Has America started a war on trade?

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
The United States does not need the help of the European Union or the United Nations to take out terroism.

This clearly shows a lack of in depth understanding of terrorism and how to fight it!!. Afghanistan is not the end boys. The Al Qaeda will simply move out of Afghanistan and make terrorist cells everywhere else and reactivate their sleeper cells in Europe.

I'll illustrate this with an example. Assuming that in almost all major cities of Europe, the Al Qaeda has managed to infiltrate anywhere between 20-30 terrorists posing as students, guest workers, etc. (which is a reasonably accurate number going by arrests made). Now the EU has the total lowdown on these guys but does not know what to do with it as these guys seem harmless and are not wanted in Europe. But, somewhere in the caves of Tora Bora, a Marine stumbles across a list of sleepers in Europe and hands it over to the CIA. This list is then given to the EU with the request that they be arrested and interrogated. Now, if the US had arrogantly said, we dont want the Eu help, these guys would be free to do what they want and do another 9/11.

The UN is needed, because there could be hundreds of other cells all over the world and the Us definitely needs these countries' support to eradicate them. Forget about unilateralism, it is only for Rambo.:ripper: :rocket:
:rocket2: :rocket3:

 

[MrPresident]

I support the 'war on trade', insofar as I welcome protective tariffs for American industry.

The protective tariff is not for American industry. It is for American steel industry. You may think this doesn't make a difference but it does. The protective tariff rises the price of steel, this affects many American industries and especially the car industry. Your home won't improve from protective tariff, this has been proven over and over again. The world benefits from free trade, the entire world. I respect that you want what is best for your country, but higher steel prices are not the way to achieve this.

The United States does not need the help of the European Union or the United Nations to take out terroism.

I think you will find that most, if not all, the terrorist involved in 11/9 came through Britain. Now, whether or not you want our help, I think you need it. America may be a superpower but it has its limits.

 

[knowltok2]

Oh for crying out loud! You guys are entertaining.

The US realizes it needs help in combating terrorism and in confront all the other threats that the world can pose. We are involved in countless treaties, pacts, organizations, agreements, and alliances; and the a few internet posts do not change that. Whenever possible the US actively tries to get international support for its actions, and likely will have some support if it chooses to move against Iraq. Any such move will take into account the thoughts and opinions of our European allies and the rest of our global partners.

This doesn't mean that we will necessarily be bound by those opinions any more than any other nation is bound by extra national opinion. Many European nations may think it is a bad idea to try and remove Saddam. Even if America does try to remove him, it does not mean that it is ignoring the various opinions of the globe. It means that the government has considered the opinions of all sides and has chosen a course of action.

To the Americans: We cannot, and do not ignore foriegn opinion, and we cannot secure all of our goals alone.

To the Europeans: Just because we do something that you disagree with, doesn't mean that we are thumbing our nose at you. There is room for honest disagreement.

To all: These issues are horribly complex and involves so many other issues as to be mind-boggling. To cast these issues in playground simplicity is to be extremely near-sighted.

 

[MrPresident]

We are involved in countless treaties, pacts, organizations, agreements, and alliances;

Wasn't America bound by the anti-ballistic missile treaty?

a few internet posts do not change that.

A don't think a few internet posts have changed anything, ever. But people still write them, why? because people want a say even if it won't change a thing. A democracy is based on the principle of debate and thing the internet is the same. For the people who can't agree to disagree there are internet forums.

To cast these issues in playground simplicity

I am not sure which post you are referring too but I think "playground simplicity" can be very useful at times. And these issues are not that complex. I think the majority of people on this forum can make a reasonable opinion and argue for it in a rational way. When trying to look at a wide picture it is useful not to look in great detail at one particular point.

It means that the government has considered the opinions of all sides and has chosen a course of action.

I admire your faith in your government. I personally also think that a government takes all the available information and makes what it considers the right decision. However others might argue that they do not. Many would argue that a government is ruled by a small group of people with self-interests at the heart of their decisions. I like to leave these kind of ideas to the more untrusting members of the public.

Just because we do something that you disagree with, doesn't mean that we are thumbing our nose at you. There is room for honest disagreement.

I was going to write about what you said to the Americans but I think I will leave that for someone more qualified (i.e. an American). Europeans realise that America disagrees with us on a lot of issues. However we object to the view of many Americans that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Also if you consistently disagree with us then how can we not take it as you are "thumbing your nose at us" (I must say I haven't heard that one before), we are after all only human.

 

[knowltok2]

Glad to have given you a new "Americanism"

I am not sure which post you are referring too but I think "playground simplicity" can be very useful at times. And these issues are not that complex. I think the majority of people on this forum can make a reasonable opinion and argue for it in a rational way. When trying to look at a wide picture it is useful not to look in great detail at one particular point.

