GameBanshee Forums

Welcome to SYM!

Originally posted by Audace
ya'll

You must be from the southern part of the Netherlands.

Cheers!

Originally posted by fable
I just heard that the European Union has unanimously voted in trade sanctions against the US, following Bush's slapping of 30% tarriffs on all imported steel. The sanctions include, among other goods, US exported clothing, fruit juice (which is really big in parts of Europe), and steel. The sanctions won't be binding until the vote is put before the World Trade Organization, which is supposed to happen shortly.

So much for free trade

I guess it would be too soon to ask what WTO plan to do about it. IIRC Australia and New Zealand have also taken the US to the WTO for their stance of continually bailing out their farmers.

Originally posted by Tamerlane


So much for free trade

I guess it would be too soon to ask what WTO plan to do about it. IIRC Australia and New Zealand have also taken the US to the WTO for their stance of continually bailing out their farmers.

My understanding is that the wait simply allows a US negotiating team to see that the EU means business. Whether the negotiations result in anything or not, remains to be shortly seen.

The latest wrinkle in Bush vs Europe would seem to be the US administration's demand that its military troops be formally allowed complete exemption from any potential prosecution at the International Court of Justice. The US has even gone so far as to demand the right in print to remove its soldiers from the Hague if they are ever brought up on war crimes charges. An attempt was made to handle the whole matter through diplomatic channels via letters to 18 governments considered friendly to the US, who were urged to publically turn thumbs-down on the ICJ's jurisdiction, but none went along; and several publically denounced the US position. It is expected that if the US tries to bring the matter before the Security Council and demand a vote on its own motion, both the UK and France will apply the veto--unheard of against the US, before Bush took office.

There would appear to be two separate issues involved, here: the assumption that the US stands alone and above the ICJ, and the extraordinary diplomatic blunder which has made the US appear so badly divided from its strongest allies. Does anybody have any idea what's going on in all this mess?

It seems Bush is not the only one. Europe seems to be doing it behind closed doors.

European Countries Cut Deal to Protect Afghan Peacekeepers

Britain, acting on behalf of 19 countries with peacekeepers in Afghanistan, negotiated the guarantees in January in a "military technical agreement" between the British-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Afghanistan's interim government. Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation."

Originally posted by fable
There would appear to be two separate issues involved, here: the assumption that the US stands alone and above the ICJ, and the extraordinary diplomatic blunder which has made the US appear so badly divided from its strongest allies. Does anybody have any idea what's going on in all this mess?

Check this out i believe it is a similar situation to the one you describe.

I won't be able to go into terrible amount of detail fable, but as Australia is following America into every avenue that it chooses to go. Its no surprise to see our government is now supporting the US. What they are selling to the public over here is that someday the future leaders of a country like Afghanistan might accuse our boys of commiting crimes against their popluation.

I can understand where Bush is coming from though, when you take in consideration the mix ups which saw tribal elders bombed. But by ignoring the ICJ, they are practically making a set of double standards. We'll implicate the Russians in Chechnya but no one else can accuse us of anything.

@Weasel, I see a difference, here. The Europeans are getting specific exemptions to meet individual circumstances. I can't say I like that, but the US is requesting a complete exemption in advance for any of its servicemen, regardless of the accusation or situation. The former is problematic, given the nature of the Court. The latter makes the Court a useless joke from the first, by granting carte blanche, above the law status, to a single nation.

Originally posted by fable
@Weasel, I see a difference, here. The Europeans are getting specific exemptions to meet individual circumstances. I can't say I like that, but the US is requesting a complete exemption in advance for any of its servicemen, regardless of the accusation or situation. The former is problematic, given the nature of the Court. The latter makes the Court a useless joke from the first, by granting carte blanche, above the law status, to a single nation.

To a single nation if they join. I personally don't think the US should join the court.

Thinking back to the way the US 's Allies paided the US back by voting it off the Human Rights Committee, I see the same thing happening if the US joins this court. It will be abused. It will be a court to try and force the US to the views of Europe or any third world country with a bone to pick with the US.

@Fable or HighLordDave

I ask you two because you both seem to have a great understanding of events and such.

I was surfing the web and found this..

ICJ

However, a key that makes it non-threatening in most ways is that for it's juristiction to kick in, basically both states involved pretty much have to agree in advance to resolve the dispute there. Or at least that is how the jurisdiction section of their charter reads.

Therefore I think of it more as an aribitrator more than a court.

The quote is from someone who posted their opinion of it.. Is this a fair judgment of the ICJ?

Came across this thread when I checked my first few posts. (Due to the "first post" thread.

The answer to the question the thread first started with is pretty clear by now I'm afraid. Funny how reality always catches up with this sort of debates. Makes me wonder how all these Iraq debates will look like in a few months. Curiosity is one of the strongest arguments to continue living....

Boy is this a long thread, guess there are a lot of energy out there.

Anyway in response to the whole global warming thing, I think that people confuse the issue, yes the planet is warming, but what global warming does is essentially throw a monkey wrench into weather patterns, which means that there would be a blizzard where none has been before, just because there is a drought one day does not mean that global warming exists, but it is the increasingly chaotic nature of weather patterns which proves global warming at least from the point of experience based evidence rather then science. Other issue, yes human beings can not affect the planet as a whole, technically the planet will not be hurt by global warming, the point is that we as a species will be, likely making our hold on this planet very tenuous.

In response to genoicide, the US is responsible for atrocities itself not that they are any different from any other nation, but in the short time it has been in existence it has contributed to the genoicide of Indian populations, and creation of concentration camps for Japenese, I am not trying to start a flame war here just illustrating that the US is right in the mud with other nations.

As to missile defense, it too has problems because it creates a false sense of security(false I say because the system doesn't work), and thus means that the US would be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction on its enemies, which is why it is a bad idea. Now I don't mind missile defense, as long as the silly system works, but it doesn't work, and thus all it will do is make nuclear weapons more likely to be used. There are cheaper and more effective systems which could be used for missile defense and this is not ABM missile systems, but things like the ABL laser system which the Air Force is presently installing on a 747, but of course pork must prevail, so of course install a missile defense system that doesn't work but funnels all that lovely money into the various defense industries which fund your campaign.

Anyway to get back on topic, yes I think the relationship between Europe and the US is becoming estranged. In fact I think with this current war on Iraq and other future wars which will follow Bushy's unilaterlist approach, the relationship will likely become more adversarily, perhaps eventually leading to war eventually I say, say in twenty years or ten, or so. With the Bushest policy of using nuclear weapons, there will likely be nuclear wars which would follow, and chemical weapons and biological weapons until eventually the whole sorry human race will no longer be here, but anyway thats just what I think.

Follow my reasoning shall we as to why, lets see Bushy bombs Iraq, this releases a whole series of terrorist attacks on the US, which invites further wars on useful scapegoats such as Iran, this in turn leads to further terrorist attacks which leads to further wars(and incidently more of our rights are taken away in the interests of 'security'), due to the bushy willingness to use nuclear weapons, some of these wars will likely use tac nukes in them, eventually of course the US will start going after its allies as likely terrorist supporters, eventually the EU will be the target and perhaps Russia, which leads to nukes being used which leads to the extinction of the human species, damn this makes me depressed.

Yes, the relationship between Europe and the US is becoming needlessly estranged, especially with Bush's glaring lack of diplomacy and short-sightedness. I believe we'll be paying for this war for a very long time to come.