h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Rant and Rave here.
For those in favour of the Global US Empire Vote (x)
For those in favour of National Sovereignty Vote (x)

This is not a discussion of Capitalism vs Communism or Consumerism vs Environmental Issues (see the old thread for that).

This is about Spy Planes, Missile Treaties, Embassies and Oil Money. Or if you prefer Defence, Freedom, Old Maps and Economics.

PG.

Hey GP,
the link you provided from the kyoto thread doesn't take you here!

Yeah lets talk US policy in the middle east, the north american free trade area, and china as a competitor!

Iraq used to be a friend of the US when they were fighting Iran, as the US was scared of the Islamic fundementalism that was running the country and rejecting western values. The US got involved with the kuwaiti issue as thay didn't want Iraq getting a monopoly on all the oil under kuwait and just under the border that kuwait was robbing. Iraq does have a legitimate claim on the terrotory that is kuwait, as Argentina has on the falkl;ands and spain on gibralta. The main difference in these examples is that kuwait is not a democracy, and actively exploits 'slave' labour and denies rights to many citizens.
Think about it, would the US like to have to bargain with 'filthy' arabs to maintain there much needed oil supply?

Dat's it for now!
Z.

Hello,

Well. It's not that simple. The problem is that many of the conservative forces in power in the USA really do feel they're fighting for national sovereignity and that the Kyoto treaty and UN membership and other treaties are bad because they undermine sovereignity. That it also helps to make money, etc. is just an added bonus.

Of course, global trade is a more complicated kettle of fish. Free trade agreements also could be said to undermine sovereignity, but one of the other major conservative beliefs is that markets must be unrestricted and that markets equal democracy. I'm not going to comment on the problems with this view, but it is interesting to see some of the internal tension going on here over free trade to China.

The United States has had a terrible history of foreign policy screw-ups. Besides Saddam Hussein, we've supported bloody dictators in South America, Asia, etc. It's really absurd that we would support totalitarian regimes in the name of freedom. Sometimes I feel it would almost be better for America to stay isolationist, but the rumblings of Fortress America are a bit too xenophobic and militaristic for me to really want that.

Still, I'm not going to say that Saddam Hussein is any better or really say how we can say anybody has a right to lands carved up as part of the Ottoman Empire defeat. The people who did that job really bungled.

Yours,
Jake

Hi Mr C.,
No one ever said this was going to be Simple!

Good comments there, I really do agree with you that the ottoman empire was really carved up very badly, then again if it had united under a democratic, communist or fundemental islamic government, then I think global powers would not be so US dominated.
I'm not so sure about your soveriegnty claim about hte states tho, they don't have a soveriegn! Tho if white, middle class americans would probably like to have a figurehead, like the old wrinklies we've got disguising the lack of constitutional rights.
Free Trade is definitely the killer and maker of US foreign policy and this demand is driven totally by the big multinationals based in america, it was these that wanted a pollution trading system set up under kyoto, most other govts were against this, and it's these companies that set up over seas where pollution control is as non-existant as labour rights, - 12 yr olds working 14hr days for 12p a day to stitch {Brand remoned by the Vogons} trainers.

*running out of rant*

Z.

Hello,

Well, we don't have a sovereign, but we do have a notion of sovereignity. Albeit one that somehow covers other countries as well when convenient. But it's interesting how sovereignity can be a good and bad thing.

There has been a lot of debate over free trade here. It's actually one of those issues that can bring together members of the far right and far left. But not much media coverage, since they're all owned by the same multinationals.

Yours,
Jake

I am glad that the "sovereign" issue was explained. I am by no means suggesting that a hereditary leader makes decisions for the interest rate cuts.

Sadam Facts. Did you know that Sadam shot his predecessor in parliament with a hand-gun. Shortly after both the UK and US stated "This is a man we can do business with." Putting the Arms into Armageddon. How about the division of Palestine? or the recent rise in power of Ariel Sharon with the al-Aqsa mosque incident. Also check out the cover of the Economist Magazine with its clear explanation of the Bush Missile Umbrella. How about the fact that the US still wants Sadam in charge. They have certainly considered the alternatives.

That should fuel some debates... Shame that non of the opposition has arrived yet. I might have to track down "col Sellers". c[_]

The man that we can do buisness with appears to me to have alot in common with Stalin. He runs the country with an Iron Fist, his pictures are everywhere, he controls the media, he is paranoid, and as a result of that purges all of his agencies regularly. And ontop of this the heads of intelligence have told every President that his succesor will be worse. Still, I think we should have gotten rid of him, at least then we would have kept our promise.

