What were they thinking?
 

From the Daily Kos:

I don't often agree with this guy, but in this case he's right.

LOL. At least the US stood their ground. I guess maybe they have plans to phase out food for their citizens.

Perhaps we'll have a new rep to the UN next month.... and a new national attitude.

yeah, the US consistently votes against guaranteeing basic human dignities, refuses to sign onto the International Criminal Courts treaty unless american soldiers get immunity, is the only first-world nation to endorse torture and practice capital punishment, and is the first democratic nation to actively incite warfare since... well... the Roman Republic?

If I had to sum up what was wrong with America in one sentence, it would be that we Americans have somehow convinced ourselves that rules are only supposed to apply to other people, who are inherently suspicious; trying to apply rules to good people like us is an infringement of our rights. the notion that rights might be universal - i.e., applicable to everyone, everywhere, equally - has apparently become (in the American imagination) some dangerous commie-faggot-liberal mind-****.

That's the Christian heresy of antinomianism that St. Paul was fighting in Corinth: "Wow, I'm saved, that means I am without sin, that means I can do whatever I like!!"

is that what Corinthians is about? I'd always wondered, but it never reached the point where I actually pulled out my bible and read it. interesting: my respect for Paul has gone up a notch.

incidentally, is there an automatic profanity filter on the forum, or did someone add that **** by hand? I'm mostly curious why the second F-word got bleeped, but the first one didn't... :)

Now, now. Let's not go too anti-US. Our track record for providing relief to the starving populations of the world, and to providing foreign aid to developing nations, is equal to or better than any other nation on this planet. Talk is cheap; action speaks volumes.

We don't, or at least should not, permit our GIs to be tried in the courts of the nations with whom we happen to be engaged with in armed conflict, or are an occupation force following the armed conflict. We did, however, subject them to being tried in Iraqi courts (much to my dismay). Do you really think a GI would get a fair trial in an Iraqi court?

The right to try our GIs in local courts is a matter of treaty negotiations called Status of Force agreements. We do permit GIs to be tried in some nations. Historically, our GIs have been in foreign lands because they were drafted and sent there against their will. Taking their constitutional rights as Americans away from them in the process is most distasteful to the GIs.

We (I) have an innate distrust of foreign courts because so many of them lack the basic principles of justice. And, we are often disliked, or hated, by some populations for various reasons... some justified, some not.

The resolution was meaningless; a feel good act that was nothing more than empty words. So, what's next? A resolution to ban war, disease, and economic downturns?

Cannot imagine why the US voted no, but I suspect our ambassador had a reason.

A very generous assessment, AEH. I lean a bit more towards TW's and Woodsman's points of view. It's the "God is on our side" position so eloquenly captured by Bob Dylan in his song: "With God on our Side". With two American kids and five American grandkids all living in the USA, I can hardly hate America, but I do see why others more remote than I do. Remember that the haters have not experienced life in the USA, they only see the issues TW pointed out.

Sure. And I know the US is far from perfect. Sometimes we forget reality.... Iraq, Kosovo, Viet Nam, and Korea were all in support of UN/NATO initiatives and other NATO nations fought at our side in those conflicts. In the world's opinion, we take the blame for them. We accept that and the associated ugly American syndrome.

But, you have to admit painting the US as pro starvation and anti human rights is a bit much even for the far left.

Sure I do, and I suspect that most people do too. The key, however, is that there was nothing whatever to be gained by voting no, so it had to be a purely political (and partisan) response to an issue that really isn't political. Vis-à-vis Iraq, however, that was founded on lies and most people know it.

The "no" vote was based on technical inaccuracies the US wanted corrected. Nothing to be gained by voting yes or no, hence it made no sense to vote no.

My personal opinion is Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction (lies or bad intelligence, who knows), that was just the pretext. It was about neutralizing a rogue nation who was a threat to peace to its neighbors and our allies, primarily Kuwait & Saudi Arabia, and the associated imminent threat to disrupt the world's access to oil. Again in my opinion, going into Iraq was a bad idea/mistake. We should shown more restraint... a failing on our part. We did not go in alone, however.

When one or two of a group of kids throw rocks and break a window, the homeowner says "Those boys broke my window". "Those boys" includes those who only stood by, but eventually, the instigator is found out.

