Ok, then why do we help at all? We either do it as a responsibility to the world community or we do it to protect ourselves. Peacekeeping missions in Rwanda, Bosnia and the Sudan aren't exactly protecting our way of life. Besides, I don't care if France is grateful because we protected them. I could care less. 55 years later, that is irrelavent in the grand scheme of things. It is just some antiquated little dig that we have against them though most who are around today who remember it are in their 60's and 70's. My point is, either do those things that we do and just accept that fact that we are part of a world community that requires of its many citizens certain things. Or, don't do them at all. Requiring gratitude or some sort of justification is silly. If someone needs a hand, you help them because it is the right thing to do. With all the talk we hear about character, it seems that charity is the most elusive character trait today. Personally, I think the isolationist view is naive. We are a global economy now. We have no choice. Japanese and Chinese markets effect our own. We have a vested interest in oil reserves in OPEC nations. If we didn't, we wouldn't have been over there fighting for them. With health concerns in places like Africa and Europe, our assitance is required to protect our own citizens from infestation. Make no mistake, this is a global society. The moment travel and communications were simplified and people were able to visit far-away places by turning on their TV or computer or by traveling a few hours on a plane, everything changed. Just as TV changed the way we viewed Vietnam War and segregation in the south, TV, mass transit and the internet are re-shaping how we view the world as a whole. We have already started on that path. Our children and grandchildren will embrace it even more than we do. We can no longer overlook another country's behavior anymore than they can overlook ours. I don't want it both ways. We have choices on how to clean up emissions and they aren't easy. But, you said you were concerned about your children and grandchildren ending up in global court. You should be more concerned about them ending up in global hospitals from the increasing pollution problems that exist. I'm not saying other countries don't have a responsibility as well. Of course, they do. But, being the leader of the free world has incredible responsibilities. One of them is to be a leader in making the world a safer and healthier place to live for ourselves and our children. It is the right thing to do even if it isn't the easy thing to do. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
polemical pontification prevents profundity ------------------ You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!
Ask the Frenchmen if 1945 how much we did our part...or those who were persecuted by Milosevic. This far more than just "good stewardship." Make no mistake...it is not our DUTY to do these things. Do you actually think we go into these situations to help the French or the Bosnians? We don't. If we did, we'd be going into Rwanda and other civil-war torn places as well. We go into them because if we don't, it's going to come back to haunt *US* down the road. If we don't step into WW II, the likely result is that Hitler eventually decides to attack the US on our own soil. If Milosevic isn't stopped, the entire area goes into turmoil, which affects the European politics & economies and drags our economy down in the long run. Almost everything we do in terms of risking human lives has some very real benefits to us. As much as we portray it as "doing the right thing", our foreign policy is determined primarily by our own interests already. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
shanna -- agreed...we don't do these things out of charity. And quite honestly, I don't believe it would be responsible to the American people who give up their sons and daughters to be soldiers to do as such. We better damn well have an interest of our own before we shed American blood. I agree!! But we still do it, nonetheless. I have a friend who is Mormon. He went on his mission trip to Paris. He was playing chess with an older French gentleman. At some point my friend mentioned that he was a a US Marine. The man's eyes got watery and he got up and hugged my friend. He said he could still remember the US troops marching through France, liberating it from Nazi control. I'm not saying they're forever indebted to us....but jimeny-christmas, how about backing us up sometime?? Are they our ally or not?? They denounce every world action we take, siding with the Chinese and the Russians at every turn. Is there any question that the US does more for the world than any other country?? Certainly we've been blessed with plentiful natural resources...and charitable giving per capita from the US dwarfs the rest of the world. We commit food, our citizens and our military to making the world a better place. Admittedly the US government isn't perfect...as Jefferson said, goverment itself is a necessary evil. It will always be chock full of mistakes because it's ultimately run by man. But I don't buy into the notion that we're this evil country that "owes" the rest of the world nothing less than the blood of our sons and daughters. I'm not nearly as convinced, Shanna, that Milosevic really required our intervention. Perhaps you make an argument that we had some moral duty to stop a guy like that...but I don't think we did anything that a conglomeration of French and British military could have cleaned up themselves. Quite frankly, that's how I would prefer it. As for environmental concerns...let's just say that's a topic for another thread. I'm not nearly as convinced as you are, Jeff, that we're in such a dire situation. It's not a foregone conclusion, despite what the UN scientists tell you. But again...a subject for another thread. In no way do I believe we can be isolationist. But I keep hearing the argument that staying true to our interests some how makes us isolationist. I disagree with that. We do not have to give in to the whims of the rest of the world. We do not have to drop US sovereignty at the door of a world court. We do not have to be part of an organization that has countries like China or Cuba on a commission dealing with human rights. That doesn't make us isolationist...it makes us responsible to our own citizens first, before taking care of the rest of the world. Again...I don't see us being any less of a player on the world market for our goods simply because we choose not to submit to such measures. ------------------
