Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

DadaKopf

Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

To be an effective counterweight requires far-reaching changes

Paul Kennedy
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

This year, it seems, the trendy debate among the foreign policy crowd no longer hails from Harvard Square or midtown Manhattan. No more waiting for America to come up with slogans such as "the clash of civilisations" and "the end of history".
With the publication of an essay by the French scholar Jacques Derrida and the German scholar Jürgen Habermas in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, at last European intellectuals have produced their own "hot idea". Arguing for a counterbalance to American global hegemonic pretensions, Derrida and Habermas maintain that this can only be accomplished through a unified European foreign policy led by the pioneering "core" European nations. What is more, the Derrida-Habermas call for a European identity looms even more significantly when linked to the belief that Europe must act to curb American primacy and unilateralism. This is hardly coffee house babble, since it articulates what many in Europe are thinking.

My problem with the Derrida-Habermas proclamation is that their thesis is not practical. The way to a powerful Europe is not even sketched out. It is an aspiration, not a policy. If Europe is to become an effective counterweight to America - or an amiable and near equal world partner - it must make some tough decisions and institute tough practical policies. Constitutional decisions, like creating the office of a single foreign minister, go part of the way, but that is just the icing on the cake if Europe itself is not made stronger.

So, here, for consideration, are a half-dozen nettles that might be grasped to make Europe stronger, to give Europe credibility in the eyes of the world and to contribute to the greater sense of European identity for which Derrida and Habermas yearn.

Europe must develop greater military capacity, scrap national conscript armies and train for integrated multiservice fighting in many parts of the world. This requires more money. Right now, the countries that take military reform most seriously are Britain and Poland. Many of the "old" European countries talk about military reforms, but their small defence budgets give the game away.

If Europe really wants improved international structures that provide peace and prosperity, it must push for serious reform of the United Nations, especially in the composition of the permanent veto members of the security council, so that countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa may also achieve that status. Perhaps Europe should confront the fact that it is over-represented on that body. There have been proposals from time to time for a single, rotating "European" permanent seat, an idea France always threatens to veto.

Europe must make a massive push against protectionism, especially in agricultural goods, and to assist poorer countries in Africa and the Caribbean in the export of their produce. But France is the most obstinate foe of free trade in agriculture and drags a complicit Germany along with it. Is it any wonder that developing countries are cynical when Europe talks about boosting world markets - when most trade experts believe that the single biggest boost to African and Caribbean nations would be to scrap Europe's (and America's, and Japan's) agricultural protectionism.

Europe must offer large increases in development assistance, again to help the poorer countries of the globe, consisting not only of capital and infrastructural investment but also technical assistance, scholarships and the waiver of intellectual property restrictions. To be sure, European aid is more generous than America's - the EU provides about twice as much as the US - but more is called for. Why not declare that the EU will devote a full 1% of its annual GDP to development assistance, as a symbol of its leadership? Right now, only the Scandinavians give respectable totals in aid.

Europe should make a special commitment to Africa, not just because it is the poorest of the poor, and not just because of European colonial history, but also because of its geographical proximity and because in Africa it could be an alternative model to US neglect or to the American concern chiefly for military-security threats.

Finally, it is vital for Europe to get its economy going again. If its overall growth rates should lag behind those of the US and much of Asia over the next decade or two, then the whole idea of being a counterbalance is off.

Europe also needs, frankly, to get its youthful population going again. The astonishingly low fertility rates in much of Europe - in contrast to the population increases forecast for the US over the next 50 years - will be as important as the differences in defence spending. If population trends are a good indicator, Europe shows more signs of shrinking than advancing on the world stage.

Let us suppose for a moment that Europe were to succeed on all these fronts. Should that happen, it would indeed come close to being a strong and influential player in world affairs. Europe need not be an angry competitor to the United States all the time - the present characters occupying the White House and the Elysée Palace will not last for ever - but it would once again be important enough in military, economic and political terms to be respected and heeded by others, even American neo-conservatives. But here is the rub: resistance to these tough reforms lies deepest in the "old" or "core Europe" countries such as France, Belgium and Germany. They are the ones that most fiercely cling to agricultural protectionism; have the deepest structural and ideological objections to economic reform; and (France is a partial exception) are spending so little of their GDP on effective armed forces.

There is an extraordinary contradiction here: France and Germany provide the most political rhetoric about making Europe strong and competitive in the modern world, yet it is they who have so much yet to do to stay competitive. Even if their governments propose tough fiscal action, those thousands of French and Germans who marched against the US war with Iraq would be right back on the streets, marching against the necessary agriculture, taxation and spending reforms. And their governments will be forced to compromise.

This is the real reason why I think the appeal for a "core Europe" to emerge and balance the United States will not work. These "old" Europe societies are in so many ways the laggards in handling global challenges. Unless serious structural changes are pushed through, the document that began this debate will remain merely academic.

© Tribune Media Services International

· Paul Kennedy is a professor of history at Yale University. His books include The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Is it me or is this an incredibly naive opinion?

Not only is it naive but it's arrogant and dangerous. For starters, he seems blind to the last 100 years of European history, which wishes to diminish the spectre military conflict, not to create another Cold War. Furthermore, he's espousing pure, neo-conservative, free market realpolitik - he is actually arguing for Bismarckian blood-and-food politics which is attributed to causing WWI and WWII in the first place! "Old" Europe has actually moved on since then while the "new" world is stuck in its Imperial teenage balance-of-power phase.

He complains that the two philosophers he cites (who I think he misinterprets) haven't laid out a tenable policy - it takes only a few moments for a reader to realise this guy hasn't either.

I'm glad the Guardian published it, but I really hope people are sensible enough to dismiss it when they spend even ten seconds teasing out the frightening consequences.

OfflerCrocGod

But he is telling the truth reforms NEED to be made to many of the big economies in Europe but the populace is on the streets as soon as any whisper of change is uttered. The fact is Europe IS an ageing continent and also most of the people in power in the European Instutions are againts the enlargement of the Europe Union to include ALL of Europe.

Europe must go further and enlarge to include Ukraine and Turkey and most important of all Russia (all of it!, the important part of Russia , White Russia is well within Europe).

