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

[Edi]

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. Indeed, America is not the only country to do that. But expecting us all to just shut up about it is completely over the top, and whining that we disagree instead of just falling in line and doing as told is irritating. 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? Either a permanent seat on the security council, nuclear weapons or a dictatorship that doesn't give a fuck, or any combination of the two. Or possibly just so fucked up a state of affairs (e.g. Argentina now) that they can't afford to NOT ignore the rest of the world.

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 ? True.

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. I don't know about the petrol tax issue, I'll admit that. I know it costs a shitload of money here and 75% of what you pay for petrol is taxes. I largely agree on the GMO food ban issue, and I'll add that the protectionism regarding agriculture in the EU (and just as badly in the US) is shameful.

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)? True, which is why the West should pay them back in kind when they get intransigent. The problem here is that women's rights movements face a lot of opposition on religious grounds also from the West, namely from the Vatican and also from the US due to the disproportionate fundie influence in politics. How often does Turkey join in the condemnation of Israel ... and still support Denktash with Turkish troops? Denktash doesn't have very long anymore. Greek Cyprus is getting into the EU, and the only way for the Turkish half to get a reasonable deal is a merger of the two halves. Turkey's hands are tied because it also wants into the EU and if it makes too much noise over Cyprus, it'll get a very rude treatment. 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? True.

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.
I'll agree with you that the UN power structure needs some reform. But you wouldn't like a proportional representation either, that'd relegate the US to #3 slot if you went by headcount, in economy and military you're still #1. Going by headcount, many poor countries would get a far larger voice than now, and let's face it, they won't agree to go by economics or military force, because their influence would lessen.

There's also the issue that while most of the light shines on the Security Council and peacekeeping, most of the UN is concerned with activities that have little to do with that, and just scrapping it now wouldn't be a good idea because all of that would be wasted too.

[Edi]

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.
The US is hardly alone in having passed that sort of legislation. Granted, Finland is a small player, but we've been straining toward the same goal, the only problem is that we've already had stringent environmental measures to start with, and you can't squeeze much more. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik much of the US industry is still using old, outdated technology that pollutes much more than current ones. Sure, it'll cost money to upgrade, but is that a reason not to do it? You can hardly argue that dumping less shit into the atmosphere is a bad thing, or can you? Especially since US emissions are 25% of worldwide emissions, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on. The Kyoto timetable was rather optimistic, and I don't think anyone has met it yet, but some countries are at least trying.

Thing is, I'd be willing to support a model where it doesn't matter where you reduce pollution as long as you reduce it, which would mean that you could have the pollution reducing efforts you've paid for someplace where it'd be relatively cheap to do counted in your favor, and in this respect helping 3rd world industries by giving them a leg up and modernising them would benefit both you and everyone else. It'd also help things get into a point where those 3rd world countries couldn't claim exception status to the treaty, especially given the help they already got. Oh, well, maybe I'm still hopelessly idealistic in some respects.

ABM Treaty - I think Knife already put this about as succinctly as I ever could. Same with ICC and the Land Mine Treaty.
Read my response to Stravo, those are covered there.

[Mr Bean]

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.

So let me get this strait, We ough't not have an ABM shield because it will be costly and might not work?
Hell! Thanks for explaing that! I guess we should stop building Tanks because all that extra armor is useless because there are lots of weapons that can shoot right through it?

Look let me put it to you as it is designed,
Your thinking we are building another Star-Wars
NO This is not another Star-Wars, This is a ABM shield designed to stop a few missles(With Thirty Being the eventual Goal) Not 5,000, Not 50,000 as we need in Star-Wars, Just Thirty
Now sure if somone sends a missle across the boarder in a truck it won't stop it, But niether would Star-Wars, This is an ABM shield designed to protect us aginst your avarage Yahoo, NK has nukes, They don't have one hundred of the things as they don't have enough Material to build that many, Remeber those 50,000 Took a few years to build.

