Is the US becoming a "rogue state"?

P

PeachMonkey

Guest
"Despite its pledges to stay engaged with the world, the United States is gradually retreating from the UN-sponsored system of international law, having ratified only about 29 percent of existing multilateral agreements, according to a new study.

The report, unveiled by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- a farmers' lobbying group -- on the eve of Thursday's foreign policy debate between President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry, found "a steady decline" in the US government's support for multilateral accords, particularly those covering human and labor rights and security issues.

"This retreat from the UN system makes it much harder for the Bush administration to lead at the international level," said Kristin Dawkins, a vice president of the institute. "It has set a dangerous precedent that other countries could follow in areas such as arms trade and nuclear weapons."

The widely-publicized Bush decisions to withdraw US support from the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on Climate Change, abandon the US-Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and shun the International Criminal Court are just the latest manifestations of a generally skeptical attitude in Washington toward international law, the report pointed out.

Over the years, the United States has ratified only 14 out of 162 "active treaties" put together by the International Labour Organization and only two of the eight "core" UN conventions protecting the rights of workers, according to the study.

It has approved just three of 11 major environmental treaties, five out of the 12 human rights treaties promoted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and nearly half of the 23 treaties regulating intellectual property rights and related technologies.

As for the 10 treaties managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the US Senate has ratified only six of them, the report said.

Other international accords shunned by the United States include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which has been approved by 178 other countries, and the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

Some international accords have received only partial or conditional approval. The US government has ratified the first Geneva Convention governing wartime behavior, but not its two related protocols, the study pointed out.

This trend "predates the presidency of George W. Bush," the report acknowledged, but the current administration "has accelerated" it.

Surprisingly, many American voters are simply unaware of these foreign policy positions, or sincerely believe that the opposite is true, according to an opinion poll made public Wednesday by the University of Maryland.

Eighty-four percent of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that he favored including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, the survey found.

Sixty-nine percent of them thought the United States was a party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, while 66 percent believed Washington participated in the International Criminal Court.

Despite all the Republican bashing of the Kyoto protocol, 51 percent of their supporters still thought the United States was in favor of it."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&e=1&u=/afp/20040930/wl_afp/us_un_treaties
 

Trent

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
189
Reaction score
6
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Just for discussion, how can a sovereign nation be a rogue? What I'm asking is, what is your, or their, defiinition of a rogue? A nation that doesn't fall into lockstep with the wishes of the UN which is predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage?

The above article is indeed interesting, but is only a thin veneer on the issues. Nothing of the history or reasons for any of the decisions by anyone is supplied. It is transparently biased, and only someone prone to agree with the near conclusions provided, or knowledgeable on very selective facts while ignoring other facts that the reader (and author) is emotionally opposed to regardless of merit would find it worthwhile as an informative piece.

I'm also weary of the term "international law" being used improperly. There are only treaties between sovereign nations that are agreements. There is no overseeing governing body which can officially, and through it's own action, enforce laws of it's own throughout the world on every country in the world with civil and/or criminal penalties.

Now I've said it. I feel better. :D
 

Phoenix44

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
51
Location
Long Island
Just for discussion, how can a sovereign nation be a rogue?
If "sovereign" refers to "self-governing," and "rogue" refers to "solitary and deceitful," the terms are certainly not mutually exclusive. Iraq used to be referred to as a rogue nation.
 

Trent

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
189
Reaction score
6
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Phoenix44 said:
If "sovereign" refers to "self-governing," and "rogue" refers to "solitary and deceitful," the terms are certainly not mutually exclusive. Iraq used to be referred to as a rogue nation.

"If" those definitions were true, they are not mutually exclusive. Iraq is a good example for Gulf War II (I was in during Gulf War I) as was referred to as a rogue nation for the original pretense to go in. When that wasn't enough, WMD's were decided to be in the country. Many people don't think we should have been there for the second trip.

My point is, ultimately, all nations are solitary by law and design, but can elect to join in the world community voluntarily. Voluntarily is the key, and when they withdraw, cannot be considered rogue, as there is no obligation to be there at all for any reason.

As far as being deceitful, point to one nation or government that hasn't been, isn't now, or won't be in the future. You can't.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Looks to me like the article's basically true...after all, you can get on this forum any time and see lots and lots of posts by Bush supporters who simply don't know what's actually going on--and who, much worse than that, refuse to find out, or when confronted with realities they don't approve of, turn abusive.