Russia has a pop of nearly 150million and these Eastern European countries have a LOT of economic growth ahead of them at the moment they have slowly declining pop but once they begin growing economically hopefully there pop will begin growing.

Unfortuanately the present power brokers in the EU do not want these counties to join the Union , I hope that future generations though will encourage them in. Anyway lots of people keep on talking of the pop growth that the US is going to experience; i have news for you yes they will grow pop wise BUT most of the growth will come from the latinos by the middle of this century they will be in a majority. Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make but its the truth , Whites and Asians would have been usefull for the US , but a bunch of mulattos and latinos no worry they wont add much to the country other then numbers and look at India and its numbers , its power is small.
Anyway I did not realise we were at war with the US?!, wow surprised me.

Lemming

...it must push for serious reform of the United Nations, especially in the composition of the permanent veto members of the security council, so that countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa may also achieve that status. Perhaps Europe should confront the fact that it is over-represented on that body. There have been proposals from time to time for a single, rotating "European" permanent seat, an idea France always threatens to veto.

I spot a flaw .. or, perhaps a US means of gaining a strangle-hold on the UNSC. If Europe has only one seat on the council, that would mean lots of other "little" countries that the US would find easier to bully/coerce unlike the current status quo where there are several E.U. countries on the council.

DadaKopf is right in calling the article naive though. I would go further to say full of hypocrisy and double-standard suggestions.

Sparks

I'd love to know what the neutral countries would be expected to do in such a militarised EU...

bonkey

Europe also needs, frankly, to get its youthful population going again. The astonishingly low fertility rates in much of Europe - in contrast to the population increases forecast for the US over the next 50 years - will be as important as the differences in defence spending. If population trends are a good indicator, Europe shows more signs of shrinking than advancing on the world stage.

Lets not mention though that the increasing population estimates for the US show significant population increases in minority populations which - according to current demographics - make up the poorer sections of society in general.

Sci Am did an article about a year or two ago about just this, where they showed that by 2030, so-called "White Americans" will no longer compose the majority - that the combined "minority" groups such as hispanics, latin-Americans, African Americans, etc. will outnumber them.

The conclusion that the scientists reached (which I would generally have more faith in than journalists when it comes to extrapolation) was that this demographic shift was one of the greatest challenges and potential problems that the US will face in the coming few generations - not one of their strengths which will cause the EU to fall further behind (as our author suggests).

I would further point out that while the US is remaining static in size (unless you're cynical enough to believe that its current aggressive moves really are a form of colonialism), the EU is undergoing expansion in size, which will not only increase the available population, but also the available resources.

Yes, it will take time to bring these nations up to speed, but Ireland managed it in about 30 years, which is just 60% of the timeframe that this guy is talking about.

jc

Hobbes

Why must everything be about war?

The article reminds me of a pacifist and a fighter having an argument and the fighter saying "You will never beat me in a fight". Which is true and probably not the goal of the pacifist (that is not to equate the two to the EU/US).

The only person who will beat the US is the US. It's doing a good job of it now. More damage has been done by the US to itself in the past year or so then what anyone else could of done.

Superpowers come and go.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I'd love to know what the neutral countries would be expected to do in such a militarised EU...

Same thing all neutral countries do; profit from the surrounding conflict or get invaded. Or both.

Von

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make

Yes. It certainly is.

OfflerCrocGod

I did not mean to be racist I was just telling the truth, I have no problems with Latinos, I am not a racist but my point was reiterated by bonkey and put in a much better way

The conclusion that the scientists reached (which I would generally have more faith in than journalists when it comes to extrapolation) was that this demographic shift was one of the greatest challenges and potential problems that the US will face in the coming few generations - not one of their strengths which will cause the EU to fall further behind (as our author suggests).

Why do you think they have positive discrimination toward minorities in US colleges??. I am not a racist, nor a bigot I was just pointing out that this growth of pop is not necessarly a good thing

Hobbes

No that's a racist statement.

That would be like me saying that all Irish are lazy drunks who are only good as builders and breed by the single parent method.

Just because you have no information on Latin America doesn't make your statement true.

OfflerCrocGod

No its the truth that is the reason why they have positive discrimination in universities for minorities because there are fewer people going into colleges from certain minorities i.e. blacks, latinos etc.

I am not being racist by pointing out those facts - they are facts , the truth , a larger poorer uneducated lower class is not good , if you feel I am being racist in stating the facts well im sorry but thats they way things are; I dont like those facts but they are the facts. Get over it .

Hobbes

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
No its the truth that is the reason why they have positive discrimination in universities for minorities because there are fewer people going into colleges from certain minorities i.e. blacks, latinos etc.

You are saying Latinos are lazy (or useless by your term) because there is postive descrimination in universities? If that isn't a racist statement I don't know what is.

Not shown to be much use in Latin America? Really? How?

'Positive descrimination' is a method used to counteract negative descrimination that has existed (ie. Latinos not getting into collage because people think they are useless).

Positive descrimination also doesn't just mean you can get into collage because you fill a minority. If your black/latino/female/whatever and the field your getting into your on par with the rest of the applicants you have a better chance of getting the position. Historically it has always been the reverse.

OfflerCrocGod

Jesus these minorities come from disadvanteged area of the US therefore need more help to get into college , me by stating that fact am racist and bigoted **** then thats great , better tell that to my gay, black, chinese, indian friends then!. Man you are thick Latin America is obviusly not the world economic engine that the US is thats why these people move to the US , ok , when they get there they neither speak the language or have much material wealth, they are a great boon to the US how?.

It costs the US to deal with them and they do it worst then we deal with here in Europe(which is a mess) these people take years to get citizenship and it takes time for them to adapt to US society. So it cost the US to integreate these people. By saying that im a racist? wow , there you go new definition of racism.

bonkey

Go back and look at what people complained about.

Better still - don't - I'll quote it here, and I'll highlight the significant bits :

Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make but its the truth , Whites and Asians would have been usefull for the US , but a bunch of mulattos and latinos no worry they wont add much to the country other then numbers

Now quite simply, you are asserting that the problem is with the people themselves, not with their environment. The Latino's have done nothing in Latin America, ergo they will do nothing in the US. The Whites and Asians, in their respective societies get on well, ergo, they would be "better" for the US.

