Forums | MacLife

you can't beat a tall cliff for economies of scale.

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

radarman wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Why sign treaties, then enter them into US law, if obeying them is optional? I fail to see the point.

Better question - why are we signing these treaties? What did we get out of it, besides a warm fuzzy feeling?

it's not a better question at all. one reason is that you expect every other signing country to abide by the agreement. it's only integrity that prevents countries like the u.s. from signing, then ignoring the agreement.

Any treaty signed should offer the US some benefit, or else it is a worthless treaty. Our government is supposed to look out for OUR interests first, and if they have any extra time, perhaps others interests.

Any treaty that puts our interests below another nations interests is a bad treaty, and should not be signed.

Also, all treaties should have a time frame. Circumstances change, and so should our alliances.

radarman wrote:

Any treaty signed should offer the US some benefit, or else it is a worthless treaty. Our government is supposed to look out for OUR interests first, and if they have any extra time, perhaps others interests.

Any treaty that puts our interests below another nations interests is a bad treaty, and should not be signed.

So, has that ever happened, or more to the point, has that happened in this case? Supposedly, the treaty was already vetted before we signed it. Heck, ol "throw the treaties under the bus" Bush has backed it.

What we have here is a State bucking the feds and the feds are letting them. Maybe that's why Bush was willing to back the treaty because he knew that would be the outcome.

Last edited by user (2008-07-21 12:38 pm)