The ABM shield is directly designed to discourage your avarage Tin-Pot Dictator who thinks that once he gets Nukes, He's untoucable
Frankly thats true now-adays, Since we have JACK SHIT to stop a Nuclear Missle Attack , The Russians already have a system in place for Tin-Pot protection we never had one and its about time we did
Furthermore this is not money pissed away, Everyone and their brother is trying to devolp Nukes, they can't build alot, but all they need is one cause you know what?
We can't stop even one...

[Edi]

I see where you're coming from in this respect, Bean. Doesn't mean I'll change my mind much, though this is more reasonable than many arguments I've seen.

As for everyone and their dog developing nukes, it's not the nuke, it's the delivery system. Both are pretty useless as weapons without the other, and the delivery system is afaik the more difficult one to develop. By the way, would you care to tell me which tin-pot dictators have the capacity to strike at the US with nukes? NK has the most advanced missiles of those who are eligible, and even they don't have enough range. Pakistan and India have missiles too, but again, no ICBMs afaik, and neither are much of an enemy, at least not now, and I don't really see that changing much.

Like I said, whether or not you have a missile shield or not is not really something I care about. No need to get all pissy at me because I gave you an opinion on why I think the NMD program is stupid. Most of those have to do with economic factors and the fact that there isn't currently any such threats the NMD was touted against.

Edi

[tharkûn]

Indeed, America is not the only country to do that. But expecting us all to just shut up about it is completely over the top, and whining that we disagree instead of just falling in line and doing as told is irritating.
I don't think Americans care if people don't fall into line. I think they care more when France opposes them on political grounds. France has oil contracts with Saddam and is desperately trying to appease the anti-US bloc of the French electorate. If they came out and were honest most people would view that more kindly than dicking around on tenious moral grounds. The Americans do have the idea of follow or get out of the way. If the French want symbolism ... abstain. If they wanted a bloodless solution in Iraq they'd shut their mouths for now and let the pressure on Saddam build and pray he either takes exile or is assinated by someone who doesn't want to sink with the good ship Saddam. I'd have hideously more respect for the French position if it was honest or coherent.

Either a permanent seat on the security council, nuclear weapons or a dictatorship that doesn't give a fuck, or any combination of the two. Or possibly just so fucked up a state of affairs (e.g. Argentina now) that they can't afford to NOT ignore the rest of the world.

Even simpler ... they started wars without UN approval.

I don't know about the petrol tax issue, I'll admit that. I know it costs a shitload of money here and 75% of what you pay for petrol is taxes. I largely agree on the GMO food ban issue, and I'll add that the protectionism regarding agriculture in the EU (and just as badly in the US) is shameful.
The petrol tax is only allowed because Europe, despite protests from oil consumers the world over and protests from oil producers, made sure that the WTO is FORBIDDEN from touching oil. The logic for this (that OPEC has a monopoly) is moronic and a lie. It is just an example of where European wants to keep its laws when the rest of the world wants to make a change.

True, which is why the West should pay them back in kind when they get intransigent. The problem here is that women's rights movements face a lot of opposition on religious grounds also from the West, namely from the Vatican and also from the US due to the disproportionate fundie influence in politics.
As far as I have seen the only contentious issue is abortion, and for catholics birth control (every sperm is sacred ), Other than that I don't see too much support for allowing husbands to beat their wives, honor killings, revoking all females driver's licenses when they get uppity, forced mutilation, etc.

Denktash doesn't have very long anymore. Greek Cyprus is getting into the EU, and the only way for the Turkish half to get a reasonable deal is a merger of the two halves. Turkey's hands are tied because it also wants into the EU and if it makes too much noise over Cyprus, it'll get a very rude treatment
It depends, but doesn't Turkey still have a crapload of troops in Northern Cyprus?