I've always thought that when the US repelled Iraq from its attempted takeover of Kuwait, the son thought the father should have pushed all the way to Bagdad rather than stopping at the Kuwait/Iraq border. When the son got his chance nearly a decade later, he said "See, Dad -- This is what should have been done." I believe it's darned near that simple.

let's not get hyperbolic, either. I can be (and am) pro-US while disliking some of the stupider things our nation does. criticizing the US is not anti-US any more than getting ticked off at your spouse means that you hate her. and our track record is not a gleaming as you seem to think. as a rule, we don't intercede or give assistance anywhere unless there's a direct impact on us financial interests. but that's a different conversation...

the ICC isn't a body for trying the crimes of individuals - matters of local law are handled by individual states according to specific treaties. the ICC is for crimes of states: genocide, war crimes, humanitarian abuses, etc. the US isn't worried about US soldiers being tried in other courts; the US is worried about the US itself being accused. and honestly, considering Abu Graib, guantanamo, the Blackwater massacre, and the unprovoked invasion of Iraq (just to name a few), that's probably a justified worry. believe me, if the US had signed onto the ICC, the abu graib investigation would not have been limited to a couple of low level soldiers. you can't have accountability where the object being accused of a crime (e.g. the US military) is the same object that's judge, jury, and executioner.

personally, I'd rather see the US be accused of a crime and tried by the international court for it, than to put up with with all the crap as an administration tries to warp domestic and international law to achieve its own scurrilous ends. we'd come off looking far cleaner.

oh, I'm sure there are going to be a number of neo-Freudian analyses of the Bush administration coming out over the next few years, as academia tries to make some sense of GWB's legacy. it's just too obvious a thread to avoid in any discussion of the matter.

I'm led to that belief by observing my own children, now all in their 40's. Ignatieff, the newly appointed leader of the opposition in Canada, mentioned regret that his father (a Canadian diplomat some years ago) hadn't lived to see it. I remember feeling that way when I was appointed Dean of Engineering; sorry that my Dad, who was Dean of Science at another school when he died at 59, hadn't lived to see it. What else could be motivating Caroline Kennedy, who has ignored politics most of her life. I think it matters to a lot of folks what their parents do (or would have) thought.

I still think it was about oil, sinister as that may be.

TW, you mentioned specifically immunity for American soldiers. Nobody is proud of some of the things that have happened, such as Abu Graib. Not sure how an intl court changes that other than making it more political than it already is.

well, the real advantage of signing on to the ICC without those silly immunity requirements is that it is a gesture of good faith towards the international community. I mean, we all respect people who treat the law as a matter of principle, and disrespect people who are cagey and sneaky about it. same thing in international law: a country that's willing to commit itself to a set of principles is respectable, while a country that's playing both ends against the middle looks like a complete cad. the only reason for the US not to sign onto the ICC is that it wants to keep its options open on things that the international community finds deeply offensive. I mean, how would you feel if your neighbor said to you 'no, I don't want to put my pitbull on a chain because I might want to sic him on you; probably not, but I feel better having the option'. would that make you like your neighbor more?

Russian, China, and India have not signed on, either.... that's pretty much half the world.

lol - and I assume you accepted that line when your teenagers pointed out that their friends were smoking pot and having sex? maybe there's a principled reason why signing onto the ICC would be a bad choice (I've never heard one, but I'm open-minded), but 'nobody else is doing it' isn't a reason. that's a self-justification.

...by the way, I'm making the assumption that we (as American's) don't want to get the same reputation that Russia and China have when it comes to human rights issues (both are regularly criticized by international organizations). or do you not care if we lose our standing as a free democratic state?

A couple of clarifications and corrections:

While the UN did support Operation Desert Storm, it did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is important to note that the US pushed on with its own agenda in Iraq despite the objections of prominent members of both the UN and NATO. Ignoring the wishes of many to cater to the whims of a few is a good way to garner the "ugly syndrome".

Vietnam was not supported by either the UN or NATO. It was, however, supported by SEATO (which failed shortly after the war). It should be noted that the members of SEATO that were also members of NATO elected not to participate in the Vietnam war. The only major anti-communist power that participated in the Vietnam war was the US, and thus there is no where else for the blame to rest.

TW, you have me confused (not hard to do). The US is a participant in the World Court that settles disagreements among member nations who bring their case to the court. We are not a member of the International Criminal Court, which DOES TRY INDIVIDUALS, not nations.

