5 ms·

The US is theoretically based on a checks and balances system, in the hopes of preventing unchecked tyranny. On the global scale, more countries need to say "n

The US is theoretically based on a checks and balances system, in the hopes of preventing unchecked tyranny. On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted. The complaints are about how restriction will impact "global trade" of particular pesticides. The EU's entire point is that these items should not be traded. That statement holds regardless of the economic impact.

roflchoppa 11y ago
Yeah thats how its supposed to be designed, but you know what if money was just transferred to everyone that worked in the system? Does that allow it to be balanced, or bought through the highest bidder. Do countries that say 'No' get rolled over through economic warfare? shit man this is depressing.
jnet 11y ago
"On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted" I am very skeptical that any of the founding fathers would have wanted European countries restricting US trade. With that said, I agree that the Europeans should make a stand and not accept what they consider dangerous pesticides to be imported into the EU
- themeek 11y ago
  They were pretty clear that they didn't want European countries saying saying either 'yes' or saying 'no'. Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all. It's probably the case that the founding fathers would have different opinions were they born today. Today you can travel around the world several times than you could travel across the (extremely small) country then. Things are different.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    > Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all. Erm... Monroe Doctrine anyone? How about War of 1812? US Leaders visiting France for support in the Revolution? Seriously, what's with everyone not understanding basic history around here... I do recognize this is a tech forum, but its exceedingly easy to come up with counter-examples to so many historical statements...
    - themeek 11y ago
      Hey now. I said political involvement (other countries saying 'yes' or 'no'). Certainly the US has always engaged in trade and self defense. You've argued a straw man. Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You are the one who has mischaracterized basic history. "She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragontamer 11y ago
        > Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of 1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and the Central America island countries as well. In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes. Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus on foreign affairs. Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt during the Civil War. Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer all the land from east coast to west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s. US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling United States. The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And that was _anything_ but isolationist. -------------- Here's another major counterexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807 And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.

roflchoppa 11y ago

Yeah thats how its supposed to be designed, but you know what if money was just transferred to everyone that worked in the system? Does that allow it to be balanced, or bought through the highest bidder. Do countries that say 'No' get rolled over through economic warfare? shit man this is depressing.

jnet 11y ago

"On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted" I am very skeptical that any of the founding fathers would have wanted European countries restricting US trade. With that said, I agree that the Europeans should make a stand and not accept what they consider dangerous pesticides to be imported into the EU

themeek 11y ago
They were pretty clear that they didn't want European countries saying saying either 'yes' or saying 'no'. Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all. It's probably the case that the founding fathers would have different opinions were they born today. Today you can travel around the world several times than you could travel across the (extremely small) country then. Things are different.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  > Up until very early 1900 it was the US's lifeblood to not involve itself politically with Europe (or the rest of the world) at all. Erm... Monroe Doctrine anyone? How about War of 1812? US Leaders visiting France for support in the Revolution? Seriously, what's with everyone not understanding basic history around here... I do recognize this is a tech forum, but its exceedingly easy to come up with counter-examples to so many historical statements...
  - themeek 11y ago
    Hey now. I said political involvement (other countries saying 'yes' or 'no'). Certainly the US has always engaged in trade and self defense. You've argued a straw man. Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. You are the one who has mischaracterized basic history. "She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example."
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragontamer 11y ago
      > Basic history of the United States is that it was, broadly, a non-interventionist nation that refused to get involved in other nations wars. I do think the Native Americans would beg to differ. (Indian Removal Act of 1830). Furthermore, the American explicit foreign policy was "Stay out of America so that we can colonize it better". That included South America and the Central America island countries as well. In 1878 for example, we sailed our Navy to Samosa and threatened war with Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Convention The current topic is about a trade dispute regarding the purchase of American Pesticides in Europe. America always had foreign policy and trade disputes. Now, I agree that during the 1850s, US Foreign Relations more or less stood still. There was something called the Civil War, and we kind of didn't focus on foreign affairs. Pretending that we were always an isolationist nation is an error! Our rise as a world power (and global politics) began almost immediately after we rebuilt during the Civil War. Before the Civil War, America wasn't exactly powerful enough to push other nations around in global politics. But we definitely pushed the Native Americans around and expanded with Manifest Destiny, and utilized the Monroe Doctrine to keep other European Countries from settling the region. To claim the Monroe doctrine as a "isolationist" strategy misses the point of Manifest Destiny... American Ambitions to conquer all the land from east coast to west coast is evident even as early as the 1830s. US-Mexico War, as well as other "threatened wars" (54/40 or fight), various boarder disputes with Canada.... all show the ambitions of the fledgling United States. The concept of "Manifest Destiny" drove our foreign politics at the time. And that was _anything_ but isolationist. -------------- Here's another major counterexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807 And all of the other (most certainly NOT isolationist) events that pissed of Britain enough that it led to the war of 1812.