Hehe, not to get TOO off topic here but this kinda jumped out at me as I was skimming this. The US doesn't produce anywhere NEAR 50% of the world's CO2 emissions. Less than 1% in fact. We produce 50% of man-made emissions but that doesn't amount to much more than spitting in the ocean in the end. At least, according to many scientists (and yeah, I know others disagree). My point here is that I don't think we need to apologise for doing no harm, even if others think we are doing harm. ------------------
Even if we were to withdraw from the UN we would still be a part of Nato, would we not? I think we have more common interests with this group than all of the disparate nations belonging to the League of Nations II. With most of Europe, the United States and increasingly Russia, what more do we really need. If Japan, China, Cuba, the Sudan, Libya, Nicaragua, et al. don't like us, they can take a long walk off of a short pier as far as I am concerned. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
Back on topic! Do you really want to know why we were kicked off the Human Rights Commission? ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Well I'm gonna tell you anyways! And it ain't pretty. We were kicked off because of... You got it! The Death Penalty... Note the three countries that were voted on to the council and also note their stand on the death penalty. * THE DEATH PENALTY Is It Justice? ... or Is It Just Revenge? Capital Punishment is a barbaric, cruel and inhumane act upon another human being. Contrary to popular belief, research and statistics indicate capital punishment is NOT a deterrent to any crime. Facts are ... it is an incentive to murder - countries which retain capital punishment have seen an increase in violence. In 1999 ... 85% of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, The Congo and the USA. The country which has executed the greatest number of child offenders is the USA (17 since 1973 and 4 last year). Amnesty International states the USA is 1 of 6 countries which executes prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of their crime. The other countries are Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Sadly, the standard of decency of almost every other civilized country has evolved beyond that of the USA when it comes to the death penalty. The execution of another human being is an unworkable self-fulfilling prophecy for revenge,- overwelming feelings of "payback time" demonstrated towards the alleged offender. Revenge converts to violence - leading to more violence - in an already violent society. Capital punishment is just another violent act inflicted upon another human being. Those who oppose capital punishment have great empathy for victims of crimes. Pro-death groups do a great diservice by perpetuating the myth that executions bring "closure". Victims and their families need healing through forgiveness and reconciliation - not vengeance. Statistics from various countries suggest that the presence or absence of the death penalty does not appear to indicate any significant influence upon the rates of homicide. Abolitionist countries have not seen any evidence of an increase in murder rates. Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The most recent survey of research findings conducted for The United Nations in 1996, concluded that " ... Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis ... " World focus is presently on the USA - due to the alarming increase in executions. A civilized country which preaches world peace and human rights to the rest of the world, continues to be in the business of murdering its own citizens with condemnations from many world leaders. Currently, there are 94 foreign nationals from 33 nationalities on death row in the USA. International Human Rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime to be executed to death. The death penalty applied to juvenile offenders is a direct violation of International Law and Standards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The American Convention on Human Rights and the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child, all have provisions to this affect. Currently there are 74 males on death-row in the US who were sentenced as juveniles. Since 1973, the US has executed 17 males for crimes committed as juveniles. More than 35 mentally r****ded people have been executed in the US since 1976. 200 to 300 people with an IQ of less than 75 (normal is 100) are awaiting execution. After a State execution, statistics show a trend to increased homicides for the following few days. The death penalty creates a brutalizing effect, actually inspiring acts of violence, and thereby diminish rather than increase the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Misconduct by law prosecutors have seen innocent people sentenced to death. The death penalty is racist, discriminative and corrupt. Since 1973, 95 prisoners in 22 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. Research and information from all Commonwealth countries including Australia, rates recidivism for murder the lowest of all offences. Life imprisonment would appear to be a sufficient incapacitate for some murderers. National Survey carried out last September by The New York Times using government statistics has revealed that over the past 20 years the homicide rate in USA States with the death penalty has been 48% to 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. Ten of the twelve States without the death penalty have murder rates below the national average, despite having similar demographic profiles to States which retain the death penalty. Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime ANDORRA, ANGOLA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EAST TIMOR, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARMENIA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHILE, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, NORTH KOREA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SOUTH KOREA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, YUGOSLAVIA (Federal Republic), ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is. [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited May 10, 2001).]
Is this really a punishment? The US led the way in forming the United Nations, but over time it had grown stronger and has taken on a life of it's own. The UN has the ability to make a positive difference in the world, and the fact that other nations are taking a more active involvement can only be good for us as a "global community." We're still the biggest kid on the block, but we don't have to act like it. We don't have to run every committee, or be on even be on every committee. Most countries are content to take turns. We should be content to take turns on the lesser committees. (Secure in the fact we have permanent positions on the most important ones. ) ------------------ Stay Cool...
