View Poll Results: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support or Belong to?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • North American Free Trade Agreement

    5 15.15%
  • North Atlantic Treaty Organization

    10 30.30%
  • The United Nations

    6 18.18%
  • The World Bank

    4 12.12%
  • The International Monetary Fund

    5 15.15%
  • World Health Organization

    10 30.30%
  • Kyoto Protocol

    5 15.15%
  • Commission for Environmental Cooperation

    7 21.21%
  • Middle East Free Trade Initiative

    4 12.12%
  • None of the Above

    19 57.58%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

  1. #21
    Advisor Burning Giraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Burgaw, NC
    Last Seen
    07-27-10 @ 06:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    357

    Re: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I agree that somethings must be changed, but I do not think it is true that we get nothing in return. For example, it is military policy to have bases throughout the world in order to have attack capabilities if so needed. The "Bush" pre-emptive doctrine. Right or wrong, there is some appeal to being prepared for all scenarios and keeping the fight away from the continent. As far as MEFTI, it is keeping oil companies in oil, I could argue either way for this, but in reality the ME is all about oil and we all know it. I think it as well as NAFTA need reform in order to create real free trade, as is NAFTA is responsible for the immigration increase from Mexico, but you will never hear that admitted.
    I don't know. I just don't see how bases in Germany are that strategic. All we really need are Navy Bases anyway, stationed around the world. We can use them for hospitals and getting our troops around the world. It doesn't take our military very long to set up a good base. If we wanted to set up a military base right beside the Kremlin, we could. There are plenty of countries that would give us land for military bases, I don't see why should be using Europe. I don't know, I'm sure the military people know what they are doing.
    There is nothing more dangerous to the liberty of Man than a Government or a Religion seizing upon the strings of an overdeveloped herd instinct amongst the people.

  2. #22
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 11:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    Frankly, I think America's first order of business is to abandon its nonsensical alliance with its enemies in Europe by pulling out of NATO. The United States has enjoyed a long and significant relationship with the United Kingdom and we should form treaties and alliances with them, ignoring the European Union as whole. We have very little in common with them and no need to protect them. We can look to other allies in the world where we actually have strategic interests: Canada and Mexico, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, and Brazil. These are nations that we can work with.
    I totally agree with you, but the NATO alliance is keeping the Russians at bay incase they ever feel like picking up there balls again and trying something in Eastern Europe, and its vital as a world player that the US remains a world player and not the US and Russian, and it is also vital as a world player that it declares the importance and the need for other countries to respect there terratorial integrety and independance.

    Secondly, we need to pull out of the United Nations. However, we could not afford to do so unilaterally. We would need some other important nations to come out of the UN with us to form an organization of some of the most powerful nations, ignoring the ones with small an ineffective military or political presences: The United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, India, Australia, Brazil, and Japan. An alliance of just a few nations with much regional power is all we really need. We don't need to keep supporting developing nations or Islamist nations, or nations immersed in chaos and civil war. We simply distract ourselves from a positive vision of the future and any real momentum forward.
    Agreed but it would be stupid not to include Turkey. Turkey is the only European country that provides a gateway straight into the middle east and Asia. Its a regional power and has the most effective and active army in that area. Its also a country that has a majority muslim populace (i wont say its a muslim country because its secular) so that would be a good gesture to those who think "the christians are gathering up on us".

    The UN has been dead for a while and i think the majority of countries would be happy to pull out with the US.

    We need to renegotiate our trade agreements. These "free trade" agreements which give free trade to others while hampering our own should no longer exist. We need equal access. Forget "free trade" and "fair trade", the phrase that should be used is Equal Economic Access. Same standards. WE compromise on essential national industries, but no one nation need compromise more than the other. The United States has been bending and compromising so often over the last twenty five years that our economy is on the verge of breaking.
    I agree.
    Last edited by kaya'08; 05-17-09 at 03:55 AM.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  3. #23
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe View Post
    Frankly, I think America's first order of business is to abandon its nonsensical alliance with its enemies in Europe by pulling out of NATO. The United States has enjoyed a long and significant relationship with the United Kingdom and we should form treaties and alliances with them, ignoring the European Union as whole. We have very little in common with them and no need to protect them. We can look to other allies in the world where we actually have strategic interests: Canada and Mexico, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Israel, India, Australia, and Brazil. These are nations that we can work with.
    -> "Enemies in Europe" => LOL
    -> Where are Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland?
    -> What are your "strategic interests" with Singapore, which is a dictatorship, or New Zealand and Australia (which are quite insignificant, all they do is exporting meat)
    -> As for India, I'm sorry but they're already with Russia


    Secondly, we need to pull out of the United Nations. However, we could not afford to do so unilaterally. We would need some other important nations to come out of the UN with us to form an organization of some of the most powerful nations, ignoring the ones with small an ineffective military or political presences: The United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, India, Australia, Brazil, and Japan. An alliance of just a few nations with much regional power is all we really need. We don't need to keep supporting developing nations or Islamist nations, or nations immersed in chaos and civil war. We simply distract ourselves from a positive vision of the future and any real momentum forward.
    How can you expect Middle-Eastern countries to respect Human Rights or be democratic if you get out of the precize institution whose goal is to promote such things?

    We need to renegotiate our trade agreements. These "free trade" agreements which give free trade to others while hampering our own should no longer exist. We need equal access. Forget "free trade" and "fair trade", the phrase that should be used is Equal Economic Access. Same standards. WE compromise on essential national industries, but no one nation need compromise more than the other. The United States has been bending and compromising so often over the last twenty five years that our economy is on the verge of breaking.
    Do you know what "fair trade" is about?
    Last edited by bub; 05-17-09 at 08:07 AM.

