Weapons inspectors everywhere?

First disclaimer: Maybe I shouldn't post this because the topic is probably a bit sensitive at the moment ... but still, I thought it'd be interesting to share ... and I'd like to know what others think.

I found something strange on the net today ...

Second disclaimer: Before clicking on the link below, you must know that the site you'll come to formulates some rather harsh criticism about America. Level headed readers only! ;)

http://www.rootingoutevil.org/index.php3/MissionUSA

Anyhow, I was a bit puzzled by this site. First: What exactly is it? Is it a fraud? Is it some real organization, like Greenpeace for instance? And then, what to think of it? I mean, I'm not quite sure I agree with them, but they do have some points there. Or don't they?

P.S.: If this whole thing gets your blood to reach it's boiling point, try to do something else before you grab you keyboard to answer. Have a cold beer, shower, tea, whatever, but try to calm down ;) .

Well it is quite harsh, but the points mentioned there, were already mentioned here as well - by me myself ;)

I think we settled that debate with something like:

shut up, you ********, or I'll kick your **********, and if that is not enough I grab your ***** and throw you into ******.


Of course this is jsut a joke ;)

Hmm, I suspect Nelson Mandela must be a charter member of these guys.

My Disclaimer: Don't read my response if you don't like counterarguments

Just one more group that dislikes America and will interpret everything to accomplish that - for example, the accusation of "illegitimate" assumption of power is bogus - you may disagree with the results, you may disagree with the decision process, but all in America agree that the 2000 election was in accordance with the laws of the United States, especially in the sense that the Supreme Court had the authority to do what they did. You'll notice there's not a rogue militia of Gore loyalists gunning town Bush partisans.

Having massive stockpiles of weapons - the USA never signed an agreement to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction to as a condition ending a war it was losing, started by it invading a neighbor

Ignore due process at the United Nations - the USA does not recognize authority of the UN over the United States. The UN is not a government.

Refuse to sign and honour international treaties - that seems to be a joke. Not signing a treaty? The US constitution gives congress the approval to approve treaties. By that standard, the US Congress should disband and consent to government by the United Nations.

With regard to honoring international treaties - the only major one that I will grant the USA has pulled out of late was the ABM treaty. However, the US announced its intention to do so, which seems the proper way to do so. Other nations take similar courses of action when appropriate for them (i.e. France and nuclear testing, Germany announcing it will not provide any support for a war in Iraq, regardless of NATO decisions, etc.).


So Dan, does this make the US hypocrites with Iraq? No, Iraq agreed to disarm and agreed to the inspections process as a condition of ending the Gulf War. They can freely choose to withdraw from that agreement - which they seem to have done. Doing so negates the cease-fire.

Actually, I think a debate wouldn't help much here. As you said, it'd probably end with some bad words. However, those of us whose opinion might not be carved in stone about this matter (like me) might be interested in hearing other's thoughts on the subject.

I need to know now before I proceed any further... Evan and others - do you consider me an unreasonable debater, one who engages in discussion not worthy of comment, one who is inclined to say things like...

"shut up, you ********, or I'll kick your **********, and if that is not enough I grab your ***** and throw you into ******".

While I welcome debate, I need to make certain those I engage in debate have some respect for my opinions and thought process. Failing that, please take my comments for what they are worth and I will go about my merry way.

Actually, Dan, as far as I'm concerned, I'd say you're one of the most cool-headed debaters on these boards (including among the people I agree with).

C5 thanks

lemmee explain why I posted that - I started my reply before Evan made his but his popped up first. And it got me thinking... should I even bother.

Ironically, I agree with many of their points but not their conclusions - i.e. the US does ignores due process of the UN, does not sign international treaties, etc. to which I say "yup.... But, so what!"

The only one I wholeheartedly disagree with is the assumption that the US government is "illegitimate". It really irks me. And I'd feel that way if Gore won via the Supreme Court and right-wing loonies were calling him "illegitimate". And with that statement, they lose a ton of their credibility in my mind. It immediately distracts from their main points - points whose conclusions I disagree with but feel comfortable debating. But when you make a point like "the US government is illegitimate" I wonder whom I am dealing with. Is there any point contesting their points? It shows their mind has been closed.


btw, I can be convinced they are right. Tell me why the US should allow these people in? Of what benefit is it to the United States to recognize the authority of these people? Given they see the president as illegitimate, would they support a forced regime change in the USA?

Since this coalition is made up of politicians, lawyers, and economists, I don't think they can be trusted ;) :D :p .

In all seriousness I don't see how they think they can be quilfied for the job so I don't know what they feel they can accomplish. They say they are going to the D.C. area. The only base in the area that I know of that would have significant munitions is a Naval munitions dump. And I can't think how chemical or biological weapons could have an effective naval use. If they are going there I doubt they will find anything.

I don't know what to make of these people. I can't understand their reasoning. I can't see why they believe the US is a rogue nation.

