"I support the troops..." ???

I'm not really talking about this particular administration. It's more of a general thing. The balance of power has shifted, I think much of the world is concerned about their inability to contain us if we become necessary to contain. I do grant that this administration has increased those concerns.

I am much more comfortable with the US government than is most of the rest of the world. The US government, depite my frequent beef with it, purports to work to my benefit.

It does not make any such claim for the rest of the world's inhabitants and I do think their concerns have merit.

nimh - I am not glossing over the UN's authority over the US, I deny that it has any that we do not choose to grant it.

That fact does not make the US lawless or an unchecked power.

No US citizen can sue the federal government unless the federal government first agrees to be sued. Despite this, suits against the government do in fact make their way into the courts. Your argument seems to be that unless some external entity can FORCE our government to do X, our government is a de facto "unchecked power" with respect to X. You act as if self-control is a vice and only being forced to behave by external forces counts as a virtue. I am inclined to see it the other way around.

But I know I won't persuade you of this, since you clearly wish to see the US in the worst possible light.

tress,

The Federal Government is accountable to the citizenry. It is not accountable to the world's populace. Being a Democracy it can't afford affront to its citizens but can afford to go against the tide of world wide opinion.

If we put aside the subjective issue of "unchecked" and "lawless" (an ironic adjective, as the US is law-centric to a fault), can we agree on some relevance to the point you just helped to make? That the world's purported governing body has little recourse to "govern" superpowers who do not wish to abide their inconvenience?

And while that may not be, in and of itself, a negative, the remaining nations have some valid concerns about it?

Our actions affect them in a meaningful way, and they do not have much other than a consulting position to leverage in the wrestle to determine the outcome we will eventually determine.

Being on this side affords us a comfortable position in which we know that if we err, it will usually be with our benefit in mind rather than the converse. I don't think it's fair to assume that these criticisms are illogical and baseless. I think many want to see the US's good side. Because America can work wonders when it's on it's good side.

frolic..
The particular sense of V.I.C.T.O.R.Y will be your policy. Formidable.

Almost. My argument is that unless some external (or overarching) entity can RESTRAIN a government in doing X, Y or whatever it has set its mind on, that government in question is de factor an "unchecked power", in the arena of international politics. And that goes especially, of course, for a government that in military-economic-political power is supreme. (Germany would not be able to embark on a (near-)unilateral war because France would stop it, but this kind of 'traditional' balance of powers no longer pertains to the US).

Should the notion that a government would want to accept the authority of any overarching or external entity to limit its actions sound naive or unrealistic, it needs to be pointed out that of course practically any government in the world today already accepts such restraints. They are all party to international conventions, whether it is on the spread of nuclear technology or the upholding of the rights of POWs. A great many even accapted the authority of an International Criminal Court when it comes to persecuting crimes against humanity. The term "rogue states" doesnt come from nowhere - it refers to individual states who blatantly disregard what is generally accepted as a modern state's international obligations, that is: a state's 'submission' to the authority of international institutions.

I don't consider self-control a vice, of course, I consider it a virtue. I'd rather have Sharon than Hussein, rather Blair than Bush - I can see the differences. But a state's mere self-restraint, by very definition, offers no safeguard whatsoever yet to any other state or people in the world. It provides no 'guarantee for the future'.

To pick up on your analogy: in terms of national governance, mere self-restraint is the mercy of a king, who chooses to take a subject's interests into account, rather than the responsibility of a government, that respects the rights of its citizens. The latter implies the acceptance of authorities beyond itself, and can be called on through recourse to the courts, etc. The US government can not be called on for any havoc it is seen by people elsewhere in the world to be wrecking beyond its own borders, because it has shown to accept no authority beyond itself in the matter.

That is a dangerous breach with prior practice. Dangerous because if such people are angry enough, and they find they are powerless to infuence the measure of self-restrain the US government chooses to take through any of the international legal mechanisms, they might well choose other ways.

Yeah, heck - there's no need to worry about our government - they're self-restrained!

tres

You really ought to drop this 'in the worst light' chorus. It is a defensive posture which does pretty severe damage to your ability to differentiate. nimh and craven (and others) have offered up reasoned and valid concerns regarding present US international policies. They are by no means alone in this - this debate is raging within the State Department too (eg Ambassador Keisling), on editorial pages, and in the more sophisticated foreign policy journals.

There's a broad difference between stating that our government does act with restraint--which I have stated--and claiming that we need not worry about them--which I have not.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

Conscientious objector sees it as it is: Killing is wrong
Especially if you're not theatened at all. What the US government is doing will be judged as the most gangsterous foreign policy in history. America is already a leader in the world, it should join and help the world instead of creating and fighting enemies. This will boomerang, folks.

I agree Wolf.

that conscientious objector only objected after finding out that something may be required in return for the education bonus. if this individual felt this way for so long, since boot camp according to the article sited, then this individual should have stated those objections long ago. if the u.s. had remained in peacetime status for the duration of the enlistment period, would this individual have objected then. i think not.

the most gangsterous in history? how did you come to that conclusion?

i think that would be a rhetorical exaggeration, pueo ;-)

Calling the Bush administration "the most gangsterous in history" may indeed be an exaggeration.

I would prefer to think of it as:

The administration that may very well go down in history as most destructive of American ideals -- and perhaps the most incompetent in history.

Don't know that for sure yet -- but they certainly seem to be giving it their best efforts.

I do know this:

If the immediate previous administration had been a conservative Republican administration -- and left the country in the shape the immediate previous administration did -- and if this administration were a Democratic administration...

...we would be hearing rhetoric from these defenders of Bush and his handlers that would make what some of us are saying about this administration look mild and tame.

This administration is doing its level best to sell us out.

Their defenders are steadying the hand trying to slit our throats.

The previous administration left the military gutted, terrorists fearing nothing from the US and the economy sliding headlong into the current economic slump.

The current administration has begin rebuilding both our military readiness and our credibility as a nation you attack only at your peril and has taken steps to repair the economy (the success of which we could debate but only time will tell).

Now, I don't argue the point that Republicans will find fault with Democrats and vice versa no matter what the situation, but I thought it would add to the usefulness of your hypothetical to better define the facts to which you refer.

"facts" so many times are the ones selected by the user to support his agenda.

Yeah, that's why its important to get lots of facts yourself. The predigested ones may go down easy, but they really don't do you as much good as the ones you have to chew on a bit first.