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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (152860)	11/29/2004 3:32:19 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

>> if you mean by "big teeth" the ability to run an actual war, then only the US has world-wide capacity. Not only I do not favor waging wars, I do not agree that US has the ability to do so either. In any event, the goal is to establish mechanisms for more civilized ways of conflict resolution rather than the present barbarism. >> Because the EU doesn't want to be fair to the US... You can't claim this until you try.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (152860)	11/29/2004 5:38:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The USA could do some drafting then, to create international solutions for tragedies of the commons, rather than whining that the ICI and UN do a bad job and therefore the USA will ignore them and continue with the Arabian Nights version of the eons-old dog eat dog world, which will come back to bite them. The USA prefers ephemeral entangling foreign alliances. It's ironic that when at the zenith of power, which is the time when serious tragedy of the commons solutions could be established with some serious USA influence, the powerful one is least inclined to reduce their own pre-eminence by acknowledging that there are any other dogs in the pack. However the USA was in the vanguard of UN formation in the first place, so it's not as though the idea of supranationality is completely alien to the USA. <the EU doesn't want to be fair to the US, they just want to bell the cat, and they think they can do it by passing a bunch of agreements designed mainly to hobble the US and declaring that they have the moral force of international law. Then they heap abuse on the US when we decline to go along. Like the ICC, a vague ruling that is adjudicated by unaccountable prosecutors and judges, an open invitation to abuse and corruption, which the US would have to amend its Constitution to even sign, were it foolish enough to do so.> So far, there isn't much sign that King George II is inclined to a redesigned UN, but he wasn't into nation-building either before Y2K and the reality of the alien world flew into the Twin Towers. Now he's Mr Foreign Affairs. It's often the politically unlikely who actually do the deed. Nixon going to China for example and opening some pathways. The country which would benefit most from a better UN would be the USA because the USA depends more on global stability and trade than others and has the most to lose from deterioration. If major paradigm shift hits the fan, rural agrarian subsistence economies such as Hicksville, Africa, wouldn't even notice. The biggest economies have most to lose. The USA is the biggest of the big. Mqurice