And--different issue altogether--the description of the UN just above is just plain wonky. "Predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage?" Say what?

There's this thing? In the UN? Called the Security Council? They run the joint? Its permanent members are the US, Great Britain, China, Russia, France?

I also see that once again, we've got the same old tired argument in favor of, "we should do whatever we want, whenever we want..." you know; the pseudo-cynicism argument...everybody does it anyway, so why shouldn't we?

Uh...hate to cite moral values and American principles, but we're supposed to be better than that? It's partly how we justified going into Iraq?
 

Trent

Green Belt
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
189
Reaction score
6
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Personally, I think we should not do whatever we want as a nation, and should be better than that, too. However, I think we should be held to the same standard of everyone else and not a higher one, or a lower one.

I also enjoy playing Devil's advocate on any issue. I really do believe in an open mind, not just one that agrees with me. My mind can be changed, but you better be more informed than myself on a particular issue to accomplish it and not merely appeal to some preconceived notion. The article put forth merely parrots what every other mainstream media outlet spews forth.

I am by no means a Bush supporter.

I do not respect half-truths from any source. I have only contempt for lies from any source.

Your condescension in your UN Security Council reply is noted despite the fact it doesn't change my initial statement. The UN is a voluntary membership. The large nations that are current permanent members of the council do not reflect the vast membership of the UN. They also don't reflect the temporary members.
 
OP
R

rmcrobertson

Guest
Fine, though I guess I'm old-fashioned enough to still wanna go with that whole Lincoln, "last best hope of mankind," thingy.

Please provide some sort of evidence for your curious claim--a claim that I have frequently heard from the Pat Robertsons, Rush Limbaughs, and FOX commentators of the world--that the UN, despite being a) based in New York, b) nearly entirely financed by countries such as the United States, c) administered by a Security Council dominated by the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France and China, is in fact, "predominately comprised of self-serving small nations trying to press their agenda for their own advantage."

I suspect that the article was ruefully pointing out that given our actions under the Bush Admin, our country all too easily fits our own definition of a, "rogue state."
 
OP
P

Patrick Skerry

Guest
The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al; the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation. And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army. The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
65
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
Patrick Skerry said:
The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al;
This is a completely unsubstantiated claim. I challenge you to find ANY evidence to support this.
Patrick Skerry said:
The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.
Really? You would charge someone excercising their right to free speech with sedition? Sounds like an extreme right wing exercise in propaganda. Once again, Patrick, please provide sources for your claims.
 

Feisty Mouse

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
30
Location
Indiana
Patrick Skerry said:
The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al; the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation. And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army. The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.
There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam. If you have some, I'd like to see it. No-one can find the evidence.

Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law? How interesting. I completely disagree.

Sedition? I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.
 
OP
P

Patrick Skerry

Guest
Feisty Mouse said:
There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam. If you have some, I'd like to see it. No-one can find the evidence.

Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law? How interesting. I completely disagree.

Sedition? I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.
Hi Feisty Mouse,

"no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"?? Huh??? What is wrong with you?

President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.

"Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that. There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
There is no evidence of US torture and rape! Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement? Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!

"Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?

I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse! Right Now!
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
65
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
Patrick Skerry said:
Hi Feisty Mouse,

"no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"?? Huh??? What is wrong with you?
Oops. This was most certainly an error on your part.

Patrick Skerry said:
President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.
Find it if you believe it exists. Show it to me. I think you're hallucinating.

Patrick Skerry said:
"Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that. There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
There is no evidence of US torture and rape! Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement? Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!
Have a look at this, then. It's in this thread. While you are at it, read the entire Geneva Convention, and get back to me with your analysis. I'm sure your interpretation should prove to be most entertaining.

Patrick Skerry said:
"Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?!
More evidence of your inability to understand the reality that surrounds you. This is a private website, Patrick. You are priviledged to be here. Your constitutional rights do not apply. Which brings me to another good point. Perhaps you ought to read the stickies at the top of the forum again. Read them VERY carefully.

Patrick Skerry said:
I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse! Right Now!
I am sure you will get them, sir. I look forward to what follows.
 
OP
P

Patrick Skerry

Guest
flatlander said:
Oops. This was most certainly an error on your part.

Find it if you believe it exists. Show it to me. I think you're hallucinating.