That, sir, is making a negative distinction based on race - which by definition is a racist comment. No-one is using a new definition of racism as you claim - they're using the usual one.

Hell, look at the line I didnt quote - you admit it at least sounds racist, but claim that it isnt. Now you want us to believe that even though it sounds racist, we'd have to re-invent the meaning of the term racist before it would be racist???

Unfortunately, claiming something means very little. For example, if I said "I know it sounds lke I'm insulting you, but I amn't. You 're <insert insult here>.", to someone, would you say I was insulting them or not? Most people would say that yes, I was.

Now, your intention may not have been to be racist, but thats a different issue. You made the distinction on race, and implied that it is the immigrants themselves (as opposed to the manner in which they are treated by the society they are joining) who are the problem. Like it or not, thats racist.

To date, all you have done is :

1) Say I made the same point as you, only better.
2) Insist that what you said is both correct and non-racist.

Regarding the first point : I did not make the same point as you. I made a related point. I am in no way claiming that any racial group within the US is superior / inferior. I am simply pointing out that current majority (so-called "White Americans") will not be in a majority any longer, and that this will cause significant change.

Regarding the second : if you stick by what you said, it is racist. You are asserting that the Latino's are intrinsically incapable or less capable than other racial groups. On the other hand, if you admitted that you worded it wrongly, and meant that they will do less well because of the differing society they come from, or some reason that has nothing to do with their race, then your comment is not racist.

But you can't have both. Thats what people are disagreeing with you for...and the more you call other people thick for not understanding why your racist comment isnt racist cause you say so....the less likely you are to actually find people agreeing with you.

jc

OfflerCrocGod

Immigrant one comes from Western Europe or Japan or South Korea lets say Germany call him Won Braun he is a well educated degree holding sciencetist/engi/math whatever he goes to US and helps them in there building or advancing there society ; so lets say he helps them build the Apollo rockets; he contributed to the US , right?

Immigrant two is from Nicauaraga it suffered from a civil war during the early 80's and literacy for the over 15's is at the high 60's the country has huge debt etc...; we will call him Marco he goes to US illegally has no money no real education no work experience no money

Me points out that num one is far more usefull to the US's interests then number two, I magically become a racist?!. Listen two just did not have the same OPPURTUNITIES as num one its not his skin that matters it his history!.I put it crudely cause as you can see I dont post often Im not good at writing on a keyboard and I wanted to end the comment; I just though would see the fact that a well educated immigrant is more usefull then a poorly educated one. If anyone believes I am wrong in that belief compare Nicauragas GDP to Japan or Germany or the UK. Its not the colour of the skin its the persons history that makes the diffrence.

I put it crudely cause my I could not write anymore - too tired.

Hobbes

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Me points out that num one is far more usefull to the US's interests then number two, I magically become a racist?!.

It was the part that bonkey pointed out. But then you pick two fictional samples as proof of your statement?

Your saying that somehow coming from Latin America you are already at a disadvantage? Can you name even 5 famous Latin Americans?

bonkey

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
I just though would see the fact that a well educated immigrant is more usefull then a poorly educated one.

OK - assuming thats what you meant initially (and I've no reason to doubt you), you have a degree of correctness in what you're saying.

However, determining the "usefulness" of an immigrant to a nation is far more complex than where they came from.

Consider any nation with significant immigration - the US or Ireland would be a good place to start. We hear a large number of complaints on a regular basis about "damned foreigners coming here and stealing our jobs".

Strangely, this is usually applied to what you are classing as the less useful immigrants - the ones taking non-prestige jobs, working harder than the "natives", and getting on with things. I have never heard someone complain about (say) a Japenese lecturer immigrating to Ireland, but I have heard a hell of a lot of people complaining about Central-European or Middle-Eastern taxi-drivers.

Now - why this happens is a discussion for a different thread. However, what arises out of it is the evidence that there is an automatic disadvantage placed on these people by the natives, regardless of where they come from. The locals try and keep the immigrants out of "their" jobs. And yet, when we take your argument, it is their disadvantaged background which is at fault. It is their origins which make them less useful - not the unwillingness of the people who's nation they have entered to accept them and treat them equally.

Yes, when there is a social system which is easily abused, you will find some immigrants who are entering a country simply to live a better life at the expense of the state. To say that this is true of all immigrants, or all immigrants from less-developed nations, though, would be blatantly false.

So - when you say that an immigrant from a less-advantaged background is of less benefit, its somewhat misleading, unless you want to assert that people filling "prestige jobs" are somehow more important (or useful or beneficial) than people filling what would generally be termed "working class jobs".

I would assert that a more significant factor is the will to work, and here I would say that - by and large - immigrants tend to be more motivated than natives in this respect. It is the treatment they receieve from others which puts them at a disadvantage, IMHO.

Not only that, but immigrants also contribute to the future population through their offspring. This is a far greater factor to consider. Here, to claim that the origin of the "original" immigrant is the most significant factor in determining the usefulness of these descendants to the state is blatantly false.

jc

p.s. I would also point out that getting agressively defensive because other people can't understand the point you're making is all well and good, but doing so while you also admit that you may not have phrased the point well in the first place is a bit silly.

If people are misunderstanding you, then clarify. Telling us to "get over it", or "Man you are thick" because you worded things badly is not gonna win you any friends.

You admitted you put things crudely. I agree - you did, and applaud you for admitting your mistake. However, I would suggest, you should recognise that this is where the problem arose, rather than insulting people because they took what you said as what you meant.

OfflerCrocGod

I dont think they are stealing our jobs, we need them let them in give citizenship and lets cut the crap Europe is ageing we need immigrants the thing is the US of late has not been good at absorbing these new waves of immigrants because its economy has leveled off new massive growth is not going to occur(WW11 style); its a stable economy. A lot of these immigrants dont integrate well, they keep there original language and dont give up there culture. Spanish is already the second language of the US , what I said is they will have many promblems integrating these people into there American life.

