What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

Debate - Page 3/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> You stated that "We´re just not commited to dumb lemmingdom, <.....> is the pure lemmingdom that you speak of.
Some Europeans do, others (like me) don´t when it comes to Kyoto. There´s enough disagreement within Europe about these subjects that I wouldn´t use the term lemmingdom in that instance. However, following the US into Iraq just for the sake of not disagreeing with them would´ve been lemmingdom.
> You also stated that: <....> you should realize that the Kyoto Agreement would have mandated huge fines upon the US if we were unable to meet unrealizable and unrealistic emissions targets.
Unrealizable and unrealistic for the US, I don´t know. I´m not a scientist. Perhaps they would have been realistic and realizable. However, that´s not the point. The point is you won´t get a workable treaty on limiting emissions going unless every last government on this earth agrees and emission shopping is stopped. Otherwise, you won´t solve the problem because unfortunately, emissions and global warming (presuming there is a causality between the two) don´t give a damn about national borders. So you can only solve the problem on a global scale. And I´m sure you and I´ll agree that getting everybody to sign such a treaty is about as likely as snow in the Sahara by christmas. Therefore, I don´t hold a grudge against Bush for not signing. Doesn´t make a difference for global warming anyway.
> Kyoto is not an environmental treaty, Kyoto is a wealth-transference agreement.
Yup, true.
> Europeans have demanded <.....>It's a blatant attempt to force a non-American lifestyle onto Americans, masquerading as a supposed "environmental solution".
I think you´re getting their motives wrong. First of all: as in America, there are a people in Europe with strong beliefs and little insight. As in America, most of them tend to be quite vocal. Doesn´t mean they "want to impose their lifestyle". It´s probably closer to the truth to say they´ve never thought of it as a "lifestyle" issue. Most of them honestly want to change the environment for the better, but lack the knowledge to understand your position. I have been to America and I know that you need a car there, not for cultural reasons, but for sheer practicality. You just physically can´t get from A to B in America without a car (or a plane, if B´s not in the same city). Most of the Europeans you´re talking about live in a world where it´s no problem to get around in public transport or by bike. They haven´t got the same idea of distances that you lot have. So they perceive the american attitude towards cars and pollution as luxurious and decadent. Mind you, not all Europeans are like that, just a few of them.

> The ICC would have imposed even more drastically upon American sovereignty by subjecting defendants to trial in a court under rules that fail to guarantee American defandants the rights that they would have automatically had, had they been tried in an American court.
Errm, sorry to disagree with you on that, but that´s just plain wrong. There are basic defendant rights in every western democracy (including the US and Europe) and these rights are imposed in ICC proceedings as well (you can download the rules of procedure and evidence from the ICC site at http://www.icc-cpi.int/defence.html if you want; you´ll see that they´re not that different from american rules). The main difference would have been that not all the judges would have been Americans and that the procedure would´ve been different from normal american procedure (which is quite diverse in itself depending on what state you´re in, btw). > Americans being tried for any such crimes, must be tried in an American court, under American rules of evidence and cross-examination.
There are many more aspects of american criminal procedure besides just discovery and examination rules, but that´s another story. Why do you think that not signing the ICC treaty will prevent an American from being tried outside the US? Even now the American in question could (and would) very well be tried by local courts under local national rules without technically violating international law. So the Americans don´t have any legal reason to complain. And depending on where the crime took place and where the defendant is tried, this could be much worse than being tried by the ICC. If you were accused of a war crime, would you like being tried in, say, Liberia? Well, had the US signed the agreement, an American caught in Liberia and accused of having committed war crimes would have been tried in the Hague, not in Liberia, by the ICC rules, and Liberia couldn´t legally have kept this from happening.
> The ICC Treaty further would have required that, should American courts fail to bring a US citizen to trial, the ICC would have superimposed its authority upon the US to forcibly bring to trial an American citizen whom US courts had declined to prosecute.
Well, if you´re going to have a court you inevitably have to have the authority to bring the defendant to trial, and yes, you have to have the authority to decide whether or not you will prosecute. Actually, the ICC wouldn´t have done that "forcibly". It would have been a question of jurisdiction, resolved by the respective national courts, including the US Supreme court if it´s an american national you´re talking about, in accordance with the treaty.
> The Internet is already full of shrieking European voices demanding that the ICC "try" Tony Blair for his having helped liberate Iraq, and demanding that the US "hand over" people such as Henry Kissinger (one of the greatest Secretaries of State that the US has ever had).
Yeah, and how likely do you think is it that the ICC would ever even consider actually prosecuting those people? You´re not talking about a bunch of uneducated and unwashed dimwits here, you´re talking about judges at Supreme Court level. Look at the list of judges on the ICC site and you´ll find that all of them are globally extremely respected, distinguished and experienced jurists (mostly with a LOT of experience in human rights cases). Believe me, I know what I´m talking about: you don´t get to be an ICC judge or prosecutor unless you´ve already had a long and outstandingly brilliant career as a national judge or lawyer. And you sure as hell don´t prosecute high-level politicians unless there´s a really, really, really good legal reason to.
> I am dis-inclined to agree to the creation of an unelected, unaccountable "Uber-court" that could run roughshod over American defenadants' rights and which could be manipulated by European Socialists into potentially declaring every US action in every conflict since 1945 to be a "war crime".
That´s just ridiculous. First of all: the court is not "unaccountable". It is bound by international law and it is managed by the Assembly of States Parties, a body formed by representatives of all the signatory states. However, it is legally independent of any national or supranational government´s instructions or directives in any given case. So is the american Supreme Court. So is any court in America (or in Germany, or in France etc etc.). In that sense, any court in any democratic country is unaccountable. The reason for this is the principle of separation of powers according to which all these courts were formed. For that same reason, the ICC cannot be "manipulated" any more than the american Supreme Court, the british House of Lords, the german Bundesgerichtshof or any other high court in democratic countries.
Secondly: it´s not elected, I´ll give you that. Not all the american judges are elected either (Supreme Court, anyone?) and I haven´t heard you complaining about that.
Thirdly: run roughshod over defendant´s rights? All I can say to that is: read the rules. If that´s running roughshod over defendant´s rights, then you´d better close down all the criminal courts in America, because they act on those very same principles, too.
Actually, the ICC is completely different from the Kyoto protocol in that it is a very sensible organization. There was no reason for the US to pull out of that one other than the fact it wouldn´t have been an american court controlled only by americans and run according to american rules.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Jay in France suggested that "perhaps we can look at this in a radically different way". I respect Jay's freedom to view events in any weirdly grotesque and paranoid way that he chooses. However, I believe that discussions should be based on facts and reality, not on fact-devoid, Truth-free, Looney-Toon Internet-based "Conspiracy Theories" such as what Jay actively promotes. Jay claims that the War On Terrorism is "invasive foreign policy" and is an "entirely fabricated tool to achieve particular economic goals for the US hawks." Perhaps Jay would care to explain how American "economic goals" were added by our Liberation of Afghanistan, a dirt-poor country with virtually no natural resources (especially not "oil") or items of value worth fighting for. Jay calls our Liberation of that country and the introduction of democracy there "a pretext". The Afghan people have resoundingly refuted Jay's claim by holding the first free and democratic election in that impoverished and tragic country's history. Jay further claims that "there is conclusive evidence for all to see that it (the tragedy of the September 11 twin Tower attacks)....was engineered by the US". It is hard to imagine a more preposterous, outrageous and utterly baseless and slanderous claim than Jay's. The September 11 2001 twin Tower atrocities were engineered, alright; but not by America, any branch of its government or its citizens. They were engineered by Al-Qaeda and by Osama Bin-Laden, who has in fact already openly claimed credit for and declared his responsibility for the atrocities. (A fact that appears to elude Jay, perhaps because it contradicts what he chooses to believe). If Jay has any actual & factual "evidence" of his Looney-Toon claims, I suggest that he present it. Otherwise, I suggest that he get used to being called on his BS, and being asked to prove his half-baked Looney-Toon accusations or else withdraw them. Jay further claims that "Meanwhile, we have more than 100,000 Iraqis dead..." In fact 100,000 Iraqis did not die and no one has "proven" that they did. The Iraqi people are living in Freedom now and will soon choose their first democratically elected government, which is why the US military now has cautious-but-cordial relations with the Iraqi Shi'ite community (which expects that it will democratically take power in Iraq after decades of oppression by Sadly Insane Hussein). For these people and millions more, the US is indeed "a bringer of freedom and apple-pie altruism". Jay is free to choose to sarcastically mock the US, and we in the US are equally free to ignore him. The actual Reality is that France and many other Yurupean countries are filled with effete, elitist, overly and falsely educated, under-employed, Gaulloise-smoking, cognac-sniffing pseudo-intellectual self-fantasizing "sophisticates". They despise America, they despise Capitalism, they despise Democracy because it does not "guarantee" them the Results they wish to Impose upon the rest of the Populace. They despise the results of the Cold War and still sulk over the fact that the USSR is now on the Ash-Heap Of History. They despise Israel and, though they are too cowardly to admit it, they secretly despise most if not all Jews. (Hence, their continual slurs at the so-called "powerful lobby for the needs of Israel", a clumsily done re-work of Hitler's claim that "Jews control the major industries and Government in America"). They are overtly pro-Arab and cannot bear to face the Fact that their "friends" in the Muslim world were responsible for 9/11. Therefore, they must stop at nothing to promote the Fiction, Absurdity and Lie that the US government was somehow "responsible" for 9/11. I suspect that before Jay is through with his ramblings, he will be stooping to claiming that the airliners were hijacked by "CIA agents", that the planes were "actually empty", that the planes were "piloted by remote control", that the heartrending last words heard on taped cockpit voice recordings were "manufactured on a Hollywood sound stage", that an Alzheimers-stricken Ronald Reagan was "flying one of the doomed planes" and that all the overwhelming Evidence gathered since that time is "merely a vast CIA Conspiracy" to "pin the blame" on a "poor, maligned, misunderstood" Osama Bin-Laden. How pathetic and disgusting, the depths of Lies to which these people will stoop in their hatred of America, its government and its people who support that government.