As you all probably saw, Congress has voted to withhold UN dues until we're reinstated on the commission. mc mark -- I would agree that the death penalty might have been a cause...however, I noticed that Libya and China were on that list of countries that still use the death penalty, too...yet they're still on the commission. So I'm not convinced that's the reason. I agree with whoever said that NATO is far more important to our interests than the UN is. That is a more carefully-formed, strategic alliance. Much different fromt the UN which, as dc sports said, has taken on a life of its own. ------------------
I saw that and that just seems silly. We feel sleighted and so we won't pay. To me, that is just childish. If we don't want to be in the UN, fine. But, let's not be weinies about it. Hey, maybe they can forclose on the US like Champions did on that old lady because she didn't pay her dues. We'd be auctioned off for like $500,000 and could be the United States of Bill Gates. It even rhymes! ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
I remember when Pat Robertson was saying the the World Bank (I think that was the organization) was going to re-posses the US based on unpaid monies. I believe he even wrote a book about it -- or at least it had a lot about it. Of course, in his view, this wold lead the US to be run by communistic, anti-god evil forces. ------------------ You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!
Now I am changing my stance on the death penalty. If the French and the English are against it, it must be a good idea. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
It is supposed to mean that I do not like the French and the English. What ever made them so full of themselves. We whooped England in the revolutionary war and since their great empire has crumbled to nothing. France has been the doormat of anyone who wants to have a war in Europe. Being beat down sure seems to have done wonders for their self esteem though. NOTE: I am sure not all French and English people are bad. Unfortunately (or very fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I have not met every French or English person. I even like a few of them. But as of now they are in the negative side of my balance book. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
How did you come to the realization that French and English people are full of themselves and Americans are NOT. I've had the opportunity to meet many British people and they have all been extremely nice. I've been to England, Scotland and France and have had nothing but positive experiences. Americans are regarded around the world as the arrogant one's. English people are mostly considered self-depricating. French...well, I won't defend any country whose comic hero is Jerry Lewis. Glaven! ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
DC “mc mark -- I would agree that the death penalty might have been a cause...however, I noticed that Libya and China were on that list of countries that still use the death penalty, too...yet they're still on the commission. So I'm not convinced that's the reason. “ Agreed, but it is a HUGH consideration. And will see what happens to China and Libya when their term comes up for voting. “I agree with whoever said that NATO is far more important to our interests than the UN is. That is a more carefully-formed, strategic alliance. Much different fromt the UN which, as dc sports said, has taken on a life of its own. “ Why is a military alliance more important than a diplomatic one? Sure the UN has taken a live of its own. It’s evolved. To a point that it doesn’t “serve American interest” It serves a higher calling. Madmax “We whooped England in the revolutionary war and since their great empire has crumbled to nothing. France has been the doormat of anyone who wants to have a war in Europe.” Don’t you think its time to start looking towards the future instead of living in the past? HEY!!!! I like Jerry Lewis! ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is. [This message has been edited by mc mark (edited May 11, 2001).]
Hydra, That is a really ignorant position. Consider the fact that you probably have ancestry that traces back to England or France -- or possibly both. You are right, they are puny, insignificant countries that only have a history for over 1000 years. Additionally, they are not neary as self-righteous or full of themselves as the US is as a country. Being jumbled together with many other countries in a smal geographic area has not allowed them that luxury. Wow, we beat England in a war where they used very little of thier might and also were fighting against other coutries (such as France)...oh yeah, we are some real ass-kickers. I guess the Vietnamese are our superiors, since we couldn't take over their tiny little island. What is it like to be you? ------------------ You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!
Is this supposed to mean something? Or maybe be some thinly-veiled rub? ------------------ You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!
We didn't really lose in Vietnam, the people of the United States did not support the prospect of remaining at war, so we left Vietnam. Make no mistake, we beat the living crap out of the Vietnamese in that little police action, and is was only politics that caused us to "lose" the war. We had no real interests in Vietnam, it was a war of ideology. Britain had everything to lose by not keeping America as a colony, what eventually became the most prosperous country in the world. The Hopi tribe has a history that dates back over a thousand years, but that does not make them significant in the world today. My ancestry can be traced back to Germany and Austria primarily, although I don't know what that has to do with the discussion. I am only refering to people that are currently French, not those whose great grandparents may have been half French or something of that nature. Finally, I did not say that England or France were full of themselves, how could they be. They were entirely dependent on the United States to save them from Facism, and later Communism. What I said was that in my experience the majority of English and French people seem to hold themselves in high regard, esp. in comparison to Americans who they characterize as ignorant, brutish, what have you. Being me is very nice. I tend to get along well with the people that I meet, and I am happy with my lot in life. I just happen to be intolerant of those that look down on other people who give them no cause to do so. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