Trying to look at a wide picture seems to be what a lot of people are not doing. I've been trying to point that out throughout this entire thread. Everyone is focused on the steel tariff as if it defines international trade relations. It is one small facet of an interconnected web of agreements, treaties, and retalitory actions. Never once have I said it was a good thing though, only that it needs to be looked at in context.

I admire your faith in your government. I personally also think that a government takes all the available information and makes what it considers the right decision. However others might argue that they do not. Many would argue that a government is ruled by a small group of people with self-interests at the heart of their decisions. I like to leave these kind of ideas to the more untrusting members of the public.

I am glad that we share a basic faith in government not to be currupt and self serving all the time. I hope you aren't being sarcastic. To the others you refer to, I would ask how they know that their own governments aren;t making the 'wrong' choices based upon self-serving interests.

However we object to the view of many Americans that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. Also if you consistently disagree with us then how can we not take it as you are "thumbing your nose at us" (I must say I haven't heard that one before), we are after all only human.

I object to that view as well. Keep in mind that that view is not shared by all Americans (yes, I see that you said many, not all). Once again though I would make the context arguement. We agree on so many things and share so many of the same beliefs. I think this is often overlooked on both sides. We both believe in democracy, the rights of man, the rights of women, the rule of law, a respect for other beliefs and cultures, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. These are fundamental beliefs that we share that transend a tarriff here, or a dispute about the best way to end suffering there. There are differences, and you can point out several, but fundamentally, we share an overwelming amount of similarities as opposed to our differences.

(I kind of feel like Brian: "Brothers! We should be fighting together!"
Brother: "We are!"

 

[MrPresident]

I am glad that we share a basic faith in government not to be currupt and self serving all the time. I hope you aren't being sarcastic. To the others you refer to, I would ask how they know that their own governments aren;t making the 'wrong' choices based upon self-serving interests.

I wasn't being sarcastic, I do have a basic faith in government. That was the point I was making about self-serving interests and making the wrong choices. You said that the steel tariff doesn't define international trade relations and you absolutely right. However I think you can understand the reaction that such a tariff got. In a world where free trade is becoming more and more universal on more and more products such a world is not only a step backwards but a giant leap. How can America demand that a country lower a tariff so that their competive industries can sell their products in that market? America, despite being the most powerful nation on this world, now has seriously reduced its power to negoiate trade agreements. This is the biggest problem of the whole situation, at least in my opinion.

Also I discovered some facts about the steel tariff which make interesting reading. The tariff, at its present strength, is estimated to save 1,500 American steel workers' jobs. However the total cost of this works out to be $450,000 each worker. For every steel workers' job saved it is estimated that 50 other American workers will lose their jobs. These figures just reinforce the fact that this decision was purely political and not enough close to the edge of economics. Whether the decision was right or wrong probably depends on where you work, what job you do and if you are a Republican.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Also I discovered some facts about the steel tariff which make interesting reading. The tariff, at its present strength, is estimated to save 1,500 American steel workers' jobs. However the total cost of this works out to be $450,000 each worker. For every steel workers' job saved it is estimated that 50 other American workers will lose their jobs. These figures just reinforce the fact that this decision was purely political and not enough close to the edge of economics. Whether the decision was right or wrong probably depends on where you work, what job you do and if you are a Republican.

Being the skeptic I am, I am guessing that these figures didn't come from the White House.

Personally I am not in favor of the tarriff on general principles. I am a Repuplican (though more of an independant really) so I'm not sure if that part holds true. While I am not in favor of the tarriff, I am not prepared to jump to the conclusion that it is a giant leap backwards, or that it destroys US credibility in trade negotiations. It certainly doesn't help them, but there are too many different tarriffs, quotas, and subsidies in place and being implemented every day around the world for this one to have that huge of an impact. Unless...the media seizes upon it and uses it in an inflamitory nature to sell advertising. I don't know exactly how the press works in Europe (Though apparently they chase famous people in packs with motercycles) but in the US, our press is not above pulling that kind of trick. Certainly none of the articles I have seen have put this move in any form of broader context.

 

[MrPresident]

President Bush and his adminstration sure knows how to use irony. Here is sometime I read in the news,

Suggesting that Mugabe lost the election to opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai, Powell said the outcome did not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people.

Unless I'm mistaken one Mr Bush overall got lost votes than one Mr Gore, not that I'm suggesting that the outcome did not reflect the will of the American people.

I don't know exactly how the press works in Europe

I am not sure about the rest of Europe but the British media truly deserves its reputation as the worst media in the world. Recently they got a court order overturned that stops them printing the name of a Premiership (the top division)footballer who was cheating on their wife. I am not saying what this guy did was right but surely he deserves some privacy.

in the US, our press is not above pulling that kind of trick.

You mean they are saying that the tariff is a good idea, everyone else is doing it and America needs to protect itself from cheaper foreign imports? What a surprise!

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
President Bush and his adminstration sure knows how to use irony. Here is sometime I read in the news, Unless I'm mistaken one Mr Bush overall got lost votes than one Mr Gore, not that I'm suggesting that the outcome did not reflect the will of the American people.

You mean they are saying that the tariff is a good idea, everyone else is doing it and America needs to protect itself from cheaper foreign imports? What a surprise!

1. It kind of surpised me when I heard that too. I would have thought thtat the words would have been chosen with more care. There is a difference between the two though.

2. I was talking in more general terms. I personally haven't read anything that has taken the position that you have indicated. I don't doubt that it is out there, just like American articles are out there blasting the President. I meant that the US media is not above using a little sensationalism and or scare tactics to sell advertising. In much the same way that the ocean is not above the sky.

 

[MrPresident]

Lets just agree to say that if Europe had raised steel tariffs on American goods then the reaction in America and the American media would be much the same as it is in Europe. This reaction is entirely justified. However we must remember that tariffs are not the only barrier to trade but are by far the most public. So in conclusion, each side is as bad as each other. I think that pretty much sums up every post on this topic.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Lets just agree to say that if Europe had raised steel tariffs on American goods then the reaction in America and the American media would be much the same as it is in Europe. This reaction is entirely justified. However we must remember that tariffs are not the only barrier to trade but are by far the most public. So in conclusion, each side is as bad as each other. I think that pretty much sums up every post on this topic.

I can agree with all of that except the justified part. The reaction is understandable and predictable, but much of the reaction I have seen in this thread does not take any broader context into consideration. The reaction is way overblown for what actually happened. I will agree completely that the same would happen in the reverse if this was a European Tarriff, but either way, the reaction is an overreaction, and in my book, not justified.

Can America do anymore to offend its allies especially with the upcoming confrontation with Iraq, I wonder whether it can still rely of British support. Has America really become an arrogrant superpower out to exploit its position and if so can it get away with it?

So maybe we will reconsider our position in this increasingly one-sided alliance.

These quotes were from early on, but to me, they were an overreaction, and not justified. Understandable, I'll grant you.

 

[MrPresident]

From what I understand and see, America pretty much assumes that Britain will join it in the war of Iraq. This may be just the adminstration but I think it is true of the American public at large. However I don't think those Americans know of the extent of opposition to Britain joining the war of Iraq. There is a fundamental anti-America (I am not talking hate but probably more resentment/jealousy) of America in Europe and to a lesser extent Britain. What was not needed at this time was an example of America thinking about itself and not the world. Sure it will probably have no bearing on Britain joining the war. However there is the chance that it might and I don't think that America wants to enter a war alone. Not that they wouldn't be confident of winning but it would hardly help their image of being an imperial power especially in Arab states.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident
From what I understand and see, America pretty much assumes that Britain will join it in the war of Iraq. This may be just the adminstration but I think it is true of the American public at large. However I don't think those Americans know of the extent of opposition to Britain joining the war of Iraq. There is a fundamental anti-America (I am not talking hate but probably more resentment/jealousy) of America in Europe and to a lesser extent Britain. What was not needed at this time was an example of America thinking about itself and not the world. Sure it will probably have no bearing on Britain joining the war. However there is the chance that it might and I don't think that America wants to enter a war alone. Not that they wouldn't be confident of winning but it would hardly help their image of being an imperial power especially in Arab states.

From what it looks like here, nothing the US does is going to help its image in the Arab states. Every single nation in the world outside the middle east could send military help to a coalition to remove Saddam, and the arab world is still going to hate the US in specific, and the West in general.

We're pretty close to agreement in general, and about as close as we are likely to get. I have enjoyed this discussion immensely, and hope you have as well. However, this has turned into the MrPresident & Knowltok show, so perhaps we ought to move on to other topics.

 

[MrPresident]

this has turned into the MrPresident & Knowltok show, so perhaps we ought to move on to other topics.

I would have called it the MrPresident show featuring Knowltok, but agreed. Also has a parting thought, America could improve its image in the Middle East by supporting an independent state of Palestine.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I would have called it the MrPresident show featuring Knowltok, but agreed. Also has a parting thought, America could improve its image in the Middle East by supporting an independent state of Palestine.

I thought I was being gracious in giving you first billing. Obvious proof of an 'arrogant' European !

As for your parting shot, I don't think even full support, and a complete withdraw from Israeli support would make the arab world happy. If you want to continue this part of the discussion, lets just jump into that shark tank thread about the UN.

 

[MrPresident]

an 'arrogant' European

How can this thread die with comments like that. It is completely untrue and an attack on me. How dare you besmerk my character in public like that. I am English.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by MrPresident

How can this thread die with comments like that. It is completely untrue and an attack on me. How dare you besmerk my character in public like that. I am English.

Better be careful, your neighbors across the Channel and the North Sea may well string you up for 'Nationalism Unbecoming of an EU Member'

I am English.

Why do you think I talk with this outrageous accent, you silly French kinigits? Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time.