Bob Powelson, A Canadian in Korea

Phil Karasick
>The "liberals" and Europeans in this forum seem to have the same knee jerk attitude that the ones on the CBC had.
>The stangest thing about many Europeans is that the actuall think their opinions matter in the US. These are the same kind of people as the Biblical Esau. They would sell their heritage and their souls for physical wealth and secirity.
>I have news for the Europeans on this forum. The US has little European heritage. They left over a few hundred years because they didn't like it in Europe. They built something better and they kept their faith and morals largely intact while doing it.
>One of the great falacies that is projected on the US is that they are doing this out of fear. They are so afraid the attack like a whipped dog might its tormentor. This is not so, the Europeans are projecting their own fear on America. The Americans are very angry and they are aroused but they are not afraid.
>Their lack of fear is proven every day by the American boys in Iraq. The fight the war and largely agree with that war.
>Strange as is may seem the blacks and Hispanics in the US military vote Republican and will likely do it for a lifetime.
>The world order has changed.

S. Lehtinen, Finland/UK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true the current US foreign policy and neo conservatism is based on philosophical ideas tracing back to ancient Greek philosophers via Machiavelli, not so much on Christian fundamentalism, which seems to be much more influential in terms of US domestic policy decisions. The polarisation to a decadent Europe and the righteous Christian US then seems misleading in terms of action in foreign affairs.
I don't know if it is possible for Europe to demand things of the US. But just because the balance of power in the West has shifted increasingly to the US in the last century it should not mean that the US should be so ignorant of it's own history as part of the "Western civilisation". And as our new understanding of our Western heritage has thought us, unlike being an isolated and self sufficient development, the very existance of the West has always relied on the exploitation, as well as involvement of "others".
I fundamentally disagree that there is a real polarisation taking place between the US and Europe.
This is seen to reflect the divisions between the Christian right and the liberal elite within the US. Although as any electoral map of US showed, there is a real geographical division to democratic and republican states I fail to see how the sprawling urban areas of the East Coast and Southern California with their major social problems in any way represent solely the liberal elite. And how is it that George Bush is not himself considered as a representative of an elite position? After all he comes from one of the most influential families of the country and was educated at Yale. But then i guess that does not matter, because he has morals, unlike the liberals or the Europeans. Anyone ever heard of moral philosophy? Even the neoconservative thinkers of US government base their ideas on philosophical ideas, the question is purely about whether to see morality as a relative category or in terms of absolutism.
Which brings me to my final point about rights. I think the citizens of the US should demand that the Bush government does not diminish their rights, like the NRA defends the rights of its members to possess assault weapons.
What is so great about the United States are it's principles of freedom. But if the US government applies the relativist ideas which it refuses to acknowledge in its foreign policy to the way it regulates the rights of its citizens then it is truly messing with it's most important asset.

Peter Trevino, USA

Vanessa, USA, you are right on with your comments:
"What you can expect of this administration is more arrogant, self-righteous, macho posturing. Your demands will fall on deaf ears my European friends. You are not dealing with rational, educated citizens of the real world. You are dealing with small-minded people of "faith-based intelligence" (I love that phrase-so dead-on). They care not what you think (unless you think like them) or what you want (unless you too would like to see America and the world one big Christian Fascist regime)."
I agree with you completely.
******
Sue, USA, you are dead wrong:
"Vanessa, you can hate George Bush all you like, but he is most certainly not a fascist. Fascists worship centralized power in a monolithic state. Bush, in contrast, wants to turn decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gay marriage away from the federal government and back to the individual state and local governments. How is this fascist?"
Where did you get that President Bush "wants to turn decisions on controversial issues such as abortion and gay marriage away from the federal government and back to the individual state and local governments"? We all know Bush would be the happiest if he could remove the word "abortion" from the dictionary... And as far as Gay Marriage is concerned, Doesn't he support an amendment on the Constitution to make marriage ONLY between a man and a woman? Isn't that as Federal controlled as Bush can get?
Sue, Bush may not be a fascist ... yet, but he is sure giving all the signs and signals that he is slowly but surely moving in that direction -- if we allow him!
******
Charles Warren, USA, "'Demand' is not a word that Europeans use to Americans."
You are completely right, telling Bush that Europeans (or anybody for that matter, including his dad) "Demand" anything from him would be the best way for Bush to say the most definitely and resounded NO!
******
As for the question:
"What should we ask of Bush II.2?"
I would ask him to Please, bring us, and the world, back to the time, just after Sept. 11, 2001, when we were all UNITED; when we were all looking in the same direction, when the whole world agreed in a common cause; when America was respected and loved; when people all over the world wanted to be with us, wanted what we also wanted.
After Bush, Look at us now: DIVIDED not only with the rest of the world, but also among ourselves.
Oh, how I wish Bush had been smart enough to take advantage of the Universal UNITY that was so palpable after 9/11. The Peace that could have been accomplished under those circumstances seems to have been lost for the foreseeable future.
Bush will go down in history as the President that lost a GOLDEN opportunity to really bring Peace to the world.
I would ask Bush that, in spite of the terrible events of 9/11, or perhaps because of it, if he cannot take advantage of the circumstances so horrible but also so favorable to bring Universal Peace to the world, then, he needs to get out of the way and make room for someone who could.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Dear Michel Bastian:
You asked me: "Why do you think that not signing the ICC treaty will prevent an American from being tried outside the US? Even now the American in question could (and would) very well be tried by local courts under local national rules without technically violating international law." My reply to that is, the US government has already negotiated agreements with dozens of governments around the world. And I believe that these agreements would indeed prevent an american from being tried outside the US. I believe that these agreements would require that any American serviceman charged with having committed a crime in the hosting country, be extradited to the US for trial by an American military court. This would effectively (a) remove said American citizen from the jurisdiction of the hosting country; (b) ensure that any American tried for crimes in a host country, receive the full benefit of a fair and impartial trial (something they're not likely to get in many countries in the world); and (c)ensure that any charges pressed are for actual crimes, rather than for politically or culturally motivated and trumped-up phony charges. I believe this is why American servicewomen working in short sleeves in 100-degree heat in Saudi Arabia cannot be charged by the Saudis with "blasphemy", even though the baring of arms by women in that ultra-conservative Muslim society is considered a violation of cultural and religious norms.
I also stated that "the Internet is already full of shrieking European voices demanding that the ICC 'try' Tony Blair for his having helped to liberate Iraq, and demanding that the US 'hand over' people such as Henry Kissinger (one of the greatest Secretaries of State that the US has ever had). You responded by asking me: "Yeah, and how likely do you think is it that the ICC would ever even consider actually prosecuting those people?". The short answer to that is, no one really knows, yet. Because no one really knows for sure, the worst fears have to be considered to be realistic possibilities. However, blatant attempts by leftist radicals to manipulate governments' legal systems for purely political reasons HAVE already occurred. And if those attempts are any indicator of what life may become like in the future, the results are not encouraging. The Belgian court system has already been manipulated by radical leftists into issuing "indictments" of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged "war crimes" (a crock of rubbish, if ever there was one) and of former US Pres. george Bush (Senior) for his having liberated Kuwait from Iraq 13 years ago. You stated that "And you sure as hell don´t prosecute high-level politicians unless there´s a really, really, really good legal reason to." I maintain that such frivolous, baseless and outrageous attempts to "prosecute" PM Ariel Sharon and Pres. George Bush (Senior) have already occurred, and can be expected to occur with greater frequency if an ICC is approved. So long as the people defining the "really, really, really good legal reason" are left-wing radicals and supporters of Arab terrorism, we can expect further attempts by them to manipulate an ICC to "punish" their perceived enemies. That in itself is a glaring reason for the US government to NOT yield an inch of sovereignty to an ICC.

Steve, The Balkans

To Charles Warren - Yes, you fight "islamic barbarians" and the Europeans refuse to follow...? Who supports insurgent islam on the Balkans for the last 15 years? Who tolerates and partners with Islamic fundamentalist organizations in Bosnia & Herzegovina, sheltering even today their terrorist cells in this country? Who supports Muslim Albanians and their mafia networks not only against the Serbs, but also against helpless tiny Macedonia? Do you know the answer? If not, I'll help you - this is the US Government.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Here is an excellent commentary on the sad state of affairs at the U.N. and in the world at large, by Glenn Reynolds.....My criticism of the United Nations continues to generate hostile email along the lines of "you just don't like the U.N. because it stands in the way of world hegemony by the Evil Bushitler and his Likudnik neo-con cabal."
Uh, no. In fact, I'm not a fan of U.S. "world hegemony" at all. Being the world's preeminent military and economic power has its pluses, but not many. Countries with little else to boast of may draw great solace from military power -- the old Soviet Union did that, and many older Russians are still nostalgic -- but American don't care about such things nearly as much. We have better things to do, and most of us, or our ancestors, came here to escape the problems of the rest of the world. We'd much rather someone else dealt with them, and left us alone -- though when we express such sentiments we are then accused of "isolationism," often by the same people who are otherwise complaining about American "imperialism."
Unfortunately, who else is there? The European Union, for all its vaunted soft power, can't seem to do much. If couldn't deal with Slobodan Milosevic without American help, even though Milosevic was on its doorstep. It has been trying to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem, but its efforts there appear doomed to failure. (There's even some suspicion that there are those among the European diplomatic establishment who wouldn't mind a nuclear-armed Iran, seeing it as a "counterweight" to U.S. power in the region. That would be an absurd and costly miscalculation, but as such it would be, sadly, in keeping with the history of European diplomacy over the past century, which has been characterized by absurd and costly miscalculations, most of which required American troops, and American blood, to make right. At least the Europeans appear to be playing a positive role in Ukraine, though that's likely to evaporate if there's any significant violence.)
And the United Nations is dropping the ball again, this time in Sudan, where Arab militias are massacring black African inhabitants of the Darfur region while the United Nations fiddles. And the U.N. pretty much admits it: "More than 70,000 people have died so far in the Darfur region of Sudan, according to the United Nations under secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, Jan Egeland."
A U.N. study conducted in June, July and August estimated 10,000 people were dying each month in Darfur. The response? "UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed deep concern."
If you look at the purposes of the United Nations as preventing war and genocide on the one hand, and promoting freedom on the other, it looks like a failure across the board. (But hey, if you look at it as a tool for protecting dictators and enriching globe-trotting elites, it's doing pretty well!) I'd like to see something better. I'd like to see an international organization that would actually engage in helping to overthrow tyrants and establish democracy, in preventing genocides, and in stopping aggressive nations before they threaten their neighbors.
Unfortunately, at the moment that sounds more like a description of the United States military than of any international organization in existence. Those who are unhappy with this state of affairs, and anxious to see the United States play a smaller role, should probably start trying to transform the U.N. into such an institution, rather than engaging in denial It's a job we'd be happy to give up, if only there were somebody else who could be trusted to take it on.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/

Ka Rin, USA

What we will "demand" and what will will get are two different subjects entirely. President Bush is, on one hand, not our entire government. On the other hand, he was elected to represent the United States.
What Americans should demand is the seperation of church and state. Everyone has a right to believe what they want, do with their bodies as they please, and marry whomever they so desire. If I want to marry a woman, I should be able to do so.
I think that there should be a close eye kept on our president. Anyone who runs a country for profit, who only is watching out for themselves, seems dangerous to me.
I live in Oregon, in one of the most liberal areas of the state. It astounds me, even here, to look around and see all the W '04 stickers, or "no on 36" (our measure to change the constitution to exclude gay marriage) and it makes me ill. Anyone who can say taht this change to teh constitution is not based on religious beliefs needs to do some research.

Michel Bastian, France

text: To Phil Karasick:
> You asked me: "Why do you think that not signing the ICC treaty will prevent an American from being tried outside the US? Even now the American in question could (and would) very well be tried by local courts under local national rules without technically violating international law." My reply to that is, the US government has already negotiated agreements with dozens of governments around the world. And I believe that these agreements would indeed prevent an american from being tried outside the US. I believe that these agreements would require that any American serviceman charged with having committed a crime in the hosting country, be extradited to the US for trial by an American military court.
Not quite. The US government, in a drive to keep its citizens from being tried by the ICC, has concluded so-called Art. 98 Agreements with about 70 states pertaining to US citizens. However, these agreements only prevent US citizens from being extradited to the ICC. They do not prevent trial by courts of the non-US countries.
> This would effectively (a) remove said American citizen from the jurisdiction of the hosting country; (b) ensure that any American tried for crimes in a host country, receive the full benefit of a fair and impartial trial (something they're not likely to get in many countries in the world);
Wrong, for the reasons quoted above.
> and (c)ensure that any charges pressed are for actual crimes, rather than for politically or culturally motivated and trumped-up phony charges.
Of course, there is no absolute safeguard against this kind of thing other than the absolute independance of the ICC prosecutors from any national government pressures (there is no absolute safeguard of that happening in the US either, btw). They cannot be forced to indict or prevented from indicting by anybody except a college of three ICC judges. That includes the US government. Like I said, that's the main reason behind the US refusal to join the court. The american government absolutely refuses to subject its citizens to anybody's but its own justice.
> I believe this is why American servicewomen working in short sleeves in 100-degree heat in Saudi Arabia cannot be charged by the Saudis with "blasphemy", even though the baring of arms by women in that ultra-conservative Muslim society is considered a violation of cultural and religious norms.
Phoney example if ever I heard one. The ICC, by statute, is not concerned with cultural or religious norms. By statute the ICC only deals with extreme cases of genocide and widespread murder. That's what they're there for. They wouldn't in the least be interested in or allowed to prosecute "blasphemy".

