Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mbraynard
And no, it's not political consolidation.

Oh yes it is. You have seen the 'blocs' the internationalists are bent on creating? Isn't it interesting how similar the proposals are?

And then tell us why the preambles to all these agreements include the term "justice"--a red flag socialist buzzword if ever there was one.

In the years that we have had free trade with Jordan - while US relations have improved with Jordan - do you think there has been any political consilidation whatsoever?

Bilateral free trade treaties are not the same as these massive multilateral structures. Bilateral treaties are the constitutional way to go.

And your NATO argument is a red herring. We were confronted with a military threat, and we are entitled to join and set up alliances to deal with those threats. And those were done by TREATY (Hence North Atlantic Treaty Organization), not simple agreement.

210 posted on 07/21/2005 7:26:42 AM PDT by Paul Ross (George Patton: "I hate to have to fight for the same ground twice.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]


To: Paul Ross
Your contradict yourself and make several errors.

It's silly to compare NAFTA/DR-CAFTA with the EU. I guess there are some similarities regarding trade, but that's it and that isn't enough to condemn the whole agreement.

Second, you say that being confronted with a military threat in the past was reason enough to have a TREATY that entailed much POLITICAL association, but now being confronted with a MILITARY THREAT is not reason enough to agree to a simple TRADE AGREEMENT that isn't a TREATY and can be withdrawn from if deemed too cumbersome.

So tell me, how much soveriegnty has been lost due to NAFTA? Can you name any specific examples? Has Canada foisted it's healthcare system on us or has Mexico compelled us to start having ciestas?

And while NAFTA made it easier for exports to get into the US Market, costing some manufacturing jobs that will be replaced by machines in a generation anyway, DR-CAFTA is about getting these foreign governments to remove THEIR trade barriers as nearly all of their products come into the US tarriff free as it is now.

Your argument might be stronger if DR-CAFTA was a real treaty, but it is a simple agreement that our government is going to do certain things, none of which you or I can object to and, should they become burdensome, it can simply withdraw.

211 posted on 07/21/2005 7:33:23 AM PDT by mbraynard (Mustache Rides - Five Cents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson