Treaties awaiting US approval...

[Kat]

A short list of some treaties still awaiting the US's signature, with the year the treaty was ratified by the majority of the international community:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change : 1997

Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines : 1996

Convention on the Rights of the Child : 1989

Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women : 1979

Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights : 1966

Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons : 1949

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you probably have noticed, some of these treaties have been waiting a very long time for the US to sign on. Not too surprising, really, when you consider that the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention was stalled in the US Senate for 4 years, and it took 26 years to approve the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which outlaws discrimination based on race, creed, or ethnicity). FYI, the only other holdout not to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which - among other things - forbids the execution of children, is Somalia.

I hope this encourages at least one person to write theirr congressional and senatorial representatives and ask for the US to sign these important international treaties.

[hartman]

Kat,

Thanks, I plan on sending them mail tomorrow and thanking them for not signing those treaties :)

Hartman

[signu459]

Dittos Hartman!!

Thanks again Kat showing us all your love for the States!!

[hesaias]

Kat
You aint from here, are you?:D
What is the point of a piece of paper if the folks who need to sign, dont sign, and wont abide by the treaty any way? The Geneva convention comes to mind.

[Kat]

hesaias : What is the point of a piece of paper if the folks who need to sign, dont sign, and wont abide by the treaty any way?

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, these treaties (that I listed) have been, for the most part, upheld by the countries that signed them, with the exception of some of the more notorious human rights violators who regularly disregard international law.

signu459: FYI, I posted the same thing on four other message boards. I got a very different response from the other four boards, which expressed disgust that their government wouldn't sign such well-intentioned treaties. One person wrote, and I quote: "I could understand if these treaties would sign away US power, influence, or rights, but these treaties are meant to protect human rights. It's disgusting we haven't yet signed." And that, BTW, was written by a US citizen, not me. :)

hartman: So you're in favour of using anti-personnel mines, which more often than not blow up innocent children than the targeted 'enemy'? So you're in favour of child exploitation and execution - maybe you should move to Somalia, it seems they share your sentiments. So you're in favour of discriminating against people because of racial, gender, and ethnic qualities? Try living outside of a 19th century mindset where your 'white man's burden' still exists... And last, but not least - so you're in favour of trafficing in persons - slavery? I gather you must live in the southern states...

It's interesting how anti-human rights you are. The next time the US gets into a conflict of any sorts, don't even bother complaining about how US soliders were killed by anti-personnel bombs, or captured and then sold as slaves. Or even if your next door neighbors' kids were sold over the internet (which, shockingly enough, actually happened) ...because, after all, you seem so happy the US didn't sign any treaties which would prevent any of these things from happening.

peace to your reefs!

[hartman]

Kat,

Please let's not blow a gasket and start calling me bigoted names and lame stereo types, talk about intolerant narrow-minded hater.

Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines: 1996.
This is a stupid law designed to stop the use of land mines by people who will never obey it anyway. You think that Iraq will stop using them cause the UN say so? Please I think not. Why should the U.S remove a weapon platform that has proven affective during battle when no else will. By the way who is planting all these minds today away? Iraq, nations in Africa, Bosnia, funny thing is the US has not been planting mines since Vietnam. And who is selling them? China and Russia.


Convention on the Rights of the Child: 1989
Why do we care what other nations do, since you’re so big in telling us to mind our business. We in America protect our children and if Somalia does not do you think some UN law will stop any of this? Look at the UN now, Sudan has a slave trade TODAY but since they pay their dues they get to be on the human rights commission.


Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: 1979
That is strange women are equal in our country, how about Iran, India, China, African nations? Is the UN currently going after these nations? What about Muslim nations who religious beliefs don’t allow women to vote? Should we force them to allow this? But what about you’re “holy� multi-cultural tolerance. Although I find it morally wrong to allow anyone to be less than equal I also believe each country has a god given right of self-determination.


Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights : 1966
Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons : 1949
Who even cares about these they are over 35 plus years old. Who knows the old reason why they were never signed and at this point they should just dump them.

You need to learn that just because you can write a law does not mean it is worth the paper is it written on.
We cannot solve every problem in the world and making laws or Convention doesn’t just make them go away as soon as everyone sign on.

Hartman

[Kat]

hartman, I'm not calling you any names. Why all the extreme hostility? Anyhow, in regards to the treaties, well if you think they're stupid laws, I guess you're entitled to your point of view. However, I disagree, and so does a majority of the international community. I personally think that the US's signature, especially in the case of the anti-personnel mines, as the world's largest producer and exporter of weapons, would lend a little more weight to the treaty... You can call treaties and conventions and such worthless pieces of paper, but before we forget, your constitution is written on paper too. Is it also worthless then?