> I also stated that "the Internet is already full of shrieking European voices demanding that the ICC 'try' Tony Blair for his having helped to liberate Iraq, and demanding that the US 'hand over' people such as Henry Kissinger (one of the greatest Secretaries of State that the US has ever had). You responded by asking me: "Yeah, and how likely do you think is it that the ICC would ever even consider actually prosecuting those people?". The short answer to that is, no one really knows, yet. Because no one really knows for sure, the worst fears have to be considered to be realistic possibilities. However, blatant attempts by leftist radicals to manipulate governments' legal systems for purely political reasons HAVE already occurred. And if those attempts are any indicator of what life may become like in the future, the results are not encouraging. The Belgian court system has already been manipulated by radical leftists into issuing "indictments" of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged "war crimes" (a crock of rubbish, if ever there was one)
Hmm, debatable. Sharon was indicted (not convicted, btw) for the incidents at a Lebanese PLO camp in the eighties, I believe. However, that's a completely different can of worms, so I'll pass up on that one for now. Incidentally, with the ICC rules, Belgium wouldn' t have had jurisdiction over the case, so there goes your argument down the drain.
> and of former US Pres. george Bush (Senior) for his having liberated Kuwait from Iraq 13 years ago.
Yeah, well, anybody can try to get somebody else indicted in any country of the world (including the US) for stupid reasons. All that's going to do in a democratic state is get a refusal of indictment by the court or the prosecution. Incidentally, the best safeguard against these kinds of abuses is a completely independent ICC.
> You stated that "And you sure as hell don´t prosecute high-level politicians unless there´s a really, really, really good legal reason to." I maintain that such frivolous, baseless and outrageous attempts to "prosecute" PM Ariel Sharon and Pres. George Bush (Senior) have already occurred, and can be expected to occur with greater frequency if an ICC is approved.
Wrong, completely wrong. On the contrary, the ICC will ensure (and has already ensured in several cases) that any frivolous indictments before national courts do not occur or are stopped immediately.
> So long as the people defining the "really, really, really good legal reason" are left-wing radicals and supporters of Arab terrorism, we can expect further attempts by them to manipulate an ICC to "punish" their perceived enemies.
The legal reason is laid down in the ICC rules for indictment, so there is no, repeat, no way your ominous "left wing radicals" (Who exactly are you talking about, incidentally? Care to give me any concrete names? No? Imagine my surprise :-)) can have any influence at all on ICC proceedings.
> That in itself is a glaring reason for the US government to NOT yield an inch of sovereignty to an ICC.
There is absolutely no valid reason for the US government not to join up except hard-assed nationalism (or you can call it the unilateralism doctrine, same difference). Sorry to have to put it that way, but that' s the way it is. The US government is legally within it's rights to refuse, but ethically they're way back in the 19th century on that one. Heck, even Russia signed, that should tell you something.

Bussy, France

After reading our US posters , it's clear that we don't like each others .
I'm hoping a super-great Big One for widing more and more the pond between us.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Here is an excellent commentary on the sad state of affairs at the U.N. and in the world at large, by Glenn Reynolds.....
Ah, Prof. Reynolds, yes. Well, I´ll give you a link to him, if you´re so keen on it: http://www.instapundit.com/ . He has about the same biases that you have, so you should have a great time surfing his blog.
> My criticism of the United Nations continues to generate <...> It's a job we'd be happy to give up, if only there were somebody else who could be trusted to take it on.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3395977/
Yes, that´s the standard response of the Bush administration to claims of american imperialism: we don´t want to do it, but we have to do it because the UN and the EU are powerless and somebody has to do it. Mind you, we´d much rather stay at home and not be bothered with world affairs. That´s the standard excuse every dictator from Julius Caesar onwards has been using to invade other countries: if I don´t do it, nobody else will and all the barbarians are going to attack my homeland.
My response to that is: we´re not living in the dark ages anymore. There are no barbarian armies at the gates threatening to overrun Washington (or Paris or Berlin or whatever). The terrorist menace causing all this mess is diffuse, it´s not focused into a single army or even a single nation you could attack and obliterate. That´s the main thing the Bush administration fails to understand: military invasions of "axis-of-evil" states will not help them or the world fight terrorism. They will actually make matters worse because the terrorists will gain a lot more support. It´s the old "Viet Cong in a ricefield" example. When you have a Viet Cong hidden in a ricefield, you send a search party to get him out. You DO NOT bomb the ricefield, because the VC will be long gone before you do and the farmer who owns the ricefield will be angry with you for destroying his livelihood. Therefore, he will be more likely to go over to the VC himself. Surely, Vietnam should have taught the US something.
Another point about Prof. Reynolds´ observations: he advocates strengthening the UN militarily so the US won´t have to do the job all by themselves. On the other hand, he refuses to give up one iota of US sovereignty to the UN. So how is a strong UN going to work if the US refuse to participate in it?

Michel Bastian, France

I wrote:
> Heck, even Russia signed, that should tell you something.
Ahem, before you flame me for that one: correction, Russia didn´t sign. My bad.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

to Michel Bastian:
You stated: "The US government, in a drive to keep its citizens from being tried by the ICC, has concluded so-called Art. 98 Agreements with about 70 states pertaining to US citizens. However, these agreements only prevent US citizens from being extradited to the ICC." Fine. That's good enough for me.
You also stated: "Sharon was indicted (not convicted, btw) for the incidents at a Lebanese PLO camp in the eighties, I believe." In my humble opinion, whether he was convicted or not is irrelevent. Sharon shouldn't even have been indicted. The very fact that a Belgian court was misused for the purposes of a politically motivated revenge attempt by supporters of Palestinian terrorism, is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that the best place for an American defendant to receive a fair and impartial trial is in an American courtroom.