The ethics of the average South American are diffrent from American/European/Asian ones in the work and education sphere. Thats why most of the advances in tech come from us because we have stable economies and good Universities etc.. The challenge for the US is integreation, they have been good before but... that was before now is diffrent; the US has grown up in some respects:rolleyes: . I just hope we can here in Europe open our borders to more of these people, cause we need them, and integrate them fully into our culture and lifestyle; I couldnt care less for the colour of there fecking skin. They just afto be assimilated, No chinatowns or slavtowns! they must be like us, hopefully we will be more succesfull then the US

Victor

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Thats why most of the advances in tech come from us because we have stable economies and good Universities etc..

Don't forget the leaching of graduates and other trained personnel from other countries and the "re-patriation" of R&D work to the USA. Not to mention the activities of the NSA and it's ilk.

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
we have stable economies

Are you sure?

Turnip

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
The ethics of the average South American are diffrent from American/European/Asian ones in the work and education sphere.

Different in what way? Latin American countries are largely catholic, like Ireland, Spain and Italy.

What on earth are you babbling about?

I agree with most of the article. We need to abolish Europe's welfare states, re-arm, get Germany to develop a professional army and revamp the education system to inculcate a work ethic in students from the off. Lots of tough decisions must be made sooner or later.

Sparks

I agree with most of the article. We need to abolish Europe's welfare states, re-arm, get Germany to develop a professional army and revamp the education system to inculcate a work ethic in students from the off. Lots of tough decisions must be made sooner or later.

Ah, yes, the "the people need an iron fist in a velvet glove" argument...
Frankly, you're assuming that we need to compete with the US, that welfare states are a bad thing, that we're unarmed, that Germany's army is unprofessional and the education system is where the work ethic is instilled. None of which is true.

Corega

The important question remains...Do we want to revert to a state such as that of the American society?

In fairness though, most European societies and infrastructures have been established for hundreds of years, American politics had only been established two hundred years, so is it not right that we should have more adaquate means to facilitate other countries, is it not right that Europe, as a whole, should be able to govern and dictate the ways other countries develop?

Sparks

Corega,
1) Is revert the correct verb? As far as I know, the US is the only state in history founded on the principles of the Enlightenment (though the current US political landscape would seem to state that the enlightenment is a long way from where they are now).

2) The answer is no.

3) Of course we have no right to dictate to other nations how to run themselves! We can criticise, certainly, but we can't just wander in and effect regieme change!

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
Ah, yes, the "the people need an iron fist in a velvet glove" argument...
Frankly, you're assuming that we need to compete with the US, that welfare states are a bad thing, that we're unarmed, that Germany's army is unprofessional and the education system is where the work ethic is instilled. None of which is true.

Afaik, Germany's army is composed mostly of conscripted personnel. They haven't been allowed retain a fully professional army since the war. I may be wrong of course.

We do need to compete with the US yes, and with China and India and Russia and everyone else. Of course we do. That's what states and economic blocs do.

Welfare states are useful up to a certain point but we passed that point long ago.

Sparks

Afaik, Germany's army is composed mostly of conscripted personnel. They haven't been allowed retain a fully professional army since the war. I may be wrong of course.

You are. They were not allowed by German law to deploy their armed forces outside of Germany's borders. (That law was changed recently to allow for German troops to assist the US in afghanistan). Their army is one of the most professional going.

We do need to compete with the US yes, and with China and India and Russia and everyone else. Of course we do. That's what states and economic blocs do.

Actually, it's what private companies do. Not states. When states compete, it leads to pretty ugly places - wars and cold wars.

Welfare states are useful up to a certain point but we passed that point long ago.

Spoken like someone born with a trust fund. Or didn't you see that nice little graph on the front page of saturday's Irish Times?

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
You are. They were not allowed by German law to deploy their armed forces outside of Germany's borders. (That law was changed recently to allow for German troops to assist the US in afghanistan). Their army is one of the most professional going.

Get someone to read this to you carefully if you find it difficult to understand...

BERLIN, June 8 (Reuters) - Germany, under pressure to adapt its under-funded army for overseas missions, is considering ending conscription and making its armed forces fully professional.

I made a small mistake. About 30% of the army is conscripted.

Actually, it's what private companies do. Not states. When states compete, it leads to pretty ugly places - wars and cold wars.

I don't know what fairy tale history book you've been reading but states and individuals act in their own self interest, forming alliances when it's convenient to do so. They always have and always will. No amount of left wing happy clappy bleating will alter that little fact.

Spoken like someone born with a trust fund. Or didn't you see that nice little graph on the front page of saturday's Irish Times?

If I had a trust fund I wouldn't have to work. But I do work (and enjoy it) and for my trouble I have a modest amount of cash robbed off me every month which is then wasted in a variety of outrageous ways. I gave up reading the Irish Times because of its ridiculous stance during the war so I'm not really interested in what they have to say about anything.

bizmark

why is every one asumeing we need a massive army ?......... lets but honest here the american army is big but it far from the best.The american solider doesnt seem all together to well trained and they never had a good record "playing away from home" vitnam etc.

A large ground army isnt needed no one around the eu could "try it on" with us russia consripts army is no treat poor moral crap training and under funding.

A big airforce and navy is what,s needed more than anything but to have that you need major funding are you willing to pay more tax,s for that ? to compeat with america,s 2000 + aircrafts and navy of 300 + ship,s ? ????

To talk about german,s army is a bit unfair they may well not want a big army would you after haveing a real sizeable chunk of you population wiped out?...... France though us the impact of a messy war on a countrys mind

However we should alway,s remember HISTORY .....ill build a 28,000 ton battleship my "enemy" builds a 30,000 ton ship........... has been the cause of a lot of death in history i would really perfere not to see a USA VR,S EU cold war or god forbid a full war jesus knows the killing we could do :rolleyes:

Sparks

Get someone to read this to you carefully if you find it difficult to understand...

Ah-ha. You mean professional as in "paid to do it", not "competent at their job". Mind you, since conscripts are paid as well, and if conscripted you don't have to serve in the military, I fail to see where your point is coming from...

I don't know what fairy tale history book you've been reading but states and individuals act in their own self interest, forming alliances when it's convenient to do so. They always have and always will. No amount of left wing happy clappy bleating will alter that little fact.

Actually, you're incorrect - individuals do indeed compete. States do not. Individuals leading those states may merrily make a mess of the rest of the world, but nations where the state is not lead by individuals (or where their power is stricly curtailed) tend to make less of a mess than other nations. In other words, history says I'm right and you're wrong.
How left wing happy clappy is that?
:rolleyes:

for my trouble I have a modest amount of cash robbed off me every month which is then wasted in a variety of outrageous ways.

Now that I can fully sympathise with. I'm just not willing to eliminate the welfare system, because I know it's not the problem.
Or do you absolutely know for certain that all your PAYE tax is ringfenced exculsively for the welfare system? And if so, can you find out who's PAYE is ringfenced for Bertie's new jet so we can tell them?
There's a lot of waste in the Irish government, but I'm not willing to put a lot of people though hell for someone else's incompetence, especially when that someone else is more than able to waste the money without having a welfare program to nominally spend it on.

I gave up reading the Irish Times because of its ridiculous stance during the war so I'm not really interested in what they have to say about anything.

You gave up reading the only independently financed newspaper in the state because they had the most independed sources of information and the most reporters in the field during the war?

Éomer of Rohan

Does anyone else see anything objectionable in Turnip using a Reuters internet news bulletin as concrete evidence for the lack of professionalism amongst the German army?

OfflerCrocGod

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe, Europe extends all the way to the Ural mountains , Russia is European its big cities are in Europe , Moscow, St Petersburg etc... I would hope that it will join the EU one its a little bit more stable , the ENTIRE coutry that way the EU block extends halfway round the world and borders China , offering huge markets.

Let the Americans have their Empire they lose a man a day now in Iraq , its obvious they cant handle Iraq they are terrible Conquers, the Romans are turning in there graves I hope they go and invade Iran and Syria to imagine the losses!. The present administration is wrecking the country and leaving huge debts to the future generations, why should we stop them?. We will never go to war with each other we dont need huge armies here in Europe there useless drains on our economies.

Éomer of Rohan

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe, Europe extends all the way to the Ural mountains , Russia is European its big cities are in Europe , Moscow, St Petersburg etc...

It's a historical thing dating back to the Europeanising influence of Peter the Great, some of which was continued by his successors; the result was that while Russia's urban centres gained many traits of European cultures, the vast tracts of serfdom (created by Peter to tie the peasents to the their land) remained static - which was one of the near insurmountable problems that the Communists faced. Anyway, the Europeans were scared by the vastness of Russia (cf Otto von Bismarck) and yet felt alienated by the differences they encountered there - especially in the 19th Century the type of absolutist monarchy which had been abolished in the rest of Europe a long time before. The media, especially in Britain always portrayed Russia as very dubious, even as late as the Triple Entente and the russophobia was simply reenacted in a different form for the cold war - and this mentality thanks to the freezing of ideological positions perists.

Let the Americans have their Empire they lose a man a day now in Iraq

Yes I rather liked Sparks cartoon regarding Iraq becoming the new Northern Ireland.

The present administration is wrecking the country and leaving huge debts to the future generations, why should we stop them?

Because although I couldn't give two figs for the collapse of American society / economy, I do care about the death of several thousand absolutely innocent people.

We will never go to war with each other we dont need huge armies here in Europe there useless drains on our economies

Yes, and we prefer a health service which actually embodies the ideals that all are equal instead of a government that pays lip service to such an ideal (cf all this crap about "the enduring power of American ideals; that all men are created equal") and then allows the poor people of said country to have no health care to speak of.

Xhen

Originally posted by Corega
In fairness though, most European societies and infrastructures have been established for hundreds of years, American politics had only been established two hundred years, so is it not right that we should have more adaquate means to facilitate other countries, is it not right that Europe, as a whole, should be able to govern and dictate the ways other countries develop?

It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US. Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII.

Éomer of Rohan

It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US.

Depends on how you define strength. I attribute the longevity of US institutions to their willingness to use the army to break mass strikes for a start - killing innocents along the way and to the mass conservatism of US society; the respect for the 'fouding fathers' (who were Brits with a funny accent truth be told) and the ideas of 'patriotism' which are drilled into them since birth; of all the americans of voting age that I know, only one has bothered to question Bush - with the others I am not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII

And a lot of this is a good thing; what you call stability, I call stagnation - which is what, to my mind politics in the US have done - hence we have the Republicrats. And the institutions of the German republic really date back to the unification of Germany - most of the parliamentarian institutions that were used by the Kaiser's were used by the Wiemar Republic and are presently used by the Bundesrepublik. France is the same - they may be on their fourth (fifth?) republic but it is still the same form of government, not much edited from that of it's immediate predecessors. I have no idea as to Switzerland - maybe JC could tell us about that one. The breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and then the Soviet Union pretty much covers that BUT the people of these regions have been living there since mass migrations stopped at the end of the Dark Ages - Americans practically exterminated the indigenous population; so while forms of administration may change, ultimately the cultural driving forces behind how many of the institutions actually operate below the surface have not (eg the old boy network in the UK).

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Xhen
It depends on what you mean by societies and infrastructures. Only the UK has legal and governmental institutions that can match the strength and longevity of those in the US. Most of Europe has gone through a variety of monarchs, dictatorships, occupations, and constitutions during the same period that the US has operated under the same Constitution. The governments and institutions on Continental Europe are all very young by comparison. Most don't pre-date WWII.

On that note i'd say its high time we re-wrtie ours.
Gone our the days of dancing at the cross roads!:ninja:

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I have no idea as to Switzerland - maybe JC could tell us about that one.

Current system has been in place since 1848, which is a little bit before WW2.

