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.
You mean Europe didn't want the inspectors back in? This was a negotiating point?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

@fatboy
Your paraphrase is nothing but. It should read :"We want it built, we need the research to proceed, you guys don't seem to want it built, so we'll build it alone (or with whatever partners we can find)"

Btw, it is no wonder the project is going nowhere as the US need Europe dependent on fossile fuels. It's all about control.

I'm afraid I will let you down on the constitution thing. It is really a domestic issue for the US. Not my business.

You're close. But I think you're forgetting that the US, Korea, and Japan are more than happy to have it built in Japan. So, you're paraphrase shoud cut out "you guys don't seem to want it built"; which, clearly, they do.
Incredibly funny. You can't even recognize your own hypocrisy when it's surrounded by as few words as possible. You claim we want to control you, yet you're not going to do the project unless you get to control where it goes. Fucking classic.

You guys can't cure your dependency without us? What are we, your dealer? I really would like to know how we keep you dependent on fossil fuels. Then again, what isn't America's fault?
Ahhh, too bad. And I so wanted some edification from the originators of liberty.

Still, an infinitely wise decision on your part.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I think I meant to say that specifying a definition will limit it's usage to the issue it is specified to. In this case, I think, "unilateral action of war". Trying to expand it afterwards leads to crappy results. France is not breaking international law by pushing to build a fusion- reactor. And I'm not putting world peace in jeopardy when I'm ordering "unilateral coffee" - that's black coffee, alone in a cup. And therefore a unilateral action is not the thing to be criticising.
Given that Iraq was an urgent threat, that there was no choice but to immediately go to war, it's not much to disagree with, I think. Rumsfeld is a hero. Europe is blind and/or appeasing, corrupt and an enemy of the US indirectly by not helping to disarm threats to american soil.

But most of us disagree with how much of a threat Iraq was. Then we disagree with how urgent it was, if at all. Many american generals as well as other "prominent" europeans disagreed with that we had to go into a full scale war in any case, and then yet again with that if it really was this urgent, there was not enough troops available to complete the assignement in a good way. All of this and more the heads in washington disregarded or brushed off. So basically, unless the threat really exists/existed or whatever, the case for going ahead with a slightly planned crusade becomes terrifyingly bad in every single respect. But if the threat existed, it was a noble selfless sacrifice for the greater good to go in without common or general support. In fact, it was a service to the human kind. So I wonder - what is it that decides whether Iraq was a threat or not? Any suggestions? The next natural question to ask would be - is this thing which magically will decide whether Iraq was a threat or not a good standard to judge whether N.Korea is a threat? What about Israel or Iran?

See, many europeans and also americans as it seems, do wonder about this. (Unless they think we should do nothing, on principle or something.) We think that perhaps there were some good reason for it which we don't know about - yet, everything we have been told has so far been very, very transparent. As transparent as nothing, really. So what is this gap between europe and the US really about? Some appear to suggest it is a principal thing, that there is no real reason at all. So, does this mean that the US is going to war just for spiting the Europeans and the Europeans oppose the US for the same reason? I don't really think so. All the same, noone, including the ones supporting the Bush- administration, the action taken, the neocon ideology or what they see as democracy and liberty seems to know exactly on what grounds the action of going to war is based upon. And if there is a reason - like "we must convert the unbelievers before they colonize the earth" or "we want their oil" or "we just want to show off and put them in their place" - those reasons are not really sufficcient. Alternatively, we don't want to think that we disagree about if these reasons are sufficcient. So there must be something else, right? (Any takers on this one?) And if nothing should be done, what are the reasons for that?

But here we are, discussing how to name what happened, just as if this actually mattered for how reality is. But under no circumstances will it be possible specify how it is that Washington knew how they had to act on this very urgent threat. There is no way to know or even discuss how it is that Europe will be, what was it, left to "fend off the wolves", if the US decides to leave the "barrel of gunpowder alone". It is not possible to be explained to how it is that "we" did not understand the "sense of urgency". Nor is it possible to get to know why this strange principal malalignment exists between Europe and the US. It is as if there is ... nothing at all to sustain the root of this problem, but belief and conviction, void of any real substance. It is almost as if an assumed fact without evidence is the point of disagreement. I wonder why that is. Hmm. Ponder, ponder.

Dont forget the arms industry or the necessity to keep a (large) army busy to account for its presence and keep them trained at the same time.

__________________

Of course you are our dealer. What's what your goddamn obscene army is for: controlling oil supply. This was clearly demonstrated by the Iraq business.

lol

Well...things are slow here, I've somewhat relocated my activities at this site

See you there, maybe.

That's classic. You're too weak willed to take yourself off the teat and it's our fault. As I said, what isn't America's fault.

BTW: Our "goddamn obscene army" was created, in part, to kick the Germans out of your country. It stayed "goddamn obscene" in order to keep the Soviets out of your country.

Glad my grandparents' and parents' (and some of my) money kept you alive long enough to bitch and moan and insult us.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I thought the army was kept obscene by the neocons who sold some extremely paranoid bullshit about the USSR army to the US public, probably because they were sponsored by the arms industry.

Part of their logic was: the CIA cant find the latest and most modern russian arms and armies because they are so good that they are invisible.

__________________

Yes, you're exactly right. WWII was cooked up by the Bush family so that Georgie Sr. could get some flight time in. The Soviet Union never even existed at all. It was just an illusion orchestrated by the Illuminati.

Are you an American, marlin? Or are you one of those that the US wasted its money liberating and protecting against a fictitious threat?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup