Hey! Move over, I'm coming too!!!



Oceans

Word court was mentioned a few posts back. In my opinion the US does not
accept the ruling of the world court for the same reason they do not let
the United Nations rule our country. It would be completely impractical
to trust a hodge podge of foreigners to make unbiased opinions where the
US is concerned.

Yes the US can do a lot to improve its image. Constructive proactive
behavior is always a good choice.

The UN does not rule any country, not does it seek to. The UN is ruled
by its member countries in general, and the five permanent members of
the Security Council in particular.

I'm sorry, but that sounds too much like pick and mix.
It's either the US want to be part of the world, then they should play
by the rules, or they don't, then they should stay out of all of it.
In real life you can't have your cake and eat it.

"They" don't want the cake, "they" only want the creamy filling.

"They" should know by now that it doesn't come without the cake.


Hi Harry

Hey Harry! Andrea!

Hi Oceans

if the united states stayed out of the rest of the world

ya may not like the out come

but they should not expect the rest of the world

to lay down and do what ever it say neither

but hey what do i know

That's what we are talking about.
They want the best parts for themselves and when it comes to sharing the
less good parts they say, hey you can have all of it, we don't want it.
That's not the way it works in a partnership.

Hi everybody!


Maybe "they" are hoping a stripper with a sack o cash will jump out of
the cake.
I'd be tempted to ignore the cake too!

That way of looking at things reminds me a bit of what China went and
the USSR went through in the years after WWII. They both withdrew at
various times from participation in international treaties and
organizations, and then spent years trying to catch up and get back in.

The Sunnis did the same thing in the first round of elections in Iraq
and found themnselves left behind. Fortunately, the winning parties
realized that it was in everybody's interest to have the Sunnis
particpating in the government and roles were blocked out for them in
it.

The US created helped found many of these international organizations,
and we derive a lot of benefit from them.



Oceans

Or a magic fairy....

if we pulled back into an isolationist policy for a generation I don't
see that as a bad thing...we were isolationists when the industrial
revolution kicked into gear...and we were leading the world in that
regard...let the rest of the world take care of their own crap for a
while...we got things to do here..

I think it would be good for the world for the US to become
isolationist, so I guess we agree, bro, though maybe for different
reasons.

With trade (manufacturing, mining, assembly, distribution and
consumption) now global I don't think that we could successfully become
isolationist. We are now dependent on foreign production for
consumption, and our our remaining high tech industries are dependent
ont he economic growth of foreign markets.

And for international trade we need international treaties and laws,and
for that we need -- you got it -- international organizations.

So much as I would like to see the US turn inwards, stop bullying
others, and focus on getting its own house in order I don't see us
withdrawing from the international community.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we have to continue being the world's
bully.... To the contrary.



Oceans

The United States is making major efforts towards establishing peace in
regions of the world where it is needed. Not everyone wants that peace,
for their own reasons. Many in the world would fight to hell to prevent
any action by the United States in support of peace from prevailing.
That does not mean that the good efforts of the US are not needed. The
world runs on trade. Trade runs on the rule of law. The rule of law is
protected and enforced by police in a country. In the world it is more
complicated. When many prefer anarchy to peace, theft to commerce and
terrorism to settlement of any kind whether by court or arbitration,
there are few choices.

Personally I have more credence in the efforts of the world court than
in the efforts of the United Nations. However, the United States has its
own rule of law backed by a strong moral fiber. The government here
aggressively pursues matters of law. Apparently the country feels they
do a good enough job of that here at home. It is not a matter of cake,
it is a matter of law, in our country we write and enforce them. The
sweet part of that is that the weaker groups are protected by that law.

The United Nations aligns has long been a group of small countries
voting against the United States right down the line on a litany of
issues. It is not a matter of right and wrong, it is a matter of
democracy. Democracy in a land of three wolves is two big wolves eating
a small wolf. Our democracy is more complicated than that with a system
of checks and balances. There is a Legislative, a Judicial and an
Executive branch. We feel that this system watches out for the
individual as well as the groups it governs. These characteristics of
our system make the country feel more confident in our own rule of law
than in the rule of law of outsiders for this reason.

If that does not cover the matter refer back to my earlier discussion
regarding the nature of business in the United Nations, where each
country looks out for it's own interests and the popular position is
align against the position of the United States. If the world court was
to be run in such a fashion, and who is to say it would not be at some
point in the future, then submitting to the court would be a mistake.

What would happen if China decided to stop shipping goods to the US.
I'll bet Wal-Mart would cease to exist practically overnight. They're
not the only ones either.
I can't see the US being isolated from the world financially ever
working. Way too reliant on the flow of cheap foriegn goods. Could you
imagine what the cost of a cheese grater would be if it was stamped,
"Made in USA" or god forbid a television.
What is actually built in the states anymore. How much maufacturing is
left other than weapons.
Diplomacy is really the only option but only if the will is there. I
hope your next president and staff have a better idea than your current
one.

if we continue to receive poisoned pet food...and now tainted toothpaste
we may not have a choice but to pull back from these countries...we can
retool for manufacturing...it just takes the will of the people &
leaders...and corporations that actually care about this country...

DaVinci -- corporations that care about us...

Key point!

Our major US corporations have gone global, that is, they have no
particular allegiance to the US. They view America as just another
market place.

The US government has in part let this happen through slack regulation
and permissive tax codes.

About 30 years ago I wrote a paper arguing that there was a great
showdown to come between national governments and globalized
(multi-national) corporations, and that new domestic and international
laws whould be required to handle the challenge. Of course, I was
ignored -- I was a young whipper-snapper then....

So now I look at the battle, and I am half-persuaded that it is already
lost.

A friend sent me a forecast today that predicts that 1 in every 4
American jobs is going to be lost.

We are in for difficult times.



Oceans

I'd very much like to see that paper. I'm certainly in the same camp on
this one.

I have a proposal that I would like considered relative to this matter.
Tariffs are taboo, forbidden. Clearly every economic model shows the
danger of tariffs, irrefutable evidence. However there is more to the
story. For one thing the United States by purchasing items from other
countries strengthens the other countries, but as a matter of security
must maintain some global presence in security matters. Any arguments
against that I will quickly discount so let's not go there for now.

If the United States, as a matter of international security and as a
matter of international commerce must maintain some global force, then
this force is a cost of doing business in global markets. For this
reason I propose that there should be some security fee appended to all
imported goods, not a tariff, simply a fee to help cover the cost of
maintaining the global presence and looking towards security.

If this fee is not charged, then the burden for maintaining stability in
international commerce falls on the American public and comes out of our
individual pockets in the form of income taxes and corporate taxes. This
is the current case.

So while the country is sending more and more cash overseas, the
taxpayers are paying for the protection of this activity. This is hardly
an acceptable situation.