That system was a fairly radical change from what came before it, but having said that, Switzerland did still operate as a "conglomeration of cantons" before that date for quite some time.

jc

Sparks

*sigh*
Y'know, if only the swiss national language was english, I'd have moved allready... after all, there's a damn fine robotics research centre there.

bizmark

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe,

well im 19 so it has been drilled into me through history and my parents what russia WAS

russia still is a pritty scary country to have on your boader,s even though in the truth of the subject they arent a threat because of both diplomatic changes and economy problums. Still it is hard to give over that "race" sterotype in history books and because of the cold war storys sorry i didnt really mean that russia was going to attack or anything like that just useing russia as a explamy of why we dont need a big ground army:)

not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

You are so right their they either cant talk about it because of a so called love of their bully nation or just dont have,nt a clue of what really is happening and how people truely dislike even hate them as a country.

Im really looking forword to the day i see on rte "americans surrfer massive lose,s" i know its not a nice thing to say but this teenage bully phase has to end one way or the other or we will have a country with no match over 9000 nuke weapions and 700,000 + millitry bleaveing they can do what they want and who wants that ?

Wook

euhm if you are refering to US army, it think it's closer to 32.000 nukes and 30.000 tons of Chemical weapons.
Yes yes The UN would have a field day in the good oll'd States.

bizmark

well i did say over 9000

Xhen

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
of all the americans of voting age that I know, only one has bothered to question Bush - with the others I am not allowed to talk politics since they get angry when they hear criticisms of 'the president who led our country through 9/11' and can't defend him in any case.

That's a nice little anecdote but I think you'll find that close-mindedness about Bush is far more prevalant among the left and Bush-haters than Bush supporters. They've created a caricature of him in their minds - he's dumb, he's a cowboy, he's an empty shell controlled by neo-cons or Jews or oilmen or some other cabal - and its almost impossible to get them to look at evidence to the contrary. They simply cannot or will not consider anything that doesn't conform to their shallow little image of the man.

...so while forms of administration may change, ultimately the cultural driving forces behind how many of the institutions actually operate below the surface have not (eg the old boy network in the UK).

Maybe, but cultural forces in the US are every bit as deeply engrained as they are in Europe, which is part of the reason for the growing rift. The belief in the principles established by the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights runs so deep that international institutions like the UN and the ICC simply cannot compete. In fact, the American government doesn't even have the power to enter into treaties which supercede the authority of the US Constitution. That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Wook
euhm if you are refering to US army, it think it's closer to 32.000 nukes and 30.000 tons of Chemical weapons.
Yes yes The UN would have a field day in the good oll'd States.

*coff*

OOoooh im a stickler for, what shall we call it.. 'truth enhancer' maybe?

The US has a stockpile of 12,000 nuclear weapons, 6,750 of which are deployable.

The US has a combined stockpile of 31,496 tons of various chemical agents stockpiled, ranging from blister agents to nerve agents. 60% of this stockpile is in bulk storage, not ready for deployment. The remaining 40% are stored in munitions, many of which are now obsolete. All stockpiles are stored between 8 sites inside the US, with no chemical agents forward deployed.

The US has no biological weapons stockpile. All US biological weapons were destroyed between May 1971 and February 1973. All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program. USAMRIID is an open research institution; no research is classified.

Further reading here, here and here.

Sparks

That's a nice little anecdote but I think you'll find that close-mindedness about Bush is far more prevalant among the left and Bush-haters than Bush supporters. They've created a caricature of him in their minds - he's dumb, he's a cowboy, he's an empty shell controlled by neo-cons or Jews or oilmen or some other cabal - and its almost impossible to get them to look at evidence to the contrary. They simply cannot or will not consider anything that doesn't conform to their shallow little image of the man.

Then tell us of his positive contributions to society. Just don't expect to have your word taken for it - but then, if you're right, you ought to be able to prove it, right?

Hell, why don't you start by disproving the charge that he went AWOL for over a year from the Air Force National Guard during the Vietnam war?

Americans believe that our own founding documents and institutions have proven themselves for over 200 years and have little faith in newly established international organizations that have proven nothing.

See, here's the problem.
Bill of Rights, Decleration of Independence, US Constitution - 200 years old. Damn fine documents then and now. But age is not proof of infalliability. Plus there are older documents that the US has happily overridden in the past few months and years.
The Geneva Conventions, for example, represent over 200 years of work. So do the Hague conventions. And some documents, like the treaty on chemical and biological warfare, couldn't have been written 200+ years ago - so why would they be less valued than the US constitution?

That's a fundamental principle that is poorly understood in Europe and leads to a lot of frustration in trying to understand why the ICC must be rejected if it comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Can you actually point to a specific conflict between the Bill of Rights and the ICC? Or are you saying that Clinton signed the ICC for kicks, without having it legally analysed?

Sparks

All offensive biological research was ceased and USAMRIID was established to take over the defensive biological research program.

I'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

bizmark

'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

HEY sure they managed to get britan and a few other countrys to bleave attacking iraq was "defensive" sure what,s a few chemical/bio weapions between freinds

Sparks

HEY sure they managed to get britan and a few other countrys to bleave attacking iraq was "defensive" sure what,s a few chemical/bio weapions between freinds

In this case, a documented breach of the international treaty on biological and chemical warfare.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm curious - how does a new grenade for dispersing chemical and biological agents count as "defensive research"?

Im curious as to your source. The US signed chemical & biological weapon ban treatys with the proviso that riot-control weapons and defoliant could still be used. This 'grenade' you mention could very well be a different delivery method for CS gas for riot control, or any other number of things.

Xhen

Then tell us of his positive contributions to society. Just don't expect to have your word taken for it - but then, if you're right, you ought to be able to prove it, right?

Sure. He's eliminated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - two brutal, fascist regimes. Or are those bad things in your little world?

He pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress which caused Bob Geldof to say: "Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver. You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy."

He's about to authorize a humanitarian mission to Liberia against the wishes of many in his own party.

Unlike 99% of politicians, when Bush says something he means it. Saddam Hussein found that out the hard way. Charles Taylor got the message and has already agreed to accept exile in Nigeria rather than test Bush's word that he had to go. Compare that to the UN/French fiasco in the Congo or the European debating societies that produce a lot of talk and paperwork and little action or results.

Hell, why don't you start by disproving the charge that he went AWOL for over a year from the Air Force National Guard during the Vietnam war?

Boy, you just love these unsubstantiated accusations, don't you? There is almost no evidence that Bush went AWOL other than some incomplete paperwork (something that's hardly rare in the military) and the hazy recollections of a Colonel who didn't remember him but had no real reason to remember him since neither Bush nor his father were well known in the early '70's.

Why don't you start actually proving something for a change instead of insisting that everyone else disprove every half-assed allegation you can throw against the wall?

Bill of Rights, Decleration of Independence, US Constitution - 200 years old. Damn fine documents then and now. But age is not proof of infalliability. Plus there are older documents that the US has happily overridden in the past few months and years.

Okay, now its your turn - prove that the US has overidden the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions.

And some documents, like the treaty on chemical and biological warfare, couldn't have been written 200+ years ago - so why would they be less valued than the US constitution?

That sentence makes no sense. Please re-construct it into some kind of logical point.

Can you actually point to a specific conflict between the Bill of Rights and the ICC? Or are you saying that Clinton signed the ICC for kicks, without having it legally analysed?

Clinton signed it knowing it didn't have a chance in hell of ratification by the Senate. It was a dishonest way of deflecting the criticism for not agreeing to the ICC onto someone else.

There are plenty of conflicts with the Bill of Rights. For one thing much of its language would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague by the US Supreme court. Too much is left open to interpretation by the prosecutor which would make it fairly easy to use the law for political ends, rather than to administer justice. That, by the way, is the common belief in the US - that the ICC will be hijacked and used for political purposes against the US and Israel. The politically-motivated war crimes charges filed against Tommy Franks in Belgium is an example of what most Americans believe the ICC will deteriorate into and want no part of it. That's not just a George W. Bush belief - it's held by the leaders of both parties and many Americans.

Here is a good analysis by Steven den Beste of the many flaws in the ICC statutes and why the court was rejected by the US.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/07/MoreontheICC.shtml

Sparks

Sure. He's eliminated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein - two brutal, fascist regimes. Or are those bad things in your little world?

Firstly, he hasn't eliminated the Taliban. Instead, he's entered into talks with them regarding devising "a political solution" regarding Afghanistan :
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF14Ag01.html

Secondly, the price for Hussein was the damage done to the UN, the disregarding of the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and 10,000 innocent civilian lives. And the creation of a large pool of potential terrorist martyrs.
If he hadn't gained control of Iraq's oil sales (as opposed to the oil itself, before you say you could have just bought it, which you couldn't have) and the currency it was sold for, as well as gained a military presence in the Middle East, I'd say he was swindled.

He pushed a $15 billion AIDS bill through Congress which caused Bob Geldof to say: "Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk but does deliver. You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical, in a positive sense, in the approach to Africa since Kennedy."

Firstly, he didn't do that. He extended an already-existing budget to $15 billion, which was good - but the bulk of the money is the responsibility of prior and future administrations. He also attached a lot of conditions to the money's usage, which has drawn criticism from those running the aid programs.
Credit where it's due - but I do have to wonder if he can afford it, since the US foreign debt is closing on $7 trillion, it's fiscal deficet is closing on $44 trillion and it's trade imbalance is $40 billion per month or thereabouts.

He's about to authorize a humanitarian mission to Liberia against the wishes of many in his own party.

Given that the US founded Liberia, exploited it from it's founding to the end of the cold war, and still has ties to Liberia, I find it hard to describe this intervention as anything but owed to the ordinary Liberians, whose lot would be better today had the trade with their country been less one-sided for the last century or so...

Unlike 99% of politicians, when Bush says something he means it.

Crap.
Remember "No Child Left Behind"?
From here:

in his 2003 budget, Bush proposed funding levels far below what the legislation called for, requesting only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized. For the largest program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides support to students in impoverished school districts, Bush asked for $11.35 billion out of the $18.5 billion authorized. His 2004 budget was more than $6 billion short of what Congress authorized. Furious, Kennedy called Bush's proposal a "tin cup budget" that "may provide the resources to test our children, but not enough to teach them."

That page talks about the "Clean Skies" bill as well.

And remember the promise not to abandon the Afghan people? Well, apart from considering readmitting the Taliban to government there despite their record, there's the budget "oversight":
From here:

The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in its latest budget.

the European debating societies that produce a lot of talk and paperwork and little action or results.

What, the same ones that give out seven times the amount the US does in development aid? The ones that produce the world's first international court for trying war crimes? The ones that you owe your nation's existance to?

Boy, you just love these unsubstantiated accusations, don't you? There is almost no evidence that Bush went AWOL other than some incomplete paperwork (something that's hardly rare in the military) and the hazy recollections of a Colonel who didn't remember him but had no real reason to remember him since neither Bush nor his father were well known in the early '70's.

If the paperwork is what you want to see, it's here.
If you want me to believe that George Bush, Sr. wasn't well known at the time, you need to look at his bio:

Following an unsuccessful bid for a Senate seat in 1964, Mr. Bush was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 from Texas' 7th District. One of the few freshman members of Congress ever elected to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, he was reelected to the House two years later without opposition. Mr. Bush lost a second campaign for the Senate in 1970.
During the 1970's, Mr. Bush held a number of important leadership positions. In 1971, he was named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He served there until 1973, when he became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. In October 1974, Mr. Bush traveled to Peking, where he served as Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office during the critical period when the United States was renewing ties with the People's Republic of China. In 1976, Mr. Bush was appointed Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is given credit for strengthening the intelligence community and helping to restore morale at the CIA while Director of the agency.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected George Bush to be his running mate.

Now do you want to tell me a Colonel didn't know Bush was the son of a US Ambassador?

Why don't you start actually proving something for a change instead of insisting that everyone else disprove every half-assed allegation you can throw against the wall?

I've backed up every assertion I've made. You're the one who has *ahem* forgotten *ahem* to include references...

Okay, now its your turn - prove that the US has overidden the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions.

