4 ms·

The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a comp

The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. China and other countries are trying to compete with the US economically, and this agreement would provide a way to do that via unequal outrage. US haters are already doing it, condemning the US (even though it's been lowering emissions for a while now), and making excuses for China and other major polluters because they are "developing countries". Meanwhile China is largely immune to internal criticism, and basically faces no meaningful pressure externally (aside from Trump, for other reasons). This would have been bad for the US. Your views on this are emotional and overly simplistic. Grow up!

nine_zeros 6y ago
> The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.
- newfriend 6y ago
  > See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. Your anti-US hysteria is showing. > However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war Economic sanctions work just fine when you have an actual "rogue country" not playing nicely. A non-binding agreement and harsh words do nothing to a country that doesn't care what you say. > This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. FDR was terrible for this country, so doing the opposite is fine in my book. > Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history. You are extremely emotional about the US. It's obvious from your posts you are most likely a self-loathing American who's been fed propaganda about how supposedly evil your own country is. Sad!
  - nine_zeros 6y ago
    FDR was terrible? Wow. I was preaching to a cult. Sorry. Please go back to your fantasy.

nine_zeros 6y ago

> The problem with non-binding agreements is the same as unenforced laws -- those who are "good" people follow the rules, and those who are "bad" don't. In a competitive environment, those who have no qualms about breaking the law (agreement) are at an advantage. I agree with this. See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history.

newfriend 6y ago
> See: How rogue countries such as US just walked out of non-binding Paris accord. Your anti-US hysteria is showing. > However, there is no big daddy to enforce any agreement. Anyone trying to be a big daddy and force other countries to submission will only lead to another world war Economic sanctions work just fine when you have an actual "rogue country" not playing nicely. A non-binding agreement and harsh words do nothing to a country that doesn't care what you say. > This has played out before, right after WW1 where America and UK tried to subjugate Prussia to shame. It only led to simmering tensions and WW2. That is exactly the reason why after WW2, Roosevelt decided to lead the world with multipolar institutions, where many powers have a stake in the well being of the world. With big daddy diplomacy, there will be winners and losers and the next WW will not forgiving on mankind. FDR was terrible for this country, so doing the opposite is fine in my book. > Before accusing someone of simplicity and emotions, acknowledge that you may have gaps in your understanding of WHY we do non-binding agreements. Do your homework, learn some history. You are extremely emotional about the US. It's obvious from your posts you are most likely a self-loathing American who's been fed propaganda about how supposedly evil your own country is. Sad!
- nine_zeros 6y ago
  FDR was terrible? Wow. I was preaching to a cult. Sorry. Please go back to your fantasy.