There are more Western nations that just the US and Europe in the world...but I love your "patriotic" arrogance...when you start talking about harm citizens to protect others, it starts to come back to the "who is worth protecting". The government is elected to act for the people, not work to protect/benefit a certain group.

I was under the impression that Chechnya was an independant state ruled under an imperial empire (USSR). You talk about being anti-cosmopolitanism yet you support imperial brutality in order to protect the "motherland"? There is a reason for Europe's uptake of "cosmopolitanism" and that stems from its many centuries of colonising large sections of the world (and interacting with these civilisations).

"The strong claims of human rights have no empirical basis. To believe them makes you a religious fanatic, and an idealist."

Don't know how human rights and religion go together...and frankly if we are going to get down to it, your anti-cosmopolitan attitudes are just as fanatic.

You understanding of human rights is actually laughable, and the US's commitment to any form of human rights is appauling. The US will continue to use brute force and arrogance to make itself feel/look like the ideal model for the rest of the world, yet it is currently has its own problems (political, economic, social) and yet you still pander to the rest of the world on how to act...Human Rights are not a legally abiding agreement, but more guidelines in order to strive towards rights for citizens. It is a non-invasive way of trying to encourage freedom whilst allowing flexibility for political structure that a certain state wishes to adopt.

The arrest for George Bush was for water boarding non american citizens (seriously, you support brutality against whoever you wish so long as you feel that it's in your nations interests?). The US have also felt it necessary to hunt down, trial and kill others that they convict of BREAKING human rights (ie. the execution of Saddam Hussein) and you then don't wish to uphold these ideals at home. The "lets tell the world how to act" whilst ignoring similar human rights at home as "not anyone elses business" is straight out arrogance.

Your strong anti-cosmopolitan ways irritate me, and maybe you should actually act on your opinions and adopt a more isolated stance and shut yourself off to the world (you are currently playing a game that is based in the UK if I am not mistaken...could be wrong). No internet, no foreign trade, your country can try and produce all of its own products and end up like Cuba did...

> Einstein wrote:

> Lol Worstrum... Justininian is unique amongst Americans. His views would be the 0.0001% here....

Fair call...I won't judge other americans by his standard

"1. I am not defending the 2004 treaty. It's one of the reasons why I believe Bush was a crackpot of a president. We should have upheld to our side of the original treaty."

Uhhhhhhh...huh? The US has always had a stance on protecting its argiculture market, which was the only thing the Australian negotiators wanted (as argiculture is Australia's second largest export). The negotiators pushed for inclusion of the argiculture market, but was never agreed upon, and the plan was pushed to be scraped but overturned by George Bush's chummy good friend John Howard...At this stage, George bush was moving away from multi-lateral trade agreements and towards bilateral trade agreements which favour the larger economy (which is what you point out in your 2nd point, the powerful will do what they want, and to be honest anyone standing on the other side of the playing field WON'T like it).

"Say what you want about Cosmopolitanism, but the great powers do what they want"

And I never once disputed that. International politics are still dominated by realist ideals, but integration ALREADY EXISTS in the form of trade, relations. I did not once suggest a world government, but point out that cooperation and integration already exist and works towards benefiting more people.

"3. Human rights are enforced when Western powers feel like enforcing them, lol. Hence why the "legal authority" of the UN is a joke."

Sigh, The UN was never designed to act as a legal entity, nor as a world government. I do agree that an overhaul of the system is needed, but if the UN was to disappear, an alternative would replace it (whether you like it or not!). Seriously, research Human Rights treaties and how they are put into place in the real world, I just don't think you understand how they work. Also don't be confused between Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Treaties because they are both different. Human Rights violators can not be brought to justice in a court, and it is only through peer pressure of other states that Human Rights treaties can be enforced (ie. trade sanctions, such as North Korea, Iran, etc).

"4. Of course, we stand on top of the mountain. Someone has to be on top. If not us, someone else. We would be stupid to give up our power, because then someone else would take it. It is a matter of life and death that we maintain our position. This is realism. And of course I am looking down on others for being fanatics. They think they will enter a utopia if they jump off the mountain. EEEKS!"

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the realist ideology, but being at the top looking down on everyone and only looking out for yourself makes the US just as bad as anyone else that would have military dominance. You dislike the idea of someone else in power, but you commit the same actions that you fear. Noone would expect a utopia from jumping off the mountain, it is more the dislike of being dictated to from a state that considers itself superior in every way.

"5. I was strong in my language with telling Europe to "F off." I should have clarified I meant a strictly nasty verbal exchange, and that we limit military cooperation. For example, no more interference in Bosnia or Libya-like affairs. It's their problem."

I thought France and the UK made up most of the fighting force against Libya, and the US involvement was more of a token force at the start of the conflict (could be mistaken, I haven't had the most reliable source of news lately...would like to look at this when more information is available though ). The US's involvement in most, if not all, would be in the US's own interest (under realist ideology), so you can't say that Europe can deal with its own problems, because if the US felt no ramifications from it, it would NOT intervene.

> Einstein wrote:

> Lol Worstrum... Justininian is unique amongst Americans. His views would be the 0.0001% here....

Unfortunately Flint's views are a little more widespread... /sigh    Hence the general perception of the USA

Seems to me the USA cleaned central Europes clock about 70 years ago, the babied them back to productivity.  Your child reference means nothing since that big event.

> Fenix wrote:

> LOL

what would seperating from the west entail?  OP was garbage to begin with.>

What's garbage is human rights groups trying to arrest George Bush.

The US is Europes' pitbull. Nasty in its appearence, ready to bark and bite. If there is nothing to bark at or bite in, the US is only of use by selling dog food to them.

I know I'm the only one in this forum to advocate a US-EU Union but it makes sense. In Justinian neo-colonial scenarios it makes even more sense, altough I strongly disagree that would be any good.

If EU and US would form an alliance, they can do with their currency whatever they like and f*ck the yuan. China would be forced to become democratic and maybe become an ally instead of an enemy. Their military and economic power would be so overwhelming, we don't have to face another dark age. It would be far easier to combat corruption, drugs, international criminals etc etc. Cost on many things like (military) research would go down hugely.

Economic sanctions imposed on any nation like  Syria would be sufficient to bring them to their knees and become democratic. Dangerous powers like Russia would less influential. etc etc.

I see it as an ultimate step in a very long process where both blocks grow closer together over many decades, not as an instantaneous moment next month.

All those countries wouldn't have had the problems they have now in a serious union (with the points you said, and I would take it even further).  With proper instructions imposed on those countries they are forced to have a healthy budget. We could do all that and it would be a good thing. Nations who don't want it can step out and live in misery.

No it won't happen I know. Stupid western Nations like to bully each other. Good for Russia and China or any of the advocators of totalitarian regimes all over the world.

All people should be accountable, especially politicians.

No law, but yes Treaties.

You can pull out of a treaty, but enforcing it with 'legal means' is a step I will not ever advocate.