My turn? But you haven't had your turn yet! :rolleyes:
But, as you wish.
Where should we start? Well, the biggest single violation of the Geneva Convention I know of was Bush Sr's attack on the highway to Basra in '91. This site has the relevant timeline. The people responsible for that assertion include:
Michael Ratner, USA
Attorney, former director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, past president of the National Lawyers Guild.
Lord Tony Gifford, Britain
Human rights lawyer practicing in England and Jamaica. Investigated human rights abuses in British-occupied Ireland.
Deborah Jackson, USA
First vice president of the American Association of Jurists, former director of National Conference of Black Lawyers.
Opato Matarmah, Menominee Nation of North America
Involved in defense of human rights of indigenous peoples since 1981. Represented the International Indian Treaty Council at the Commission of Human Rights at the U.N.

As to other violations, under Bush Sr., this site covers some of them, collating references to mainstream media sources.

That sentence makes no sense. Please re-construct it into some kind of logical point.

You stated that the age of the US founding documents gave them some form of authority - but how can they have authority over some areas not thought of 200 years ago?
Case in point, the treaty on biological weapons - which the US recently violated by developing a new grenade for dispersal of chemical and biological agents.

There are plenty of conflicts with the Bill of Rights. For one thing much of its language would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague by the US Supreme court.

After their ruling on affermative action, that's rather funny, but do continue, give your specific examples...

Too much is left open to interpretation by the prosecutor which would make it fairly easy to use the law for political ends, rather than to administer justice. That, by the way, is the common belief in the US - that the ICC will be hijacked and used for political purposes against the US and Israel.

Just because many people believe it does not make it so...

The politically-motivated war crimes charges filed against Tommy Franks in Belgium is an example of what most Americans believe the ICC will deteriorate into and want no part of it. That's not just a George W. Bush belief - it's held by the leaders of both parties and many Americans.

Except that those charges had legal merit.
It was a recorded fact that US soldiers fired on a marked civilian ambulance, which is a violation of the Geneva Convention. It was a recorded fact that the US bombed at least one hospital during the war, deliberatly.
So why shouldn't the men responsible be asked to defend their case in an open and fair court?

http://www.stopusa.be/1Campagne/Proces-Franks/PROCES-Complaint_against_Franks%20-%20tot%201.4_fichiers/PROCES_Complaint_against_Tommy_Franks.htm
http://www.stopusa.be/1Campagne/zpage_documents-Franks.htm
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63296.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63106.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63176.php
http://belgium.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/63003.php

Sparks

Here is a good analysis by Steven den Beste of the many flaws in the ICC statutes and why the court was rejected by the US.

Excellent, an actual reference! Dated...erm...stardate 20020704.1402 ...
Okay, well, let's actually read it, it might just be an affectation...

The gravity of the conduct was such that it was in violation of fundamental rules of international law. What in the hell does that mean? How is anyone supposed to know ahead of time just how much "gravity" is allowable?

Hmmm. Okay, so he doesn't know how to read the Geneva Conventions? Or the Hague conventions? Or the international treaty on biological warfare?

Israel is toast. As long as they impose martial law on the Palestinian territories so as to prevent bombing attacks against Israel itself, they'll be in violation of this one

Israel has received a lot of condemnation from the UN for violating the Geneva conventions. So, yes, if they do it again, they'd have to answer for it. So, what's the solution? That's right - don't do it! Or do you think that Northern Ireland is proof that the IDF's methods work?

It's virtually certain that the "Crime against humanity of persecution" will be very selectively applied.

Why? He mentions Sharia law, but then says it won't be prosecuted, presenting the clause which garuntees that existing legal systems will be respected as some kind of "escape clause"...

Argh. After reading the whole page, I'm fairly convinced that this guy has a serious persecution complex regarding the US and Israel. Not to mention that he's writing about imprecise language in a legal document and merrily ignoring his own highly imprecise language, he's cracking jokes at other nations to try to make a point, and his main argument isn't logic, but paranoia, as the last few lines show. He dismisses the idea that the people in the 9/11 attack had some form of motivation, and states that if you think they had to have some reason for their actions, that you're out to persecute the US and Israel.
Now if he was a lawyer specialising in International Law, that'd be one thing. But he's not - he's a college dropout who does contract embedded programming work and has no legal qualifications.

C'mon Xhen, is an article from the USS Clueless the best source you have?

Xhen

C'mon Xhen, is an article from the USS Clueless the best source you have?

Actually Steven den Beste is one of the best known bloggers on the internet and his work has appeared in, among other places, The Wall Street Journal. I can understand how someone who links to the laughable loonies at Indymedia as his main propaganda source wouldn't be familiar with den Beste or the WSJ, though.

Your Indymedia links give your game away, Sparks. Flat-earth Marxism and Chomsky boilerplate isn't going to earn you a place at the adult table in the US.

Xhen

Here's an article by the Cato Institute that also discusses the shortcomings of the ICC and its conflicts with the US Bill of Rights:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html

Here is an excerpt:

Constitutional Barriers

In 1803 Thomas Jefferson defended the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over treaties when he wrote, "Our particular security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." [58] Jefferson's analysis tends to be supported by the case law, which says that the U.S. federal government cannot enter into treaties that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. [59] Doe v. Braden (1853), for example, asserts that U.S. courts have a legal "right to annul or disregard" the provisions of a treaty if "they violate the Constitution of the United States,"[60] and the Cherokee Tobacco (1871) decision declares that "a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."[61] In Reid v. Covert (1957), the Court reaffirmed that it "has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," and that

there is nothing in [the Constitution's] language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. . . . It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI [re treaties] as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V [re the amendment process].[62]

More specifically, the Supreme Court has said that the federal government cannot enter into treaties that relinquish the constitutional rights of American citizens. In Geofroy v. Riggs (1890), for example, the Court found that the federal government's treaty power does not enable it "to authorize what the Constitution forbids."[63] Later cases, such as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) [64] and Asakura v. City of Seattle (1924)[65] reiterated the point that constitutionally protected rights are sheltered from the domestic effect of treaties. More recently, in Boos v. Barry (1988), the Court stated, "Rules of international law and provisions of international agreements of the United States are subject to the Bill of Rights and other prohibitions, restrictions or requirements of the Constitution and cannot be given effect in violation of them."[66] Since the ICC draft statute would "give effect" to international laws and provisions contrary to the Bill of Rights--namely, forfeiting wholesale the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Americans brought before it--any ICC judgment against an American is not likely to withstand a constitutional challenge.