So how much are YOU willing to give up

United States
May 24, 2010 4:02pm CST
President Obama spoke this weekend of wanting a "new international order". They that some people wondering what we would have to give up for more international co-operation. So how much world dominance would you give up for more "international co-operation? How much sovereignty? He also spoke of wanting stronger international standards and institutions ( I bet the UN just loved that one) to solve world issues. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/24/obama-international-order-raises-questions-sovereignty/ So how much would you willing to give up for more international co-operation?
1 person likes this
9 responses
• United States
25 May 10
I'm an independent who leans toward republican views, and I think: In a world where free trade and fast travel and near instant communication are as available as they are now, With out economies being so closely tied together, We need to have SOME say in each other's laws. One law passed in one country that allows grain to be produced at a cheaper cost there, could badly effect another country where people (businesses after a profit.) choose to import that grain instead of producing it themselves. If one economy falls, others fall. Like if the American economy went into a full depression, China probably would too. With China would probably go several European countries, Russia, and Australia. With those, goes Brazil, and most south american and African countries. When we are so connected, it is important that laws in one country do not unfairly step on the lively hoods of another group of people. You ask what I would be willing to give up? The GDP as a measurement tool for how well our economy is operating. And the Stock market. I would also give up on a gradual basis the Farmer subsidiary programs, accepting that my food will cost a bit more, but then food would travel less, and we wouldn't have to spend so much on oil. And I would give up this facade, this illusion Americans seem to have as to what a decent standard of living is. Ridding ourselves of these would help make things more fair and healthy for ourselves as well as others around the world.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 May 10
Thank you for your response. But I have to disagree. No country has the right to tell another country what it's laws will and will not be. Each country (or rather its citizens) should decide how they will be governored and what laws they will live by. I don't want China telling us how what our laws will be...I don't want us telling China what their laws will be. Nor any other country.
• United States
25 May 10
I don't think I have the right to use my countries laws to give myself a better (beyond a very basic level of comfort) life whilst infringing upon the rights to happiness (Living below a very basic level of comfort) in another country. Thats just... mean. And selfish.
• United States
25 May 10
Each leader of each country is elected to do what is in the best interest of their country and it's people.. Not what is in the best interest of the world. How is that infringing on anyone's rights if each country is doing what is best for its own people?
• Grand Junction, Colorado
24 May 10
I find the word "order" very disturbing. All of my hairs on my arm are standing on end. I can remember nothing good from history with the word "order" in it. I went searching as I remembered reading something late last year about an "Obama's New World Order". It's very disturbing. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/25/obamas-new-world-order/ I try to not think of America being arrogant, and I know that at times we do come across that way, but why is it then that when something happens around the world America is the door people knock on first? I for one am not willing to give up anything, except the president as laglen stated above. As always just my 2 cents worth!!!
• United States
24 May 10
I agree. Let's hope Obama and congress get hte message.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
24 May 10
I would be willing to give up our president The very idea of giving up our sovereignty not only worried the hell out of me, it is illegal. How much further does he have to go to show people how inexperienced and dangerous he is?
• Grand Junction, Colorado
24 May 10
I agree 100% with laglen.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19783)
• United States
24 May 10
beanie - I find you a very smart cookie!
• United States
24 May 10
I agree with both of you!!! LOL
1 person likes this
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
25 May 10
The only folks who read into this ataement the loss of American soveriegnty is fox news. These are the same comments and calls for cooperation that the last 15 presidents have said. I do have a problem with him calling for higher standards since we seem to be at the bottom of that list as a country. Don't ask others to do what you have not done.
• United States
25 May 10
It does make me worry. If it the international leaders working together to get along better. Hey fine. I am all for that. But we have already had the world court trying stick it's nose in our business and trying to tell us what we can. And the WHO is thinking about a "international tax". No foreign body has a right to tax us. The UN wants to be able to tell us what to do. They would love more power. I don't like it. The laws of this country should be decided by the people of this country. Not by anyone else. Definately not by any foreign body. In order for an international group to be stronger....than the countries in it will have to be individually weaker. Why? Because instaed of thinking about what is best for the individual country or it's wishes...they have to think about the whole group (all teh countries) as a whole. See my point?
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
25 May 10
There is some assumption that the UN or any international entity would have that much power. It would be against the mission statement of the UN to even want that much power. There has been a hate bashing against international co-operation since the Jesse Helms days and to date it has been unfounded. These guys agree on something once every three years. This is one of those aurguments that divert our attention from more important matters. The UN can barley decide the time of day and yes it needs better organization and leadership and has done some good things but could do much better. The concern over the world court is that 5% of international law has been written and we are all going to have to have a world consensus of what is acceptable and what is not but it is never going to have the power that it needs to have to stop genecide and numerous other problems.. It cannot control the Congo what makes anyone think it will one day rule or control the US or China. LOL Fox news needs to be asking why, five banking institutions hold 80% of the wealth in the world and quit making up non-issues like what the UN story is doing. Why does this not attract Fox news? Because it is owned by Rupert and he makes lots of money getting the troops excited about non-issues. There are serious world issues and none of them are being addressed, I have no concerns that we are in any danger at all from these international groups. Citibank, The Carlyle Group, Chase, Goldman, now that's worrysome...
@kukueye (1761)
• Malaysia
25 May 10
I guess world is represented by UN. however the security council is shared only by the few superpowers and few invites only by rotation, and i think it is not fair.How can world decision is made by only few superpowers in the security councils. I think the first thing do to is to change UN so that all countries can vote in security council like a democratic parliament.
• United States
25 May 10
I think a better idea is getting rid of the UN altogether and let each country decide things for themselves.
@qamarep (4453)
• Pakistan
25 May 10
america is already owning the world nowadays they are in a big control of the world nowadays.. they are just going non secret now
• United States
25 May 10
Obama wants to see the UN running things for the world. I don't like the idea. But then I don't think that we (the us) should be the one running the world either. Each country should be free to run their own countries how they want.
@hofferp (4739)
• United States
24 May 10
That's an easy one...NONE. Giving up sovereignty, giving up power, giving up...WON'T bring international cooperation. What a naive jerk!
• United States
24 May 10
Yep I agree...giving up sovereignty won't get us jack.....and it is illegal.
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
24 May 10
I'd be willing to give up membership with the UN and every place we hold on every committee and council with that organization. I'd also be willing to give up membership in the most impotent military force in the world, NATO, that feeds and supplies captured pirates before sending them on their way with a pat on the back and a "Better luck next time!" Sovereignty... yeah, I don't plan on giving any of that up. Obama may be fine with that, but I'm sure not and our constitution strictly forbids him from singlehandedly giving up our sovereignty. Not that he has any respect for the constitution.
• United States
24 May 10
I am with you. But unforunately Obama feels differently. He says we are going to have to "compromise" for more world cooperation....and if we are going to have stronger international powers....then the countries across the world are going to be weaker. Not a good idea...not one I am willing to do. I like your idea sooooo much better.
@spalladino (17927)
• United States
25 May 10
I'm sorry, Lil, but I didn't see anything about the U.S. having to give up anything. What's wrong with looking at multiple options...what's wrong with partnering with other nations in order to solve problems? Personally, I'm not willing to give up any sovereignty but I do believe in the value of teamwork.