  4. #24
    R.I.P. Léo
    bub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    05-17-12 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,649

    Re: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

    It doesn't take our military very long to set up a good base. If we wanted to set up a military base right beside the Kremlin, we could.
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction]Russia and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    There are plenty of countries that would give us land for military bases
    Like Diego Garcia??

  5. #25
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    I think we should remain in most all of the organizations we now belong. NATO and the UN are a bit useless, but we suffer no consequence by staying. We have the largest veto power and as in Iraq, we act with or without consent.
    The problem with us being in the U.N and having the meetings in the U.S is it affords all of the countries of the world a door to an intelegence opperation. Indeed one the primary ways of Russia during the Cold War was to ask for sensitive but not Secret info under cover of some orginization in the U.N. Closing this door would be a great benifit.

    With respect to NATO while i did select to keep it some changes are in order. Since the former Warsaw Pact Counties are considrably more friendly to us than the Central and Western we should have relationsips with those to counter any ambition Russia may show. With respect to the treat of terrorism most of it will be in the form of intelegence though as long as Islamic bassed terror occurs we will unfortunely will have to have some bases in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    Perhaps the most important, in my opinion at this point, is the Middle East Free Trade Initiative. I am an IR person and I think the key to solving the terrorist problem is by aiding in the establishment of a viable economy for the people of the ME. This will give the poor people of these countries an alternative to joining terror groups in order to support their families.
    Even though the bulk of the terroist volunteers are children of the Middle Class? No doubt that improving the conditions would help but as long the regimes that exist there are either ruled by thugs or religious nutcases or both there will be no lasting peace.

  6. #26
    Tavern Bartender
    #neverhillary
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    68,046

    Re: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sanitas View Post
    You're forgetting the International Criminal Court. I support that too.
    Never seen a treaty org you didn't like huh? That seems odd to me.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)

  7. #27
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    I said "none of the above" because the question seems to imply these organizations are healthy and properly constructed as they stand.

    The United States should be engaged in the world, and should seek a benevolent stance regarding the world. That much is merely what any would expect from any of his neighbors, and thus it what he should offer to any of this neighbors.

    However, the United States is a sovereign nation. Within our borders, US law is the highest law there is, to be superseded by none. We owe no fealty to any higher entity, no duty of obeisance to anyone but ourselves; this is the nature of all sovereign nations. We are free to do as we will; none may command us to do otherwise.

    Organizations such as the UN, and treaties such as Kyoto, seek to constrain and intrude upon that sovereignty. They seek to address not merely how nations should handle affairs beyond their borders, but within their borders--and no nation is obligated to surrender their sovereignty in that fashion.

    Others, such as NATO, serve a purpose whose time may very well have passed, and it is not improper to question whether such an organization should be disbanded in favor of a more timely and relevant construct (although I stop short of claiming to know what that construct might be).

    The US should be engaged in the world. It should be engaged as a sovereign nation, free and beholden to no one. It should preserve its sovereignty above all else--for any nation, defense of its sovereignty is the supreme civic virtue.
    The organizations that we are associated with still allow for complete US sovereignty, because we have agreed to the terms of the organizations.

    What you are saying is like someone who is against trade because it involves someone giving away their own property VOLUNTARILY.

    You can disagree with the terms of the organizations, and then leave them, but I don't see how someone can be against all of them. They are just agreements that countries make, and agreements have terms unless they are useless.

  8. #28
    Advisor Burning Giraffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Burgaw, NC
    Last Seen
    07-27-10 @ 06:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    357

    Re: The US Needs to get out of NATO. We don't need Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    -> "Enemies in Europe" => LOL
    -> Where are Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland?
    -> What are your "strategic interests" with Singapore, which is a dictatorship, or New Zealand and Australia (which are quite insignificant, all they do is exporting meat)
    -> As for India, I'm sorry but they're already with Russia
    1. I certainly don't think that the European People are our friends.
    2. Denmark, Ireland, the UK, and Switzerland were examples of European nations that seem friendlier than the others.
    3. Singapore is a good economic ally and their foreign policy is excellent. They are unlikely to draw the US into any unnecessary conflicts.
    4. India has much more in common with the United States than with Russia, though I think the US and Russia need a better and friendlier relationship. India will be a necessary military ally of the United States as the Near East and Persia break down into greater disorder, and even more so when the oil begins to run out.

    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    How can you expect Middle-Eastern countries to respect Human Rights or be democratic if you get out of the precize institution whose goal is to promote such things?
    I don't expect Middle Eastern countries to respect human rights or be Democratic. It is ridiculously naive to assume that the United Nations has anything to do with Human Rights or Democracy. It doesn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by bub View Post
    Do you know what "fair trade" is about?
    Indeed I do. Fair Trade is a lovely, liberal term for a comprehensive and convoluted attempt at social engineering. You see, Fair Trade punishes nations that consume more, because "they use more energy". You see, we need to favor nations that use less energy because those nations are better for the environment. We also need to consider the important social impact of wealthy industrial nations bringing their products into less developed countries. It is only fair that the lesser developed countries get more access to our markets than we get to them, because it would just be terrible if American companies went in and destroyed local businesses. And some cultures would be morally offended by American products, and that just isn't fair. Just because they are offended by our products, doesn't mean that we shouldn't accept as many of their products as possible. It's only fair.

    "Fair Trade" is simply self-deprecation and deprivation on the part of powerful economies. It has nothing to do with Equal Economic Access.
    There is nothing more dangerous to the liberty of Man than a Government or a Religion seizing upon the strings of an overdeveloped herd instinct amongst the people.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •