Secondly the UN under the 6th committee came up with 3 different definitions of Terrorism. Each one was rejected by the US. Why? Ask them, because it seems they do not want a definition.
I love it. Cant live with U.S and can't live without it. Its not really a definition if they came up with 3 different ones. Next time provide links and facts to back your BS, otherwise it is just BS.
Since you are the self proclaimed subject matter expert in int'l law lets hear it from you, any specific definition you would want us to abide by when it comes to flying planes in perfectly standing structures and how to retaliate, should we send a bocquet of flowers to Mullah Omar and his prestigious Guest?
Lets ignore my gripes for now as you have no clue what i am talking about. Limited knowledge narrows the field for conversation. So lets stick to topics you can discuss at a grade school level.
Yeah Thats right. Let me turn it a bit low myself to the madrassah level. As it is apparrant. Are they still swinging while roting? or the chimp...err champs have evolved.
Now on to your gripes which one would you prefer? "Oh we violated international law, killed civilians and destoryed 1000s of livelihoods but we did it for the right reasons" gripe? Or the "we do not get enough credit for what we do right" gripe? or "why does everybody hate us" gripe?
No gripes just statements. And frankly mah Deah "I don't give a damn"
And people support the US devoid of any logical reasons. But its good to see 50% of the US population is not a bunch of red neck hicks or immigrants selling their soul for a visa.
I love frustration.
Now do you have anyting constructive to add or you are dis-agreeing just for the sake of it.
Err...you do know how the UN committees work right? Well if you did, you would know your comment is redundant. Secondly is it like your links? Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Each nation has its own defintion of terrorism. However the ICC has defined such terms and only if countries ratify the treaty do they become party to that definition and the legal provisions within treaty. Secondly you stated that terrorism is not cover by international law. It is. However the need to codify a defintion has not been seen until recently. You made two statements. One was factually incorrect. I pointed that out. Btw next time please do link proof.
Constructive? LMAO!! A quick question do i need to learn double speak before you consider my questions constructive?
"CM did you just write a paper on Cotton subsidies for your Int'l dev course at college?"
Of course, topic of the week. And if we need any further proof that Friedmans' thesis of Europeans embracing the hobby of anti-americanism, please see absolute proof in CMs posts. Point proven.
Mr. "I dine with diplomats" has always had all of the indisputable facts, resistance is futile. "Silver spoon boy" who has never created a job in his life, never had to meet a payroll, will be happy to tell you that the United States is the root of all evil.
Do me a favor, from the lofty heights of your ivory tower, please calculate how many lives the US has saved, how many millions of people US economic development has lifted from poverty, and how many people who are currently free from fascists, tyrants, communists and petty thieves because of the US. That would, ahem, include most of the Europes Elite, including third world boys educated in the west, sucking on some non-profit tit....
Well, its not the people living in America, who are what Mr Friedman is discussing, by and large.
Its the people in rest of the world. Unfortunately, the more Americans (in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc) they see, the worse it gets. For them, the Tsunami aid work is more an exception than the rule. If US thinks it needs more support from these people (a big ‘if’, I must say), it first needs to figure out what makes them tick. Blaming it all on the rulers (trying to convert dissidents to hate US) is a narrow (and IMV, mostly incorrect) view, and if this opinion is shared by policy-makers in the US, it is likely to lead them in the wrong direction.
When US has to constantly remind the world how good they are and their reporting almost reaches propoganda level, it means that something, somewhere is definitely wrong. Also Ohioguy your argument of China cannot be more off the mark. China is the world's largest consumer of steel and it is because of China that the world steel prices have tripled since the last 2-3 years. Steel factories around the world and in the US are booming because of that. Regarding agricultural subsidies, US, EU and Japan have doubled their agricultural subsidies from a decade ago to almost USD 300 Billion to save their agricultural sector, but it comes at the expense of farmers in poor countries. There is a raging war in the WTO regarding that. Regarding US being made the scapegoat, that is part of life, you did not complain when these same people put you on a pedestal, you should not complain now.
When the real atrocities were being commited in the early ninties in Bosnia, Srebenijza and other Bosnian cities were being overrun and thousands of Muslims were being ethnically cleansed by the Serbs who were amply supplied and armed by the Russians under the tacit approvals of the benevolent Western powers, the great defender of the poor and hapless, US was no where to be found.
The only time Americans and other Western powers decided to enter the fray was when thousands of Muslims were massacred and a full blown genocide had taken place and that too after Bosnians had started arming and defending themselves, in order to impose a cease fire so that the Bosnians cannot make any gains against the Serbs.
Kosovo on the other hand was more a wag the dog tail.....
Nah OG i am incharge of NAMA and Textiles. OG personal insults aside which your post is full of please counter the facts. You can comment on my life all you want. Question is can you disprove what i have said?
My point? To make it very simple, the US is not the moralistic entity the american population believes it to be. Rather the US govt follows national interest which is not at all moralistic. That of course is a gripe.
I am an Internationalist. Looking at the current situation, i abhor any nation violating international and norms dictated by society. Be it Saudi or the US. Be it Pakistan or Israel. You attack another nation you are in violation of Chapter VII of the UN charter. You commit genocide you give up your right to life and being called a human being ie Sudan. Any article of any Geneva Convention if violated is wrong and the nation must be dealt with. Be it the US or Pakistan.
You are not "incharge" of anything. You write reports, which make outstanding kindling for a fireplace.
US steel suffered huge bankrupcy as nearly every country in Asia subsidized its seel industry, with cheap or free capital, and cheap labor. Over the last two years US steel should have been doing remarkably well, but the Chinese keep their currency artificailly pegged to the dollar. Additionally steel prices are up, but raw material cost is up even more. Of course all of the equity capital in the US Steel industry has already been written off, and further investment is limited because of highly subsidized steel being produced virtually everywhere.
Now Mr Internationalist. Perhaps you should learn to deal with the NET effect of US trade policy. Over the past 50 years NO COUNTRY has advocated for more free trade than the US. The people of Taiwan, Mexico, and Japan have all had huge leaps in their standards of living due to the miracle of the engine of the US economy. You cannot buy a clothing garment in the US that is made here anymore. Pakistan, Tailand, Indonesia, or 30 other countries now have jobs that in years past were filled by Americans. Outsourced jobs to India and China employ millions, despite the fact that American software and other Intellectual Property is regularly violated everywhere in the third world.
So picking out one area of agriculture or cotton may seem to be the "Internationalist" view, but it is distinctly tunnel vision, that is highly motivated by anti-US prejudice. Doing some ivory tower calculation of how many Africans are killed by US trade policy sort of overlooks the fact that AIDS has so ravished Africa that there are not enough able bodied adults to even feed the population anymore. Never mind that it is the only area in the world still experiencing epidemic levels of Malaria. So who has by far provided more funds for AIDS and health care to Africa? Go on and guess book boy. Add back those bodies please before you go off on your next anti-US rant.
1948 US pulls out of establishing ITU. 1989 US ignores Agriculture in Uruguay round. The Tokyo and other rounds are actually unimportant.
As for steel, the Pakistan steel industry is just one of many that has actually increased productivity as well as generated profits due to the increase in world price levels. South Africa and Brazil are two other nations. If these countris can generate profits without subsidizing their industries as much as the US does how can the US industries not make a profit?
Advocating is one thing, actually implementing action is another. Even though the US advocates free trade, it subsidies its industries the most in the world. the EU CAP is the only thing that leads the US when it comes to subsidies. The US subsidizes industrices in real numbers which rival third world country budgets.
Actually the textiles issue is not that cut and clear. Though more jobs have been created the US keeps rates extremely high on textile products from countries with more competitive textile industries.
AIDS is an excellent example. It is called the Essential medicines issue at the WTO. In December 2002 the WTO and all its members had finally come up with a document which would allow generic durgs to be manufactured to save human lives. The US did not sign. Rather it said it would not even look at it. As the WTO works on reverse consensus, the document was never adopted. The US helps Africa a great deal by making sure cheap drugs for HIV/AIDS are not available. But instead allow US companies to charge inflated prices to dying africans.