Anyhow, thanks but no thanks for the hostility, I'll pass on in replying in kind. Have a nice day.

[hesaias]

Id have to agree that Hartman said right. We didnt need to sign a treaty that we abide by, mostly before the treaty was ever even thought of. Treatys are for countries who want to follow them. Most of the countries who need to ratify these, wont, or if they do, have no intention of abiding by them.

[Kat]

hesias: Treatys are for countries who want to follow them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :D Thanks for explaining that one a bit more fully to everyone!

[signu459]

This is really funny!! Again I really think you should go on tour!


I can see it now.... Sadam declares June 4th dig up a mine day in Iraq, just because he signed a treaty. From now on every Iraqie citizen is required to go find a mine his army planted and dig it up.

Yeh I can can see that happening! Along with all the other whaco leaders following in close step.

[hartman]

Kat,

hartman, I'm not calling you any names.

Then I guess these does not count?

Great quotes by Kat,
the lover of all, the just, The righter of wrongs, the great exposer of how evil America is, the morally perfect!

Try living outside of a 19th century mindset where your 'white man's burden' still exists

Strange I don't remember telling anyone I was white, are you saying that all white males believe in killing children, slavery, oppression of women?

slavery? I gather you must live in the southern states...

Kat thanks for reminding me that all the people in the Southern U.S. want slavery back I almost forgot.


world's largest producer and exporter of weapons

Strange we sell weapons to our allies. Who currently sells weapons to Iraq, Iran, India, North Korea, Bosnia? That would be China and Russia not the US.

Hartman

[Kat]

hartman, it seems you like to dish it out but can't take it in return. Lighten up, I was only being sarcastic, and I never called any names - split hairs, if you like, but it doesn't make it any more true.

The USA is the largest producer and exporter of weapons worldwide, and sells to almost every market out there except those which have been specifically prohibited by US foreign policy. Please feel free to use this wonderful thing we call the internet to verify this information, since it seems you don't wish to lend any creedence to anything I say.

be good!

[nk57]

I've re-read this thread several times both wanting and not wanting to comment on this thread. But since this is America,and I have my Constitutional Rights intact, I'm going to go ahead and comment anyway.

First of all, I think Kat was just making a statement. Plain and simple. One of those "Did ya ever wonder why" statements. I don't think it was intended to offend or lead to who is or who isn't from the USA.

Secondly,while the role of the UN has been greatly diminished over the years, they still have and do serve a valuble purpose.
Are they fair? Are they just? Do they listen to all? Of course not.
But somebody is listening and that is what is important.

Do countries still commit atrocities against women, children and others both in their home countries and abroad. Yes they do.
I believe the State Dept. oversees these allegations. ( At least they did when I was attached to the foreign service); as well as Amenesty International, the UN and other lobbying groups.

As far as the USA being the largest distributor of weapons.... well business is business no matter where you live. Nothing will ever change that. After years of working in International Relations field, I've learned that it is the people who make those Monday afternoon observations like Kat are the ones who usually facilitate change.


Nancy

[hesaias]

It just seem like Kat is making a point of saying that the US of A muist not believe these things are important, since we've not bothered to sign them. Well, that can tend to torque some folks lid. The USA, may not have signed those treaties, but please tell me how many other countries who have, have sent as much money to other countries, and never expected any back? Also, tell me how many of these countries have sent thier own sons and daughters to serve in countries asking for our help, time and time again, and never asked for any help or money in return? I could list a few others, but why bother. Some folks dont like The US, or anything it stands for. Sometimes, the things Americans do makes me sick, and almost ashamed to be american, almost. Kat, if you would, please post a list of all the other countries who didnt sign the treaty, and then find the list of US supported treaties, and post the list of those who didnot sign. It would be interesting to see

[Kat]

hesaias, you're reading wayyy too much into what I posted. Nancy's right. I only posted this as a FYI, in the hopes that some people may feel inspired to take action. That's all. No malicious intent, sorry anyone chose to believe otherwise.

This is the only board that I posted this information to that responded with such overwhelming hostility and negativity. On four other BBs to which I posted the same information, I never received any of this hostility, and yes, to answer your unspoken question, all four other sites are hosted in the US and mainly visited by folks from the US. I'd post links as proof, but why risk having a bunch of hostile persons following me around the internet? Why this forum is such a hotbed of hostility, I don't know, but may I suggest lightening up a little?

