Should America's actions pass "the global test"?

I agree that would be a misunderstanding, which is why I haven't implied any such thing. And neither has John Kerry implied that the US needs permission to act as a souvereign nation.

Seen a lot of that nonsense in the last few days threads. I have no idea what the conservatives are talking about.

Thanks for the correction! Out of curiosity, of what was he president then? He's signed the Declaration as president, so I guess he must have been president of something.

He was the third president of the Continental congress.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks, Cycloptichorn!

"Should America's actions pass "the global test"?" seems to be the question. I suppose it implies that other nations are passing some global test on their own actions, whether it be to the detriment of their own interests, or not. Do they really?

Sure they do.

If a nation committs actions which do not pass the global test, they are judged by other nations based upon the severity of their gaffes.

We are a major judge of other countries but not the only one by far.

Cycloptichorn

We judge other countries, from our perspective, as they do us. I still don't see the issue, but thanks for the quick answer.

Ah, I see where you are going.

Yeah, I think that other countries do look at the 'global test.' Part of the reason for this is because many other countries have a lot more to lose from a trade and commerce standpoint if they go around pissing people off.

The US is so important to the global economy that it seems rather unlikely that we would be cut out of the loop unless we really go off the deep end on our foreign policies. Nevertheless, world opinion does matter to the US and should be considered carefully in any instance of creation of foreign policy.

A good example (and one the Neocons like to mistakenly hail as a 'victory' for themselves) is Libya. Libya's WMD programmes were a failed mess, they were hemmoraghing money left and right. So what do they do? Make themselves look good internationally, and save tons of money at the same time, by formally announcing that they are giving the programmes up.

It's a win-win for them; they weren't ever going to get any real WMD out of it anyways, so why not tip opinion in your favor some? A good example of how world opinion, and caring about world opinion, can lead to a safer and more responsible world overall.

Cycloptichorn

Then, one way or another, they are following their own perception of enlightened self interest, then. It makes sense that they do.

The same goes for the US. It is in our own enlightened self-interest to care about world opinion.

True, we have more slack than other nations due to our immense economic and military might, but I don't for a second think that we wouldn't take a serious hurting if enough of the world decided that we were out of line.

Cycloptichorn

Re: Should America's actions pass "the global test&quot


"The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland", or "the UK" are both accurate. "England" is not.

Those who are against Thomas' question seem to base their arguements on "America is so big that we can do whatever we want". How is this right?

Re: Should America's actions pass "the global test&quot


Neither, I think :wink:

George III was King of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke and Elector of Hanover, Duke of Edinburgh, Viscount of Launceston and Baron of Snowdon.

Since the American colonies were Royl Colonies (I might be wrong!), it was a rebellion against ... well, their ruler. :wink:
(Or: their rulers: the Royal Privy Council, the Board of Trade, the King)

But you are completely correct: never England.

Well, we here in America mostly will always think of it as England and I dont see the big deal.

But all in all I agree with you guys about the US and the world.

I am a little hopeful, now the polls are a dead heat again. I was a little afraid that the global remarks and the allies remark would be spinned to where Bush would have still have been in the lead or better. Although they tried, it didn't work. Hope is alive again, at least for today.

Ah, thanks Walter. I was thinking he was refering to the UK of modern times, rather than the one who the US rebelled from. Thanks for clearing that us for us (and him). :wink:

Revel - I'll send some big burly Scotsmen, Welshmen and Northern Irishmen round to explain why the difference is important! :wink:

this is the text of what kerry said regarding "global test". context...

"No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."


But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

--------------
plus, global has more than one meaning;

Webster's 1913 Dictionary


glob´al - adj.
1.
involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope; as, global war; global monetary policy.

2.
shaped like a globe; spherical.

3.
broad in scope or content; comprehensive. Opposite of noncomprehensive.

4.
(Computers) Accessible and effective throughout an entire computer program, rather than in only one subroutine; - used of variables; as, global variable. Opposite of local.[/B]

So he was using "global" and "world" to mean the US? That's fair enough, just a bit confusing for the rest of the "actual" world (as opposed to just the "American" world). Not that I care, as I'd rather Kerry win than Bush.

I think he meant it in both usages of the term. It is important that our countrymen and others understand why we are doing what we are doing.

Cycloptichorn