You stated: "The legal reason is laid down in the ICC rules for indictment, so there is no, repeat, no way your ominous "left wing radicals" (Who exactly are you talking about, incidentally? Care to give me any concrete names? No? Imagine my surprise :-)) can have any influence at all on ICC proceedings."
I am happy to provide names, at least in circumstances and situations in which the people bringing these politically motivated charges have the guts to publicly identify themselves.
Here is a sample for you to peruse.
"Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials of war crimes in Iraq, according to the attorney representing the plaintiffs. The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad, the shooting of an ambulance, and failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals, said Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based lawyer. He is representing about 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to atrocities committed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr. Fermon said the complaint will ask an investigative magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen. Franks. If an indictment is filed against the general and other U.S. officials, they could be convicted and sentenced by a Belgian court. If arrest warrants were issued, U.S. officials could be arrested on entering Belgium. The administration official said the complaint highlights U.S. concerns that laws regarding war crimes and institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) can be used to initiate politically motivated prosecutions against American officials.
"This is obviously not a political case with the ICC, but it's typical of what we can expect in the future," the official said on the condition of anonymity.
Mr. Fermon said that because under international law President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cannot be prosecuted for war crimes while they are in office, the complaint will target Gen. Franks and other U.S. military officials.
Mr. Fermon said the complaint against U.S. officials is based on a 1993 Belgian law that gives a Belgian court authority to judge war crimes committed by noncitizens anywhere in the world. The plaintiffs sought to file the complaint with the recently inaugurated ICC, but "since the United States did not ratify the treaty to join the institution, we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.
http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/CampaignMore/iraqis.htm
Here is more:
Israel recalled its ambassador for consultations in February because of a new ruling that threatened to prosecute Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on war-crime charges after he left office. And U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned that Belgium was putting its international reputation at stake after he was named last month in a lawsuit for alleged crimes committed during the 1991 Persian Gulf War along with former President George Bush Sr. and current Vice President Dick Cheney.
"It's a serious problem," Powell said. "For a place that is an international center, they should be a little bit concerned about this."
Apparently, Belgium's leaders were more than a little bit concerned, and on Saturday, the parliament's Senate gave final approval to restrictions on the country's "genocide law."
Law focused on genocide
The original law allowed Belgian courts to prosecute people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes regardless of where the crime occurred or whether the suspects or victims were Belgian.
The amendments restrict the law's scope, Geraldine Mattioli, international justice fellow at the organization Human Rights Watch, told DW-WORLD on Monday. The changes give the senior prosecutor, for example, the opportunity to decide whether a complaint will be examined in Belgium or referred to the country concerned if there is no tangible Belgian link. The judiciary could also send complaints to the new International Criminal Court.
The case, however, would be pursued in Belgium if the countries involved did not have a legal system comparable to Belgium's.
"During debates the justice minister made clear that not all cases will be referred to the country concerned. We hope that the minister will only use it in exceptional cases," Mattioli said.
Legal action is pending against Sharon for his role in the massacre of up to 2,000 people carried out by a Christian militia in 1982 in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon. Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel has spoken out against the case and said his country is not in a position to judge Sharon.
The parliament had been working on altering the law since last July. Mattioli said the effort to alter the law gained momentum after the complaint was filed on March 19 against Bush senior and members of his administration, including Cheney and Powell. Cheney was defense secretary, and Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The suit was filed by the families of Iraqi victims of a U.S. attack on a Baghdad shelter that killed 400 people during the 1991 war.
After the case was filed, Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and Michel pushed to modify the law before the end of the legislative session last week. Belgian parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 18.
Final approval came Saturday when the Senate approved the changes in a 36-to-27 vote with five abstentions. The approval backed an earlier vote by the House of Representatives. But Verhofstadt's Liberal Party had to rely on the oppositional Christian Democrats and the extreme right-wing Vlaamse Blok to push through the bill. Lawmakers from Belgian's ruling Green and Socialist parties voted against the amendments because they said the case against Sharon should not be dropped."
The left-wing radicals I referred to, are quite clearly: Lawmakers from Belgian's ruling Green and Socialist parties. They are proudly and quite publicly left-wing, and they are radicals.
I rest my case.

to Michel Bastian: Oops, forgot the link to the second article.
http://www.indictsharon.net/press/20030407dww.shtml

George Hewitt, US

the us has always been divided to some extent.the brief emigration to massachusetts was from early to late 17th century,and was primarily composed of thr educated or those with a trade.indentured emigrants were rare as were slaves. The early group was mostly from East Anglia
The descendance from this group moved up the rivers to the rest of New England,and across a northern strip to as far as Minnesota, and then to California,which is "blue" america.

Sue, USA

To Peter Trevino, USA:
You need to understand your country's laws better. By proposing a marriage amendment to the constitution, Bush is invoking the mechanisms of federalism (i.e. states' rights) instead of using the power of the judiciary to redefine marriage from the top down. An amendment needs ratification by 2/3 of state legislatures and 3/4 majority vote (I think) in Congress. Such a majority would be very hard to accomplish, and "we all know" it. The amendment process reduces the power of the centralized federal government because it relies on the concurrence of a majority of 50 independently elected state legislatures. Not likely to happen. The practical effect of Bush's proposal was not to stymie gay marriage per se, but to remind the judiciary that it doesn't make the laws about marriage, abortion or anything else, it only enforces them. This it not about Bush's positions on controversial issues, but the mechanism whereby laws are passed. The U.S. constitution makes it very hard for the federal government to act fascistically.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> You stated: "The legal reason is laid down in the ICC rules for indictment, so there is no, repeat, no way your ominous "left wing radicals" (Who exactly are you talking about, incidentally? Care to give me any concrete names? No? Imagine my surprise :-)) can have any influence at all on ICC proceedings."
I am happy to provide names, at least in circumstances and situations in which the people bringing these politically motivated charges have the guts to publicly identify themselves.
Here is a sample for you to peruse.
"Iraqi civilians are preparing a complaint to present in court in Belgium accusing allied commander Gen. Tommy Franks <...> we felt compelled to go to a court in Belgium," he said.
http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/Articles/CampaignMore/iraqis.htm
Yes, I heard about that one, too. And what happened to that complaint? It got quashed by the court, just as the one against Sharon. Furthermore, the belgian government amended the law under which these cases were brought to court so that they could not include non-belgian nationals (see your article). All this only tells me something I already knew: anybody can try to get anybody else indicted under some ridiculous charge in any country or before any court of this world. That, incidentally, includes the US. In a private law context, this happens all the time in the US too (mostly because people feel they can get exorbitant punitive damage awards there, even if neither the case nor any of the parties concerned have any link with the US).
There is no possible safeguard against this kind of frivolous accusation short of completely forbidding access to the courts. I could go to an american court now and try to get Bush indicted for invading Iraq. Of course, I wouldn´t get anywhere with that, and that´s what´s important: any halfway competent prosecutor, not just an american one, will refuse to bring such cases to court. That goes for the ICC as well. If the US refuse to subject their nationals to the ICC, it´s not because they´re afraid of frivolous indictments, it´s because they do not trust the ICC procedures, prosecutors and judges. And why don´t they? Because they´re not all american, that´s why. It´s basically saying that anything but american law applied by american lawyers and judges is automatically "substandard". Pretty conceited way of seeing things, IMO.
>I rest my case.
And I rest mine. I´d treat you to a coffee while the jury´s out, but unfortunately Seattle´s a tad too far away from where I am.

