Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bond369
Didnt US signed that treaty and later "unsigned" it?
Also US is largest polutant around.
|
Clinton signed it because he knew Congress would never ratify it (they had already made that very clear). That way, he gets the political kudos from the left for standing up to the evil, polluting, republican controlled corporations while not having to suffer the dire economic effects and the derision from the informed science community. It was a win-win situation for him.
Quote:
|
You wanted inspection, you got em.
|
You mean Europe didn't want the inspectors back in? This was a negotiating point?
Quote:
|
Than you wanted more and more and got most of it. Later you wanted war based on fake evidence (and inspections gave no indication of wmd) but you didnt get it. So you gathered few allies and went in. Now thats real negotiations.
|
We got everything we wanted except a resolution to the problem by the UN. Something the UN (specifically France, Germany and Russia) didn't want. See, resolving international problems is what the UN is all about. That's its purpose.
Quote:
|
Actually i do feel secure.
|
Good. I'm glad. There's some who would argue that US actions in Iraq have made the world a much more dangerous one. I'm glad you don't subscribe to that.
Quote:
|
Meant it as having support of their goverment wile population was mostly against war. Long live democracy!
|
Huh? I don't see how this invalidates my previous point. Europe likes to claim that anything done without the express permission of France and Germany is a "unilateral" and illegal action. Your statement denigrates the contribution, even if it's simply moral support, of every nation involved in the coalition. As if their moral contribution is nothing without the involvement of France and Germany. That's arrogant and insulting.
And what does democracy have to do with it? To my knowledge, no country in the coalition over-rode a national vote against Iraq involvement. Since you're such a stickler for definitions, shouldn't we apply the strict definition of democracy as well?
Quote:
|
Umm it is a test reactor so they can see if fusion is even possible to be used as energy source. That fits sience pretty well.
|
Then placing this reactor in France is the best thing to do from a scientific point of view? The science would be poorly served if it were placed in Japan?
Look, this is a very simple concept:
The US joins with the rest of the world to study global warming and solutions if necessary. The US asks the world to be reasonable and do more research on global warming. But that won't accomplish the goal of putting the US in her rightful place. That won't sufficiently undermine the US economy or cost the US enough. So the world says, "No. You must do it our way." We decide that if the world won't listen to reason then we just won't participate. We walk away and do our own thing. As a result, we are lambasted, and chastised, and insulted, and accused of every heinous natural disaster for years to come.
The US joins with the rest of the world to institute an international rule making body that will moderate peace in the world. The US asks the world to be reasonable and stand up for the international body designed and created to ensure that someone like Hitler never gains power again. That nations abide by a common set of international rules. That resolutions and judgements passed down by the UN be followed and respected. But the world says, "No. We are not interested in that." So we decide that if the world won't do what the UN is supposed to do, then we'll just do it ourselves. As a result, we are lambasted, and chastised, and insulted, and accused of every heinous crime committed for years to come. Our leaders are equated to Hitler and Hussein is painted as a victime.
France, together with the EU, joins with 5 other nations (the US included) in order to create a new source of energy. A group of nations joined together to work together to accomplish a goal; as in the previous two examples. The EU asks the other nations to spend the money in France. When they refuse, the EU, working as a single unit, threatens to dissolve the partnership and go it alone. They decide that if the other nations can't see the logic in spending the money in France then they'll just go it alone. Is the EU lambasted for this? Are they chastised? Insulted? Accused of unilateralism? Of course not. Because science isn't foreign affairs - despite the fact that we have many different nations discussing their relations.
I think you're probably a pretty intelligent and reasonable person, Bond469. I've never read a post from you that would suggest otherwise. So, if you tell me that, had the US tried to do what the EU is trying to do with this; if the US had said, "Build it in America or we'll find others who will agree with us"; if you tell me that there wouldn't have been an uproar in Europe then I'll believe you and I'll drop the subject. If you can tell me, honestly, that you think Europe would've been wrong to condemn the US for wanting to undertake the project without them then I am wrong and you are right.
Quote:
|
So? They can build whatever they want on their land. You can build one as well so you can have some "profit" from it (if it even works).
|
I've already stated (first post, in fact) that I'm okay with this. If the EU feels that the partnership isn't accomplishing their goals then, by all means, go it alone. I can't possibly wish you more success in your endeavor.
But I would like at least a little less hypocrisy. I would like to see either more anger directed at the EU for threatening "do it our way, or else" or a little less anger directed at the US when we do the same. Your (Europe) constant vascillating between what is and what is not acceptable behaviour is difficult to debate.