Reasoned response: We don't trust the UN. We will not submit our citizens to trial by a body dominated by 3rd world dictators. We will not subject our President or military leaders to trial by foreign governments for war crimes; we will handle those ourselves.

Many US citizens, maybe even a majority in this part of the country, believe the UN is a threat to world security and would prefer the US withdraw its membership. The rest see the UN as a toothless debating society, but it doesn't hurt to talk. Nobody sees any great advantage to membership or support other than the appearance of a willingness to participate. Many see a great danger in the US being pulled into even more conflicts, treaty entanglements and such.

I suspect Russia, China, India feel the same way.

Britain, Australia, Poland and Denmark provided troops. It was in support of/enforcement of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Pretty much nobody supported Iraq, the debate was over whether or not action should be taken or whether the western world should continue the debate. As I posted earlier, I think Iraqi Freedom was ill advised and patience would have been a better course of action.

I stand corrected. We are pretty ugly.

Other participants in Viet Nam were Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Phillipines, & Thailand... all nations who were geographically threatened by a rapidly spreading Communism supported by Russia and China. This needs to be viewed in terms of the cold war; right or wrong that was the thinking at the time.

perhaps I'm confused as well - it's Christmas, almost; too lazy for research. :D

the UN (i.e., the body that was created expressly to regulate and rationalize international norms) is a threat to world security? that's kind of like saying that congress is a threat to democracy...

look, AE, I get tired of this debate. There is a certain large section of the US population (which you apparently belong to) which has a Wild West attitude towards law and order. in other words, they are decidedly pro-law, but what that means is that they prefer to shoot first, in the firm conviction that they have a moral right to shoot, and let the boring legal stuff work itself out later. There is another large section of the US population (which I apparently belong to) which believes that the 'shoot first' mentality has some validity in moments of intense threat, but has almost no place in government. It's not law and order, it's self-righteous mayhem masquerading as law and order. The international arena is not the OK corral, and there are almost always better mechanisms for solving problems than pulling a high-nooner.

up until sometime after WWII, the US followed a T. Roosevelt 'walk softly and carry a big stick' policy; I have no idea why we shifted to a 'grab the biggest stick you can find and smack someone with it' policy, but I think it's STUPID and UNCIVILIZED. and sure, I understand the psychology of it - you all want to say "The US is the biggest, baddest mofo in these here parts: we are the law, and anyone who doesn't respect that better watch their a$$." but that's just adolescent hormonalism run amok. adults ought to prefer reason.

in other words, I'm not the schoolmarm here, and I don't feel like trying to explain to your side of the country why it's bad to hit the other kids, regardless of what they've done. In fact, there is no way to explain it: either you guys understand it already or you don't; and if you don't, then trying to explain it will just end up (as it always seems to do, at least on Fox news...) with an endless stream of enraged self-justifications for why it's correct and proper to think with our gonads.

I mean really...

Don't think I said any of those things. Anyway, God is on our side.

Isn't that what terrorists say?

God is on everyone's side; why do people always forget that?

Come on guys, can't you find just a little humor in the comment.... it's the only one TW hadn't accused me of.

I was hoping it was a joke, but given the previous posts I wasn't going to make that assumption.
;)

what humor: God is on your side! :D seriously though, I'm not accusing you of anything. you're the one who made this a group identity issue (e.g. 'most people in this part of the country' - playing the populist card). I was just clarifying what these group identities are, so there's no confusion. You personally may not subscribe to all of the attitudes listed above, but whether or not you do, those are the attitudes that define 'your' side of the country.

frankly, the fact that many or most people believe a given thing is not really much of an endorsement - groups of people believe the damnedest things sometimes - but if you're going to pull out a collective belief as a referent in a discussion, you really shouldn't be surprised when I pull out a different viewpoint that puts your belief in context. your belief doesn't get any special standing because most people in your parts believe it (most people in my parts believe something else, yah?).

Okay... "this part of the country" was a poor choice of words on my part. I am not one of those who believes the UN is about to take over the US and establish a world government.... the "new world order."

