appealed and who would have jurisdiction over US soldiers on peace keeping missions who are accused of warcrimes. Considering how BALANCED European opinions are of the US I can definately see a fair trail on the horizon. PLEASE, you want to prosecute War Criminals and the like? Feel free, just leave our boys out of it.).

Seems you're under a very mistaken impression here. The ICC has jurisdiction only if the nation whose troops are in question refuses to investigate themselves and deal with it. So if US troops fuck up and kill a shitload of innocents, and the US makes and investigation and punishes those guilty (or releases them if it was something they could not possibly have known about, that sort of things sometimes happen), the ICC won't have jurisdiction, it's case closed. And given this premise, which is part of the ICC charter already, the flat refusal to even consider the ICC unless the US is given complete veto over it even in cases where it refuses to investigate possible war crimes committed by its troops makes it look like the US is specifically reserving the right to commit them whenever it wants.
Sure, you could have somebody fling accusations at US troops, but quite often it's clear from the get-go that those accusations are baseless. The ICC would need reasonable cause. Not that US military courts have a very good record of dealing with the sort of assholes who are guilty of criminal violations, they are toof often let off with just a slap on the wrist if that. The most notable such case that I remember is the plane crew who intentionally violated standing orders regarding flight altitudes and caused the death of 20 people in northern italy a few years ago.


-The Land-mine treaty; FYI, I agree with America and think it's bullshit, and I'm proud to say that the government of Finland also agrees with America in this (and we have self-interest there as well). (Good to hear some agreement here. While it SOUNDS like a nice humanatarian plan, unfortunately when you have troops sitting on the DMZ facing a million man army that has suiddenly become a VERY real threat, landmines look VERY nice.).

Like I said, this treaty is total bullshit. Its basis was dreamed up by idealists who see only the pictures of maimed children from Africa and who know fuck-all about military strategy, practices or anything else related to the issue. The problem is not the mines themselves, it's the indiscriminate sowing of mines and insufficient mapping of the minefields that's the problem. I also know what you mean about mines looking attractive as defense, we have a 1300 km border with Russia and all of our wars in the last 500 years have been against them. We've only 5 million people, so mines are necessary for us. That's why we gave that treaty the finger. There's some noises here about committing the army to develop alternative defensive systems, but that's a pipe-dream and everyone knows it.

-GMOs (I'm sorry no idea what this is).

Genetically Modified Organisms. I'm not one of those alarmist tree-huggers and I've far fewer qualms about GMOs than many because I know what it's about, but some concerns are legitimate. But given that when <50% of people who were asked whether they would eat tomatoes with genes in them answered 'no', the ignorance is showing strong... What's needed on this issue is informed debate instead of alarmist bullshit and propaganda (which both sides are guilty of).

Regarding the specific case of Iraq and why attacking without UN approval is a Bad Idea:
<snip>

Problem here is that Iraq has been constantly violating UN sanctions and mandates from the begining. Their most recent admisison to this was on teh U-2 issue. They told insopcetors they could not assure the safety of teh U-2 flights because they regulalry fire on coalition aircraft. Guess what BY UN MANDATES THEY CANNOT FIRE ON COALITION AIRCRAFT. They have been doign this for over TEN YEARS. But I guess since they're just American planes and pilots who gives a shit right? The fact of the matter is the UN cannot act because there is no will to act. There is no leadership coming from the UN except some meally mouthed BS that smells suspiciously like appeasement..

What you conveniently ignore here is that the no-fly zones in Iraq are illegal under international law and so is their enforcement, and in this respect Iraq is damn well entitled to fire on coalition craft that violate its airspace. I'm not aware of the full text of the UN mandates you speak of, but the no-fly zone certainly doesn't exist in them. It was unilaterally imposed by the US and the UK. This doesn't mean that I wish harm to the American pilots flying there, and I resent that you imply I would. As for appeasement, since when the hell has containment equated appeasement? Iraq is backed into a corner, has no means of waging war on anyone without getting stepped on like a bug, and if they give WMD to terrorists, hell if there's even any provable links to international terrorists, they get stepped on. Appeasement? You have a very funny definition of that.

<snip> re France and Germany to avoid unnecessary repetition.

There is a HUGE difference betwene a nation PRETENDING to be opposed on a moral high groound issue and one that ACTUALLY Opposes on self interest issue. Germany and especially those lying little turds, France, have consistently painted their position as opposed to the war based on sovereinty and world peace grounds BULLSHIT they have MILLIONS in oil contracts and they don;t share this fact when they loudly oppose us yet inprivate back channels have asked for assuranbces that those contarcts would be honored after the war. Where are these high and mighty ideals. I woudl have far more respect for the French if they actually came out and said that they were opposed because they were worried about their investments. (not to mention the large volume of ILLEGAL oil they get from Iraq...oh those wacky French. To quote the Bard:"God gives you one face and pinat yourselves another")

It is not so much the reasons for French opposition as it is the WAY they go about it, disguising it in these higher moral issues when they veneer is tissue thin. Your view of it is skewed in that sense. We don't castigate them because they are opposed to it, we castigate them because they are DISHONEST in their opposition. At least Bush made it VERY CLEAR in the State of Union address why we were doing it. VITAL NATIONAL INTEREST in accordance with the Bush Doctrine.

The French government must sugarcoat it because of their own electorate, otherwise they'll be out of power come next election time, so they must be vocally opposed in public. This should be clear. Regarding the vital national interest you cite, which one is that? Stop the spread of WMD? Or getting control of additional oil resources? Because given how the US allows its allies to develop WMD without reprisal while castigating others it doesn't like for the same, the second is the only logical conclusion. To the rest of the world, that looks just as dishonest as the French do to you.

Hopefully most of you can see what I'm saying here instead of just labeling me another anti-American.

Not at all, I welcome other opinions, particularly from Europe because as has been pointed out before in this thread - what we hear and see in the media may not be what a people of a nation are feeling. It is not anti-American to disagree with us.

Great, because far too often this kind of conversations degenerate into pointless flamewars right from the get-go on account of entrenched (mis)perceptions. Me being often rather vocal and blunt also doesn't help in that respect.

Edi