Hello,

Agreed. It really is shameful how many bloodthirsty tyrants have been propped up by the USA in the name of democracy. The CIA is a rather appalling agency, although the NSA seems to be gunning for their position in odiousness.

Yours,
Jake

Just a suggestion: if the US is going to decide the fate of people all over the world - like the people of Iraq and Kuwait for example, maybe they should all get a vote in US elections

Now *that's* what I call popular sovereignty...

Hello,

Well, it's not like even citizen's votes count for much at times. Still, I guess this is vaguely what the UN is for, although we tend to act unilaterally. It should also be noted that the same problem exists for the EU (there are a lot of policies which are shaped more by compromise than vote) or other large multinational organizations. And of course, there's the flipside of minimizing the "tyranny of the majority" in certain areas - preventing the majority to ride roughshod over the rights of the minority. This was the thinking behind the Bill of Rights, and it's a rather remarkable document (except for the 2nd amendment) even though some modern government organizations here in the State like to chip away at it.

Yours,
Jake

personally I'd like to take a more isolationist stance, we are way over deployed and after all, you guys aren't helpless, somethings just don't need our intervention!

we have enough problems counting the votes here in the states, how hard do you think it would be for the world?

whats wrong with guns in civilian hands Mr. C?

Hello,

I'm not really a big fan of widespread gun ownership, but this isn't really the forum for discussing that issue, and I don't really think we'd do much besides yell until we're blue in the face anyway.

The USA is definitely going through an interesting bit of soul searching regarding its international stance. Although it's been observed before, this is largely due to the demise of the Soviet Union as a superpower as well as economic prosperity. We don't have an enemy or cause strong enough to rally all sides. So, the USA seems to have a rather schizophrenic foreign policy to the outside world. There are several different policies out there, and the problem is they all have problems. The current one in vogue (the Powell Doctrine) is to only interfere when our country's security/economy/froodiness is directly threatened. This is a bit problematic, since it doesn't help out for cases like Rwanda or Kosovo. And Iraq's kinda hazy there. Another stance is that we should be out there fighting for democracy to develop. Another is well, I guess a mishmash of these and some others. This is in contrast to the Soviet Union's heyday, when all sides rallied behind the idea of containment, even though it led to some awful blunders (eg, Vietnam, Taliban in Afghanistan, Pinochet).

Yours,
Jake

I hate to imagine a Florida scandal writ large across the entire world...

re : isolationism... It's true that we here in Europe don't really need American military intervention. It's also true that many of us don't especially *want* American military intervention. The EU is attempting to put together a kind of European task force to lessen our dependence on American military might. Trouble is, this guy called George Bush keeps trying to talk us out of it. That old isolationist, when it suits him... Can't win with some people...

Hello,

The problem is the USA had a way through NATO to get the European forces to agree with it on certain policies. Take away NATO and it's one less means for leverage. Yes, it may seem hypocritical at first glance, but politics is all about trying to secure an advantage for yourself, even if it means you play by different rules than you want others to.

Yours,
Jake

I understand what you're saying. I just get a little irritated when I hear Americans adopting a 'why should we keep bailing them out over there in Europe?' attitude when they can rest assured that most of us over here would prefer less, not more, of such intervention.

That isn't directed at anyone in this forum, by the way. It's just a general observation...

Hello,

It's okay. No offense taken. As anybody who knows government knows, there's often a big difference between the official views of a country's government and the actual attitude of its citizens. Personally, I know Europe can handle itself just fine, but nobody's made me President.

Yours,
Jake

it looks like your new fighter is a pretty good step in the right direction (EAF or something like that). Now if you could just get France to help out, and some good old german tanks you'll be all set (in my view).

If Bush would stick to Powell's plan then it would be alot easier. I think we should not interfere unless asked to do so, or if the problem directly, or strongly indirectly, effects us. I know this is kind of hazy as well but someone has to make a start somewhere.

I agree with america keeping out of other peoples business, but when ol' w took power the first thing he did was ring up our tone and asked to use our airbases to bomb Iraq! The first thing France knew about it was from CNN!

Z.

I have to say Guns = Bad...

I think we need a Blue in the face Gun Thread if any NRA members are ready to that into a new discussion.

I have a feeling that most of the current problems have resulted from US or UK intervention. (with the possible exception of the Balkans).

Have you seen the number of comedy websites poking at Mr Bush? It is nearly too easy to pick up evidence. My Favourite is when Bush saw the web site www GWBUSH and said "There Ought to be Limits to Freedom" (May 21 1999) 100% Gen Article.

Democracy is only available one day in every 4-5 years and less than half of us bother to vote.