Eh. I mean I'm happy they passed it and all, but other countries will just cite it as another example of the U.S. trying to intervene in their affairs. Especially when the article itself uses the language "...will increase involvement of U.S. embassies worldwide to monitor and intervene in incidents of anti-LGBT discrimination and violence."
Haha. Don't worry. The US has been doing that for ever. I think that bills such as these are necessary to promote positive impact on human kind, that all countries of the world could progress in an institutionalized environment. Other negative side-effects are from politics. After all, benefits outweigh costs. And for your concern, even when other countries having bad human rights records bitch at the bossy US, they actually know how to make the best of being told what to do. Whether we like it or not, we all benefit from a rule-based and orderly world that the rich countries, the US and its friends, are leading.
This just made my day. Finally, something good. I really don't care if the world hates the US more because of it. This will do so much good. After all, the US is considered the police force of the world. Any country that takes that title will be hated.
That's good to hear. But I think they really need to focus on GLBT issues HERE before they worry about other places....
In other places LGBT people are being executed, jailed, and sent to labor camps just because they are gay. I would much rather prefer people making it so those don't happen first.
Yeah but then people go and bitch about how we're meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan. What, it's okay because this is a good thing we're trying to enforce? I don't think so. Either people accept this and things like the U.S occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (note: I didn't say people have to endorse or even agree with it, just accept it) or condemn both our presence in those countries and this bill. You can't have it both ways and say we're meddling in one circumstance but that its okay when it comes to something like promoting human rights.
No, the US is not the police of the world. And Phoenix, you are right. The time is changing, and the US need to cope more flexibly with what is to come. Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, are the stain on US global leadership. In my opinion, it was bad and, more importantly, illegal for the US to occupy Iraq by force. That was a mistake that it needs to correct now. The purpose is to establish an international system peaceful and so deeply institutionalized that governments will interact responsibly and respectfully to each other. So regional and global wars will have the smallest chance of happening again.
I didn't say they were, I said they were considered to be. There is a huge difference between the two, and the US is considered to be the police force of the nations by many many people. Ask any person in politics and they will agree. :| Just to point out the difference: Saying "The US is the police force of the world" is saying either: 1. They have police in every country, governing them. 2. They actually are titled by the United Nations. Saying "The US is considered to be the police force of the world" is saying: 1. They often get involved into other nation's issues and try to mediate. Which we do.
I don't see why we can't first monitor and intervene in incidents of anti-LGBT[Q] discrimination and violence in the US.