Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (148502)	7/18/2002 11:01:10 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578926

What control do these treaties have over us........we did not give up our nationality or our rights. Its seem to me that this is a new level of paranoia. I don't understand how we can be so powerful and yet there are so many who worry about our sovereignty. They currently have a lot less power over us then they have over other countries like those in the EU (because the EU treaty covers a lot more then anything we have ratified), but if we are not concerned about them they could easily expand. Some examples of EU infringment - A grocer prosecuted for selling food by the pound. No act of Parliment ever made this a crime but that didn't prevent the prosecution. footrule.org footrule.org others keele.ac.uk skuse.freeserve.co.uk I don't think US soverignty is so likely to be infringed but I think this is due to the concern about, even hostility to giving up our soverignty. If this concern comes to be thought of as paranoid and gradually fades away then I think US soverignty is at risk. So now you're suggesting we need to stop signing treaties in general. That alliances and finding common ground is not good for us? I don't understand. No, only that the treaties should serve our interests and rarely if ever subject us to control by international bureaucracies. Because of the enormous benefit from free (or freer) trade and the relativly minimal amount of regulation from NAFTA and the WTO I do support them, but I oppose any attempt to extend their regulatory powers, for example the attempt to give one or both organizations a role in environmental and labor regulation. I also oppose the idea of signing a treaty just because the rest of the world wants it. If it isn't in our interest we shouldn't sign it, even if the rest of the world sees it as very important. Treaties effect our behavior internationally and not within our borders. Therefore as far as I can see, there is no injury to our constitution. 1 - The constitution and our soverignty are not issues that only deal with our actions within our borders. 2 - Treaties do not only regulate our actions outside of our borders. 3 - I'm not sure that the term "injury to our constitution" is the best one to use in these circumstances because the constitution does allow for treaties. The injury if we sign treaties carelessly is to our soverignty and potentially to our current constitutional protections. " How is acknowledging the military superiority of the US a threat? " ? You quoted a part of the article that I posted or linked to, that talked about how powerful the US was, and then you asked "Is this a threat? Is this a threat? If you don't get real nice, the American warlords will bomb the shit out of you" I fail to see how a column analyzing US military power (among other things) amounts to a threat to foreign countries by either the US as a whole or by the columnist. Of late, the conservative voice whether its coming from the Nat. Review or Coulter or some other conservative media outlet keeps bringing this issue up. And its usually in the context of....we don't have to do this or that because we are the most powerful nation in the world. The consistency at which this issue is brought up makes me think there is a message wanting to be said. I think I would need a specific example to respond to. The column I quoted does talk about how we are the most powerful nation in the world, but only in the context of stateing "It is rare for lethal military to be coupled with humane government, but such is the case with the United States." and as a reason why other countries may want to have some form of international control over our military or how we choose to use it. I see nothing in the article that appears like an argument stating "hey we have a big army so who cares what everyone else thinks." Tim