Scott Loranger, United States

What can all of us, Europeans and Americans alike, ask of President George W. Bush? I've got it! We should ask him to resign. It would be in the best interests of everyone involved.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:
You stated... "Yes, that´s the standard response of the Bush administration to claims of american imperialism: we don´t want to do it, but we have to do it because the UN and the EU are powerless and somebody has to do it. Mind you, we´d much rather stay at home and not be bothered with world affairs. That´s the standard excuse every dictator from Julius Caesar onwards has been using to invade other countries: if I don´t do it, nobody else will and all the barbarians are going to attack my homeland." Well, obviously, I disagree with that view. To begin with, the US is not "imperialist". The US did not liberate Iraq for the purposes of acquiring territory, acquiring oil or acquiring anything else. We liberated Iraq to eliminate the threat posed by Sadly Insane Saddam Hussein. The threat posed by Saddam to other countries in the region is factual and is a matter of historical record. He invaded two different neighbor countries (Kuwait and Iran) in two decades. He launched unprovoked missile attacks on Israel and briefly invaded Saudi Arabia. He spent decades trying to buy / build / steal WMDs and was repeatedly caught doing so. He supported terrorism, paying $25,000 rewards to the families of Palestinian homicide/suicide bombers and providing safe refuge to the architect of the S.S. Achille Lauro hijacking in which an American citizen was murdered. We in America waited patiently for the UN and the EU to remove Saddam from power, which never happened. Apparently the UN and the EU were indeed powerless to remove him. Fortunately (in my view), we in America are not.
You also stated: "...We´re not living in the Dark Ages anymore. There are no barbarian armies at the gates threatening to overrun Washington (or Paris or Berlin or whatever). The terrorist menace causing all this mess is diffuse, it´s not focused into a single army or even a single nation you could attack and obliterate." My response to that is: I think that's a matter of perception. Afghanistan under the horrific rule of the Taliban was indeed very much a country that had been hurled back into the Dark Ages. The terrorist menace had largely been focused and centered in a single nation, in Afghanistan, with two separate armies or factions: the Taliban, which ruled the country with Medieval-style terror according to a style of Islam not seen since the 11th century or thereabouts, and Al-Qaeda, which used Afghanistan as its primary HQ and which essentially turned the Taliban into a 40,000 man bodyguard. The terrorist threat indeed became more diffused as the terrorists scattered and ran following our liberation of Afghanistan.
You also stated: ..."That´s the main thing the Bush administration fails to understand: military invasions of "axis-of-evil" states will not help them or the world fight terrorism." Well, I partly disagree with that. Al-Qaeda's operations have been seriously disrupted by their forcible eviction from Afghanistan. That is likely one reason why there have been no major attacks upon the US since 9/11. The reason the terrorists are on the defensive is because we put them on the defensive, by hunting them where they live.
Finally, you asked: "...Another point about Prof. Reynolds´ observations: he advocates strengthening the UN militarily so the US won´t have to do the job all by themselves. On the other hand, he refuses to give up one iota of US sovereignty to the UN. So how is a strong UN going to work if the US refuse to participate in it?" My response is: Simple, put the US and other Western or Western-oriented powers back in control of and in charge of the UN. Include Russia, China, Israel, Egypt and India in that group. Rebuild the UN's military capabilities from the ground up using the forces of the nations on the Security Council. And abolish entirely the UN General Assembly, which has served as a sympathetic forum to terrorism as far back as 1974 when it welcomed a speech by a pistol-carrying Yasser Arafat just two years after the slaughter of Israeli athletes at Munich.

