What Treaties & Organizations Should the US Support?

Sanitas said:

You're forgetting the International Criminal Court. I support that too.

Click to expand...

Never seen a treaty org you didn't like huh? That seems odd to me.

celticlord said:

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 Within our borders, US law is the highest law there is, to be superseded by none.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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

bub said:

-> "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

Click to expand...

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.

bub said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

bub said:

Do you know what "fair trade" is about?

Click to expand...

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.