US refusal to sign document on bilogical weapons

[Nifty]

Dowding, what do you think Bush and Powell are doing?  Just going on vacation when they visit other countries?  He and the US are isolationist because they don't sign treaties we think aren't good (the implementation, not the concept mind you)?  Bush doesn't represent you, or any other non-American.  He represents the USA.  He is putting his country's interests first.  If that means pissing you and the world off by not signing a half-assed or harmful to the economy of HIS country treaty, then so be it.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
To me, it's a metaphorical 'shrug of the shoulders' - an admission of the lack of any new ideas to solve/aleviate world problems.

Or maybe it's simply acknowledging that you are "d*mned if you do, d*mned if you don't."

Nothing the US does is going to please the entire world or even a part of it.

We're castigated for what we gave in blood and treasure during WW2. We didn't do enough, we didn't do it early enough, we didn't do it fast enough, we didn't do as much as we think we did.

Post-war, the Marshall plan was simply a sinister gimmick to expand American business at the expense of the Euros who were doing so well without it.

We caused the Cold War. We caused the Soviet Union to arm themselves to the teeth. We caused the Soviet Union to fail economically.

Now we're not doing enough to help the Soviet Union. We're not polite enough to China. We're not doing enough in the Balkans. We're not doing enough in Africa.

Wait... we're doing too much to help the Soviet Union; it's preventing them from progressing by themselves. We're too polite to China but we don't give them enough trade. We're doing bad things in the Balkans.

 

Maybe we've just had enough of the bellyaching. If it looks so d*mn easy, why not let the rest of the world give it a go for a while? After all, things were perfect prior to the US becoming a strong leader on the world stage.

Ahhhhhhhhhh!  The GOOD old days... from say.... 1914-1945!

Yeah, you guys take the reins. We're going underground for this next one.  

I promise you this... hell will freeze before any of the sons in my family line leave the US to fight in a foreign land.

[Dowding]

My fear is definitely not that the US is abandoning treaties because they are useless, but it is abandoning them for internal political expediency. The issues are irrelevant provided the previous administration is proved to have been in error.

Let me make it crystal clear that I don't think the US administration is set-up for anything else other than to serve the American people. I've never claimed that. But the US has a responsibility to the rest of the world in how it deals with it's bio-, chemical and nuclear arsenal. It's the same responsibility carried by the UK, France etc as bastions of democratic freedom. We have to show that we are 'better' than the dictators out there.

I believe the issues being discussed are Kyoto and the Bio-weapons treaty. Those are areas that are not political in origin (unlike China, Russia, Africa or the Balkans), but have been turned into political pawns over recent years.

Now, important issues as pawns is all well and good with me; but provided some positive actions come from it.

Why shouldn't the largest stockpiler of bioweapons team up with the Russians and draw up a new treaty?

Toad, I'm 22 y/o - I've never been in charge of the world, 1914-1945 or any other period. Surprisingly, I can't quite remember that far back - but I'm sure I didn't vote for any of the parties concerned.

I think you've taken every anti-US argument you've ever heard made, from whatever quarter (some that were often peddled the USSR, Iraq and China), bundled them all together and come with a viewpoint reeking with self-pity.   Concise, well-written and about as far off the mark (IMO) as you could want to be.

[Toad]

As usual Dowding, we disagree in a few areas.

1. I, personally, have HAD it with the world griping over US leadership. We're not perfect but we're a d*mn sight better than we get credit for. The constant carping from the cheap seats, from countries that A) Either totally porked their period of "world leadership" or B) couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water deserves to be answered.

Come on down off the bleachers and get in the game. Time for the US to tend to its own problems for a while. The untold resources we squandered trying to make the world a "better place" should have been spent HERE, given the return on the investment we've gotten. What a difference THAT amount of money could have made for OUR poor, elderly and sick! Education problems? We'd have more than enough resources to address that as well.

You get the idea. Why wear yourself thin for people that hate you no matter what you do?


I don't think I'm the only one in the US with this view, either.

2. Kyoto? Bioweapons? There's two sides to every story. Kyoto DOES place a larger burden on the US and gives some really major polluters a free ride. Surely we can do better? Isn't that a leadership function?  

Bioweapons? Yes, we have them. We've got a huge stockpile of nukes, too. Haven't had to use either one of those since 1945.

What are you worried about? No wars, no problems. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing.

We're not the ones that go around invading the next door neighbors and slaughtering ethnic or religious minorities, in case it escaped your notice.

You want a treaty to make you "feel" safer? I feel pretty safe already... real safe in fact. Security doesn't stem from pieces of paper; history is littered with treaties broken by gunfire.

Summing up once again, the US has had a role of world leadership for the last 60-odd years. We really didn't want it but there wasn't anyone capable of doing it after WW2. Now we deserve a break. Things have turned out well enough that now there are dozens of nations that think they can handle things much more proficiently.

Good on 'em, I say. We've got problems we've let slide here for the last 60 years that need immediate attention and need ALL our resources.

So, we'll go tend our own knitting for a while and you folks mind the store.

Good luck!

[Eagler]

"I don't think I'm the only one in the US with this view, either."

Nope, you are not.

[Swager]

So much for becoming part of the EU.

Ya see, this goes alot deeper than alot of people realize.

One of the pre-conditions for joining the European Union (EU) is you're country cannot utilize capital punishment.  What does this do to the USA??  Well believe it or not, the EU and the Euro are becomming quite powerful and it will continue to get stronger.  

If the US does not start playing the international "game" with thing like capital punishment, bio weapons, sulfur emmisions, and global warming we could find our selves out in left field.  All countries have to trade and socalize internationally or they will find themselve in dire straits.

If the EU does become a powerful trading unit, and for the most part tends to look elsewhere for trading commodities the ole US of A could find them taking a back seat to many other things.

I am not pro-EU or pro-European, it is just that sometimes the USA needs to get off their high horse and look at problems from a world perspective vice just looking out of their window into our back yard!

This is just my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of my family.

Swager out!

PS  Toad I agree with you 100%  

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Swager ]

[Dowding]

Toad, I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours. We disagree.

It seems to me neither is likely to budge. I think your view of the world is screwed; you probably think mine is fubar'd.  

<edit added smiley - seemed unduly harsh without it.>

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

[pimpjoe]

 [/QUOI'm not enough of a nutball to think that a single nutball has any power in the U.S. to start a war. TE]

Lyndon B. Johnson ring a bell?

[StSanta]

We're not the ones that go around invading the next door neighbors and slaughtering ethnic or religious minorities, in case it escaped your notice.

I bet the CIA has played a role in South American and other places  .

Also, what nation is the only one to have used a nuke offensively?  .

[Hornet]

Great post Toad. There's no way for us to win on the world stage because some country will always cry like a stuck pig regardless of our policy choice. Better to take care of our own.

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by StSanta:
Also, what nation is the only one to have used a nuke offensively?   .

Santa, you are playing a 56 year old card...

It was much, MUCH different circumstances.

Would the war have ended? At the expense of how many American lives? British lives? Russian lives? Chinese lives? Japanese lives? etc..
-SW

[Toad]

Swager, how do explain all the world trade that goes on with the REALLY "bad" nations then? They haven't been ostracized or "left out".

Trade will continue; always does if there's a market. Failure to sign a bio weapons treaty? Hey, the world still trades with nations far worse than that.

Dowding, your view seems to be that the US should do most of the heavy lifting yet have no more say than a nation (or nations) that barely contributes at all. Want a larger voice? Take on a larger role. Simple. In fact, please have the UK take over leadership, particularly in the areas of supplying the forces and money to police the world.

Santa, please compare and contrast the CIA's role in any South American nation you wish to choose with that of the present Serb/Muslim situation (slaughter) in the Balkans.

Then, please discourse on the state of the German atomic weapons program and the Japanese atomic weapons program at the end of hostilities. Comment on whether or not THEY would have used the weapon if they had it. Lastly, you can comment on whether or not the two weapons used were justified given the casualty projections... on BOTH sides... had the US invaded the Japanes home islands.

Nice troll, but really old bait.