Jan Paul, USA

Concerning gay marriage, so often it is said to be "just" a religious issue, yet even some secualar societies have banned gay sex and gay marriage. This is for two reasons. On the ban for gay sex, the secular societies feel that it is one way to control the spread of STD. They may also outlaw prostitution for while it is often between people of the opposite sex it is still an added risk to STD. Any society has the right to limit some individual rights and all societies do. No society is "fair," but some are more "just" than others in that they deamand ALL citizens obey the laws and those laws are applied equally.
As far as marriage goes, many societies, religious and secular have "marriage" laws. The laws were intended for limiting procreation to people who, first of all, indicated they wanted to procreate and thus, applied for permission to do so. They also limited the procreation license to people who weren't closely related, and in some societies have also limited to procreation of people above a certain age, or who weren't mentally deficient, etc. And of course in some cases have even limited the number of offspring.
Often people look to governments for "fairness" which is rediculous since no government is "fair" to everyone. For example, in this thread we often see the dislike of capitalism in the U.S. Yet, over the last 250 years capitalism has undergone many changes and now include many of the programs associated more with socialism than capitalism. If you really want to see a threat to Europe's and the U.S. future, you need to look to Asia, not the U.S. China is kicking the U.S. in the butt when it comes to capitalism. They have abandoned communism and are moving as fast as they can toward a capitalist based system in which the better workers get more, buy more, have more, etc. Their buying power is up to four times that of the U.S. worker since they can buy "home" products that are no longer made in the U.S. or in some of the European countries.
Even "new" Europe is moving more toward the capitalist concept of putting the tax burden on the individual directly instead of indirectly through business and investment capital. They know the wealthy only pay as much as they are willing to pay in taxes and when pushed past that point, move their wealth or themselves to places like - - China? The businesses don't pay taxes since all taxes are passed on to the consumer in the price of the goods and as soon as that cost passes competitive profitablility, they start cutting costs by doing things like layoffs, outsourcing, moving the entire company overseas or shutting their doors.
Its like people who believe corporations pay for their healthcare. Yeah right. They pass the cost on to the consumer or provide lower wages and if they can't they cut costs, see above. No corporation pays for anything if it is making a profit. And if it is a public held company and the profit isn't large enough the shareholders sell the stock until the company cuts costs (see above) and returns to a level of profit that satisfies the shareholder.
Back to the religious issue. The U.S. was founded on "Christian principles" and yet some of the very people that founded the country were deists. What they did see was that using principles that didn't come from "man" had more acceptance than laws from "man" did. Thus, they had more unity as a nation since nobody could say the laws were made by someone of "less" ethics, morals, or intelligence of anyone subject to the laws. They also recognized the principles were also good secular laws in that they are the types of principles that build the kind of relationships needed for a strong country and a strong economy. Even laws like "Though shalt have no other gods" could be related to national pride (nation under God) and violation of that "honor" to country since it was "under God" meant you were guilty of treason. Thou shalt not commit adultry? - limiting the spread of disease and whether you have an actual law or not, the idea was don't do anything that puts society at risk of STD. Fair? Of course not, but that isn't the job of the Federal Government in the U.S. It is the job of the local and state government if it is to be done at all. In Europe, you have each country with its own laws. In the U.S., except for natioanal security, trade and other interstate commerce and international commerce issues, the laws regarding "society" were to be left to the states. Some states even encourage religous activity in their constitutions or bills of rights and thus the Federal Constitution was vague on this and had the admendment on "separation" as a protection for States that had differing levels of religious involvement.
The big battle in the U.S. currently is more over States vs. Federal control of issues like the gay marriage concern. It is also in a struggle over who pays for social programs even though in the end the individual will pay for it. National healthcare is a big issue and how it will be paid for is very important. If we go the route of many "socialized" systems we run the risk of declining numbers of doctors and nurses willing to enter the profession. Or, like in England we run the risk of overloading our hospital surgery facility so much that it can't be taken out of service for "deep cleans" often enough. This in England is leading to higher death rates from staff infections than from the actual trauma of surgery. I have spoke to several doctors here in the U.S. that have said if they had it to do over they wouldn't enter the medical profession.
Many people only look at the "cost" of premiums and not at the cost of healthcare to the healthcare providers. We also fail to look at what incentives will be necessary to keep enough doctors coming into the medical profession. Currently, here in the Phoenix area there is such a shortage of nurses they have resorted to "cold" calling to try and find people willing to be trained as a nurse.
It is rediculous for Europe and the U.S. to be arguing over these social issues since each country should have the right to live the way the majority of the people in that country want to live. Leaning more toward or away from socialism or capitalism isn't the issue. The issue is can you provide the things your citizens want. If some want more leisure time and another wants more material things, so what. You may say that the one that wants more material things uses up more of the world's resources and you would be right. But, they are also paying a higher price for those resources. Again, though the U.S. is not who you have to worry about as much as you need to worry about the huge, and I mean really huge increase in the demand for the resources of the world by Asia.
Kyoto was another sidetrack issue that pitted Europe against the U.S. Yet, even the writers of the Kyoto treaty have publicly admitted the treaty would have accomplished virtully nothing since they exempted the major polluters and the U.S. is constantly moving toward better standards. But, the people who want Europe and the U.S. fighting, don't care about this as long as they can use it as a dividing issue. It keeps our minds off the real problems which are our ability to compete against Asia, "new Europe, New Zealand, Austrailia, Ireland and all the other countries cutting business taxes and luring the wealthy to invest in their countris instead of our own countries.
I don't know what the middle class population of Europe is now but I do know China now has anywhere from 100 to 200 million middle class based on their increased buying power. That means they are consuming when combined with the other billions of people in China, more than Europe and the U.S. combined in all likelyhood. They are running pipelines and transportation lines to their remote areas to bring them up to speed with new manufacturing facilies where their 25 cents an hour employees can start getting raises like the Chinese in other economic zones are getting. In Hong Kong the averate is something like 6.66 an hour which with four times the buying power is like getting paid over $25 an hour. Yet, we are fightin among ourselves. They just discovered an oil field is as large as 1/3 of what they already have. They are upgrading their military with super silent subs quieter than even the U.S. subs. They are paying for this upgrade with all the European and U.S. money being spent in China on products and building plants and investing in technology. They are now providing a harder working, better educated, and more flexible work force than the U.S. or much of Europe. They are lowering taxes, creating joint partnerships and improving factories and transportation systems. Just a side note. I believe this is in order to create a better impression on some businesses, they are granting religious freedom. On some days 35,000 people are converting to Christianity in China. A Chinese printing company now has state of the art printing equipment and has printed and distrubuted 30 million Bibles. The Chinese government has recently annouced new legislation granting "religous freedom" will be put into affect in March of this year. Yet, we argue between Europe and the U.S. about religion when in both areas it doesn't really have anymore impact than it does in Singapore, a secular society that bans gay sex. Which by the way with a population of 4 million has less than 100 HIV cases.
Regarding the imperialism, yes and no. We have not "taken" over any country but what we turn it back to that countries people. Yes, we try to get democracy established as much as possible for two reasons. One is very selfish since they are more likely to enter into benficial trade agreements and the other is that democracies are less likely to declare war on another democracy.
But, every nation has it faults and economic problems and its sovereignty. Whether or not you feel Saddam was a person who needed to be removed or not, the majority of people in the U.S. felt he was worth removing as indicated in the re-election of the Congressmen and President that did it. The President couldn't have done it without the Congress. Yet, not only was the majority of Republican Congressmen re-elected but even the lead Democratic senator that opposed the President was defeated. Also, when you look at a county by country breakdown of the election, even California was 90% red with only the large metro areas going for the Democrats. In Michigan a state Kerry won by 177,000 votes, only 16 of the counties voted for him and he won Detroit by over 240,000 votes which means the state took away all the votes of the other 15 counties and about 60,000 of the votes from Detroit.
So, in the U.S. you can't even look at the divide in the U.S. by states, but by major population centers. The suburban and rural vote Republican and the large cities vote Democratic. This is probably why 11 states passed gay marriage bans including some states that were not expected to due to a high democratic population. Several more states appear to be getting ready to pass these bans and I think this will eventually end up being a Supreme Court case. I also wouldn't be surprised either way with the Supreme Court ruling or passing it back to the states. Again, this isn't fair for gays, but it is the right of the country as long as they don't base it on just religion. There should be some secular reason, too. Which, as happened in other secular countries apparently can be done.
The U.S. was settled by people coming here from places they didn't think were fair to them. People are moving to countries in Europe right now, because they think those countries will treat them more fairly than where they were. Look at all the Muslims moving into Europe. In a decade they estimate the population of France may be 20% Muslim and in some suburbs around Paris already exceeds this level. Why, can't we have a world where there are many cultures and views and ways of dealing with or without religion. The world needs variety for people so they can go to where they will be treated the fairest. So why are Europe and the U.S. arguing differences as much as they are?
They are arguing this much becasue there is a movement to divide them and keep their minds off real internal problems in the U.S. Europe, and other countries around the world. For the most part those problems are rooted in economic situations and world market competition with the U.S. and many other countries slipping down the economic ladder while others move up.

R. K. Rodebaugh, USA

A view complimentary to Timothy Garton Ash

Article: Science and Modernity

See: http://themoderntribune.com/rkrodebaugh.htm#Science%20and%20Modernity

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12