Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Czar
makes sense since Bush doesnt realy like all that international bit about treaties and cooperation
actually bush's point was they need to enforce what they sign, but i guess it's better to let tens of thousands starve and die so france germany and russia can get their money.
kerry once called turning over control of the US military over to the UN. for an even more prolific waffler than clinton, i wonder what his real position is?
ABM treaty
Landmines treaty
Kyoto treaty
ICC treaty
Biological Weapons Convention
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Small-Arms Treaty
just whats on top of my mind, I'm sure there are more
Didn't the US break out of the ABM Treaty through an exit clause? Kyoto was never signed and neither was the ICC right?
What's the point in listing these?
these are treaties that nearly all of the western world and more wanted to get signed the way they were, Bush has pulled out of a few, refused to sign a few and watered down at least one so it isnt realy effective at all.
What major international treaty has Bush signed since he became president?
In terms of international treaties then bush has major phobia against them, and thats what other leaders of the world realy dont like about Bush. If the US presidency wants to be called the leader of the free world and whatnot then it must lead by an example, not like this, right now the situation creates just more of a problem than you can imagine.
Since you raised the issue, and I'm tired of Euro-bullshit, I'll address each in turn.
ABM Treaty. Eliminated almost without a peep from the other signatory, Russia. End result? Nothing that I can see. Russia can't afford a huge arms race, and even if China wanted to, those aren't the intended target. Other than the fact that a precious piece of "international law" (which a absolute misuse of "law" in that phrase) disappeared, who cares?
Landmines Treaty. You are referring to the treaty which eliminates only one of the two types of mines but leaves anti-vehicle mines completely untouched? There is a very interesting piece written in the LA Times regarding the recent Bush proposal on land mines which described in details the advantages of the Bush administration's recent proposal on landmines, which is actuality a better solution to the problem of persistent mines than the "Landmine Treaty", since that treaty does not address the persistency of anti-vehicle mines at all.
Here it is published on CFR's website.
Kyoto. You mean the one which didn't touch the economic output of China and India, allowed Russia to sell its pollution "credits" (whatever those are) to western Europe, and would have cost American businesses billions of dollars? Since Russia is balking at it, the whole thing is going to fail, if it hasn't already. If you're going to pass a pollution control accord, it's probably wise to include the worst polluters.
ICC Treaty. The politically motivated lawsuits in Belgium should have been enough for anyone to realize that there are those people in the world who would love to see American soldiers paraded in front of a kangaroo court for "alleged" crimes. There's enough of them, including in the U.S., that no American would have ever received a fair trial, regardless of the "checks and balances" supposedly in place to prevent them. No thanks.
Biological Weapons Convention. To which are you referring? The one which the US signed in 1970 and is one of the three depository nations? It seems that the US has been a founding and integral part in the control of biological weapons for the last thirty+ years.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I have no problem with the US testing nuclear weapons to ensure their safe storage and handling, since computer models are always imperfect. Further, I have no problem with the US developing new nuclear weapons of low yield to put underground facilities within range of our weapons, leaving no safe place for our enemies to hide. As is typical with nuclear weapons, their power lies in their deterrence, not in their explosive yield.
Small Arms Treaty. Now, this one is the one I wanted to address. How many times do you see insurgents or terrorists toting M-16s? 99 times out of 100, they have AK-47/AKM/AK-74 or various other models of that same line. What's amusing is I took a look at a site which discusses the proliferation of small arms, and here is the link:
Text. Check out the first couple pages where it lists the largest arms manufacturers and the largest arms exporters. The completely intellectually dishonest part (typical!) is that the largest arms manufacturers and the the most expensive arms exports are AIRCRAFT and have absolutely nothing to do with small arms. Certainly, Lockheed and Boeing make a great deal of military equipment, but how much of that is involved in the small arms trade? I venture that it's in the neighborhood of ZERO percent. Similarly, for the United States, listed as the world's largest arms exporter, most of that export is going to nations in the form of capital warships (destroyers, frigates -- first weapon of choice for insurgents!), combat aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15 (terrorists engage in air-to-air combat all the time), armored vehicles (Al'Qaida uses the M1A1?), and various other "big ticket" items typically to such insurgent-supporting regimes such as South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, and Poland.
I applaud the Bush administration's stance on "international law" because it reflects U.S. requirements, not those of Europe and the Third World. You may talk about Bush as a "world leader", but his first job is that of acting in the interests of the citizens of his country, not Iceland's. Until the rest of world wants to take our interests into consideration before their own, perhaps they shouldn't be asking for the U.S. to do just that.
Facebook
Twitter