I'll agree with you that the UN power structure needs some reform. But you wouldn't like a proportional representation either, that'd relegate the US to #3 slot if you went by headcount, in economy and military you're still #1. Going by headcount, many poor countries would get a far larger voice than now, and let's face it, they won't agree to go by economics or military force, because their influence would lessen.
They won't argee on anything because 90% of the delegates would lose all their voting priviliges and what non-existant impact they claim to have. Why in hell would the Seychelles vote themselves into oblivion?

There's also the issue that while most of the light shines on the Security Council and peacekeeping, most of the UN is concerned with activities that have little to do with that, and just scrapping it now wouldn't be a good idea because all of that would be wasted too.
Most of the UN is concerned with stupid crap and gets little done. Its philanthropic agencies are generally less efficient than NGO's. Sure the UN is nice to have to take interim control of a new nation-state, to monitor elections, to provide official aid ... but that frankly can be done by far fewer people.

Most of the UN's time is spent on BS, plain and simple. The only redeeming quality in the UN structure is the security council (and with the judicious swapping of India for France as a permanent member ... pretty reasonable too).

[Mr Bean]

As for everyone and their dog developing nukes, it's not the nuke, it's the delivery system. Both are pretty useless as weapons without the other

I beg to differ as we demostrated in 1945 that you don't need a Missle to use a Nuke

By the way, would you care to tell me which tin-pot dictators have the capacity to strike at the US with nukes? NK has the most advanced missiles of those who are eligible, and even they don't have enough range. Pakistan and India have missiles too, but again, no ICBMs afaik, and neither are much of an enemy, at least not now, and I don't really see that changing much.

China has both the Tecnology and the lack of a reason to sell Missle Tech Willy-nilly, Don't forget sooner or later means sooner or later, If they had Nukes already, we would be fucked as it is
Remeber this is somthing that will take, five-ten years to put togther plus another eight probably to implenet, This is not somthing we can throw money at and four years down the road have it all installed

[CmdrWilkens]

The US is hardly alone in having passed that sort of legislation. Granted, Finland is a small player, but we've been straining toward the same goal, the only problem is that we've already had stringent environmental measures to start with, and you can't squeeze much more. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but afaik much of the US industry is still using old, outdated technology that pollutes much more than current ones. Sure, it'll cost money to upgrade, but is that a reason not to do it? You can hardly argue that dumping less shit into the atmosphere is a bad thing, or can you? Especially since US emissions are 25% of worldwide emissions, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on. The Kyoto timetable was rather optimistic, and I don't think anyone has met it yet, but some countries are at least trying.

Yes the US is about 25% (actually 25.68 if my number crunching and the UN's millenium numbers are an indication) but accounts for 29% of the world GDP and those are based on numbers 4-5 years old before much of the US's more recent emissions reduciton legislation and initiatives. In other words the jury is still out.

[Edi]

Bean, point conceded regarding the missile defense schedule. Though I'll still argue the point about a state with simply nuclear weapons (without a missile system to deliver them) being a realistic threat to America, because trying to use 1945 delivery system (bomber) against you is a rather ridiculous proposition given your military superiority, especially in the air. And given assured destruction in retaliation, not a gamble anybody but a completely insane idiot would try. Most people in a position to have nukes are not completely insane, though I'll not vouch for Kim Jong Il. He seem to be rather nuts.

Edi

[The Dark]

Edi - about the pollution within industry: I don't know specifics, that's not my area, but I do know the government has filed lawsuits against a couple dozen powerplants in the Midwest and South for being too polluting. There are emissions standards, and the government is becoming stricter in enforcing them in the corporations I know workers in.

And China is the most likely "tin pot" we'll shield against with an ABM treaty. It's an open secret that they have nuclear missiles capable of striking Los Angeles. If it caused the same percentage of casualties as Hiroshima (a large assumption, but I don't know China's nuclear warheads to be able to say total damage), there would be nearly 2 million casualties. As has been said, this would not prevent application of MAD doctrine, it would merely prevent the application of nuclear terrorism by mad dictators.