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

I think part of the problem with this linked site comes down to this -- the United States wants many other nations to sign on to treaties and hold them responsible for not living up to the bargain while at the same time the United States does not wish to sign such treaties or be held to account.

The government of the United States is very interested in creating and signing treaties related to copyright infringement, certain matters of territorial waters and the like, all of which are in the best interest of American businesses and thus our GDP -- this is all well and good. The government, conversely, is less interested in signing agreements that would limit the United States' military or pollutants.

This presents the wider question: how much should the United States be beholden to other nations? Every individual gives up certain freedoms to be part of a group or nation; even nations give up some freedoms to the few enforcible international standards. But how far are these standards to go?

This is part of the great gulf between the United States and other nations at the moment. How much is our own government to be held accountable to international standards? Can the US actually be held to account when we have not signed the treaties that create those standards?

The current administration, of course, would not favour, for example, a permanent war crimes tribunal nor an international court with teeth to back up its decisions. Is this fair to the United States? Probably so, at least for the moment. Is this fair to the international community? It depends on who you are asking at the moment. The debates will continue over the next decade or more. And a large part of the matter will boil down to how much and in what manner the United States is willing to enforce its sole superpower status.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I need to know now before I proceed any further... Evan and others - do you consider me an unreasonable debater, one who engages in discussion not worthy of comment, one who is inclined to say things like...

"shut up, you ********, or I'll kick your **********, and if that is not enough I grab your ***** and throw you into ******".

---

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :eek:

I never meant anything like that. I meant it really as a joke it just referred to the fact that we had a similiar discussion before and got quite heated up. That was absolutely not intended to describe your position and was that far exagerated that mathematics would need to invent a new formula to calculate that.

I can only full-heartedly agree with C5 - you manage to have a cool headed opinion all the time and see both sides - correctly searching the solution in the middle of both extremes. I really, really can only say that earlier post was made without any bad intentions or offense meant, please believe me. That was beyound any of my ideas. :(

If I have insulted you, I am terribly sorry. :(

If memory serves, when we had signed & ratified treaties that required the destruction of nuclear weapons, we've had inspectors in to verify the dismanteling. The only treaty we've pulled out of lately was the ABM accord. The treaty itself provided for that, with a six month waiting period. The president can put his autograph on any peice of paper he wants, but until it's been ratified by Congress all you've got is an expensive peice of bog-roll. Clinton in particular liked to grandstand with signing most anything that sat still long enough. (So long as it wasn't female, anyhow...) His signature on the Kyoto treaty doesn't mean squat, because he never sent it to Congress to have it ratified. In fact, the Senate voted 98-0 in a non-binding resolution to say that if it were presented to them, they'd vote against it. All Bush did was to tell the truth about how Kyoto was no longer pining for the fjords, as far as America is concerned it's joined the bleedin' Choir Invisible...

(And on a snarky note, if we were the rouge nation they claim we are, Baghdad, Tikrit, Mecca, and most likely Paris would be trinitite-lined craters already. :rolleyes: )

That is the quite strange fact with the US signing treaties. In my country the whole thing is first ratified and then its signed the US prefer the other way round - which sometimes causes puzzled people. But its that way and nobody can change it, although I wonder why the President first signes. What is the idea behind it, could it be done the other way around or is it prescribed that way in the Constitution?

I would think so. The President would have to be up front and tell the delegation for the treaty that it would have to be sent to the House and Senate first.

You have to remember our last President did things just for show and to make him look good in front of the world wehter what he did meant anything real was second.

The ABM treaty is the only one the US has pulled out of, but not the only one it has played runaround with. The Chemical Weapons Treaty was thrown out by the US administration, who claimed it wasn't tough enough to stop cheats. They promised to review it and offer alternatives. What they actually came back with was a list of options cherry-picked from the original proposal, with some pretty vague stuff about ensuring compliance, which if you actually looked at it would allow the US to continue its own non-lethal (but still banned under the treaty) programs without any means of checking them.

Also, recent chemical and biological research in the US has been undertaken which should be illegal, except the Pentagon found a loophole which allows countries to develop such weapons "for law enforcement purposes". Fine - so why is the research done by the military and funded by the military?

Now, let's be clear here - I have no problem with countries pulling out of treaties or not signing those that don't serve their national interests. As a humanist, it saddens me, but it is a fact of life. What does irritate is those same countries then crying blue murder when others do the exact same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter

Now, let's be clear here - I have no problem with countries pulling out of treaties or not signing those that don't serve their national interests. As a humanist, it saddens me, but it is a fact of life. What does irritate is those same countries then crying blue murder when others do the exact same thing.

---

My sentiments exactly.

Don't confuse "pulling out of a treaty", with all the attendant debates and announcements and hoopla, with "breaking a treaty," which is when you sign a treaty, and then go right along and do the very things you agreed not to do, without announcing your intentions and while still claiming to be complying with the treaty.

The US has done the first. Iraq did the second.

If you can't tell the difference, you need to go back to polisci class.