It is one thing for the UN to make proclamations and pass resolutions, but at some point "somebody" has to implement those resolutions with their blood. It seems like the US has done more than their share of the bleeding. We don't want to be the world's policeman, but somebody has to take the lead or nothing happens. Just to name a few, and in no particular order:

The Korean War. Somalia (delivering food). Beirut Barracks (UN peace keeping force). Kosovo (genocide). Partition of Palestine (resulting in terrorism). And the list goes on and on. (Not suggesting any of these should or shouldn't have been done, but they are all UN initiatives.) So, yes, the UN does get us involved in some sticky situations where Americans die.

The bottom line from my point of view is simple. We live in a democracy (sorta) where we elect our leaders and they do as they choose till the next election. Our leaders are going to do some things we don't like or agree with and that is part and parcel of our system.

About all we can do is vote. Past that, we just have to live with it.... ugly American image and all. Got a better idea?

How about we elect people who understand that their way isn't necessarily the one and only American way, and that the opposition is not un-American for opposing them?

More important, how about recognizing that our leaders are being anti democracy when they portray themselves as the "pro" American party.

ok. :)

well, part of that is because we as a nation have a disproportionate share of economic and military resources - 5% of the world's population consuming 40% of its resources, remember? do you expect us to have the same military involvement in UN actions as a nation like Belgium (which would struggle to afford a single B1 bomber in their arsenal, and has a population roughly the size of New York City), or Kenya (which would bankrupt itself trying to make a decent fleet of outdated F-16s)? now the UN would happily allow the US to bankroll other soldiers with military hardware for peace-keeping actions, but (a) the US doesn't like to give its destructive toys to anyone else (except for a steep fee), and (b) every government is paranoid about the UN having military force of its own (per that New World Order scenario you mentioned above). That means that the US has to send its own troops to use its own military hardware in collective UN actions; that's the only way we can participate under the restrictions we ourselves place on the situation.

and frankly, the US has never shown a lot of regard for the lives of US soldiers when it comes to pointless military engagements. I really can't see any distinction between US blood being spilled because UN leaders made a bad decision and US blood being spilled because US leaders made a bad decision, except that the former is far more likely to have been discussed and debated than the latter (which just sorta seems to happen). Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples: if we'd left them to UN to handle, we'd probably (a) have a stable government is Afghanistan now, (b) never have gone into Iraq in the first place (except maybe to deal with the Kurdish genocide), and (c) have captured Osama bin Laden (because no one would have been wasting time and resources bombing the crap out of two entire nations).

the UN is supposed to be a form of collective action, where nations work together to decide what needs to be done and then cooperate to get it done. being a team player means sacrifices for everyone, yah?

that's fine, except we can no longer afford to live in a solipsistic, US-centric worldview. whether we like it or not, it's a global world now, and our nation needs to make (and stick to) some global commitments.

Exactly so. Still the leadership thing comes with an ugly American image and a loss of US lives.

Correct, but I don't have to like it.

Dead is dead regardless of which bureaucrats made the decision.... all the same to the GIs. Our military understands war/armed conflict is simply an extension of foreign policy.... that is, politics.

Except for those with a large military... they get a veto over that majority rule thing. Reality has to be recognized.

Some of those commitments worry me, but I suspect we'll stick with them.

Tell that to the UAW.:)

What have you got against hard working Americans earning a decent living? Isn't the real problem that non-UAW workers are being robbed by their employers?

They should take it up with the UN. :)

wow - I didn't realize you were a marxist. interesting... :)

"When avoiding the mistakes our parents made, we often make the mistakes our parents avoided." --unknown

But it's a U.S. problem. We're allowing companies to buy labor globally but sell locally. That's a threat to National Security because it externalizes costs such as healthcare and retirement to the taxpayers.

It is a problem. It does externalize costs by pushing US labor to subsist on the same wages and benefits as other nations, and by default the taxpayers pick up some of the tab. Shall we raise taxes on those who import goods and those who export jobs? Tariffs? Protectionism? Or should we keep buying those cheap imports?

I don't have a good answer either, except we best get more productive or the UAW's fate is what we're all looking at. (BTW, I carried a union card for a few years.... I do support fair wages and fair treatment of workers.)

I would heavily tax those who profit off of cheap labor. Call it anything you like but profit should be made by adding value, not stealing from workers.

There's a small nugget of truth there.
Congress passes laws to limit freedom, even if not your freedom, somebody's. Rarely is a right granted in legislation. At least we have the judicial branch to counter-act them when they step too far.