I provided the data, you look it up - President Bush did!

Have a look at this, then. It's in this thread. While you are at it, read the entire Geneva Convention, and get back to me with your analysis. I'm sure your interpretation should prove to be most entertaining.

I agree that Jessica Lynch being ganged raped and having her bones broken by Iraqi soldiers constitutes torture, no argument here.

More evidence of your inability to understand the reality that surrounds you. This is a private website, Patrick. You are priviledged to be here. Your constitutional rights do not apply. Which brings me to another good point. Perhaps you ought to read the stickies at the top of the forum again. Read them VERY carefully.

My Constitutional Rights do not apply to Martialtalk? You might want to explain that one to a lawyer Flatlander!

I am sure you will get them, sir. I look forward to what follows.
You need to bone up on American history and American jurisprudence Flatlander!
 

Sapper6

3rd Black Belt
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
940
Reaction score
31
Location
The land of misery
all this political discussion crap is pointless. this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity. why is there a need for this here? the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.

oh wait, i could call that training :idunno: maybe this is good then :rolleyes:

oh well, another good board polluted w/ political non-sense :asian:

be done with it people...concede to disagreement, quit arguing, and get off your *** and commence w/ training :ultracool
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
65
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
Sapper6 said:
all this political discussion crap is pointless. this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity. why is there a need for this here? the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.

oh wait, i could call that training :idunno: maybe this is good then :rolleyes:

oh well, another good board polluted w/ political non-sense :asian:

be done with it people...concede to disagreement, quit arguing, and get off your *** and commence w/ training :ultracool
If you don't want to play, get out of the sandbox. What do you suppose the entire point of this forum section is? Contribute, or do not. The choice is yours.
 
OP
P

Patrick Skerry

Guest
Sapper6 said:
all this political discussion crap is pointless. this argument and thousands like it will go back and forth, on and on for infinity. why is there a need for this here? the only thing reading these posts (and others alike) have compelled me to do go find my BOB beat the holy crap out of, just out of pure frustration.

oh wait, i could call that training :idunno: maybe this is good then :rolleyes:

oh well, another good board polluted w/ political non-sense :asian:

be done with it people...concede to disagreement, quit arguing, and get off your *** and commence w/ training :ultracool
Do you know what is worse than a dumb jock? - A dumb martial artist! It is psychologically interesting to read what kind of political, philosophical, and historical distortions some of these martial artists hold.
 
OP
P

Patrick Skerry

Guest
flatlander said:
Good answer. Very well structured. I am certainly impressed with your analysis.
Put on your glasses and read the whole thing!
 

Flatlander

Grandmaster
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
6,785
Reaction score
65
Location
The Canuckistan Plains
Patrick Skerry said:
Put on your glasses and read the whole thing!
Gee, you're right. I guess you haven't figured out the forum software yet. You cleverly hid it all inside my own quote. Give me a minute.
 

Bester

<font color=blue><B>Grand UberSoke, Sith-jutsu Ryu
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
848
Reaction score
55
Location
Everywhere
Patrick Skerry said:
The United States was unlawfully attacked on Septemer 11th by self-admitted terrorists led by Bin Laden who was politically and finacially aided by Sadam Hussein, et al; the US has been complying with the rule of law to stem the terrorist threat to our nation. And in spite of dealing with ruthless, lawless, and uncivilized terrorists, the US has managed to remain within the bounds of decency and the law while waging war, with our reserves and national guard, against a dedicated and brutal outlaw army. The USA hardly deserves to be considered a "rogue state" and that is just a liberal excercise in propaganda and sophistic relativism, and in my opinion, an act of sedetion.
Oh My God!
You are so wrong, I would laugh but it is just not funny.
* Bin Laden never admited being behind it. He admired it, but never say he did it. He's still a scum bag though.
* The money trail does not lead to Iraq. Close though, Try Saudi Arabia (Where most of the hijackers were from). Ladens a Saudi. So-Dumb couldn't stand Osamas goals.
* You obviously never head of the abuses and now murders being brought to light in both Cuba and Iraq that are pinned on US troops.
* sedition : "an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government" Yup, you're totallt right there, not.

I would call you an utter imbecile, but that would be a compliment.
Why don't you go read some of the information in this forum and expand your world. Or are you too busy being booted from forum after forum to linger long enough to read more?
 
Top