Anyhow, if you're so interested in finding out who did and didn't sign these treaties, let me once again point out this wonderful thing called the internet. You're perfectly capable of finding out for yourself if you're truly interested. Don't rely upon me, as it's perfectly obvious you don't believe anything I say. Neither do I feel like or have the time to go around searching for every scrap of information anyone might want...

peace to your reefs.

[Aquaman]

Kat wrote:slavery? I gather you must live in the southern states...

Whoa!!! Your treading on thin ice with statments like that!

I was born in the south, So was my father and his father and father before him, As a matter of fact my family fought in the civil war for the south and north! and did not own nor could afford slaves. Not everyone that lived or lives in the Southern States endorses slavery!

Now if some other country wants to traffic in people, Thats their countrys problem not ours, and I don't think the USA signing a piece of paper is going to stop them. To many of my family and citizans of this country have died in the name of freedom and human rights for you to make statments like that!

[signu459]

Nancy,

Glad to have a another opinion here in the lounge. I can see how a newer person could be somewhat confused by what has been posted in this thread. Fortunately for you, you have missed a good deal of history here in the RC lounge involving Kat. Part of what you missed was the basis for my first post sarcastically pointing out Kats (who is Canadian) hate towards the USA. Kat has a history of bashing the US and nearly everything it stands for.

Sorry to drag you through this mess, I just can stand people bashing my country. And I think some of the other posters on this thread feel the same way. I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong.

[Joez]

signu, you asked to be corrected if wrong, so . . .



If I EVER find you wrong, I'll correct you (but not so far).


KAT continues to thrill and entertain!

Great FYI; really eye-opening.

Keep up the the good, positive work!




Death to America! Death to the Great Satan!!

[hesaias]

Originally posted by Kat
hesias: Treatys are for countries who want to follow them.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :D Thanks for explaining that one a bit more fully to everyone!

How else should I read this? That seems to be just what you are saying. As far as an FYI, you never seem to post any FYIs' about fair Canada. Also, I could care less what we signed, or didnt.(Treaties, that is)

[Kat]

Aquaman, sorry for the comment about the southern states. I was being sarcastic, but it was a little too much over the line in retropect. I know several people from the southern US, and they are all wonderful. So, my contrite apologies.

signu459, considering this forum is visited by several rabidly right-wing nationalist extremists, it's no wonder I get the response I do here. If you actually calmed down at looked at it w/o taking everything as an attack, you might see that I'm looking only for rational debate on the issues. Not a heated flame-fest. But if that's what you need, go ahead and flame away, it doesn't bother me any and perhaps it's therapeutic for yourself ni some wierd way...

Joez, you just get wierder and wierder every time you post.

hesaias, look, I wrote that because you said you were glad the US didn't sign treaties. I personally never questioned why the US didn't sign anything - go back and read my posts if you doubt me - but you decided to say that" treaties were for contries who want to follow them." And suddenly I remembered the Powell doctrine, and the US reluctance to recognize the World Court, and I realized - with just a little horror - that just for this once, you had (unintentionally enough) an insight that I personally had not wanted to recognize consciously. You're the one that wrote that, not me, and I congratulated you on your insightfulness. After all, I never brought that up... YOU did! So take your 'oh-she's-so-anti-American' BS and shove it. 'Cuz it's simply untrue.

If you are interested I will post FYIs about Canada, there is a lot I could say. However, being met with the extreme right-wing nationalistic attitude here, I thought any posts on Canada would either be ill-received or completely ignored. Which in either case would negate any beneficial effect from posting. After all, this forum is primarily visited by US citizens, and for the most part I haven't seen much interest around here in the goings-on of other countries. What I'm doing is talking about the things that the people here would be interested in! Again, if you are personally interested, I will be perfectly happy to post articles regarding Canadian issues if you truly would like to debate such matter.

peace & happiness!

[hesaias]

Kat
If you thought I said I was glad, I did not. I said I didn't care. The USA for the most part abides by all the treaties you listed, so why the hoopla? When do you have folks in this forum, posting slams(albeit unintended) against other countries? We know ours is not even close to a perfect country, but then, who's is? If you want to debate US foreign policy, use the internet to bring up something relevant. If we bomb a embassy, or US terrorists trained and deployed by our gov't blow up a mall in Mexico, please, introduce this to discussion, or if our president pukes on a Japanese head of state, lets talk about that. The things you want to bring up for discussion here have no bearing on the US as a country, cuz we don't do this stuff anymore, or have adopted the rules put forth therein anyway. Either way, what does the signature of the US have to do with the way the rest of the world sees a treaty? Most of the world hates us anyway, until they want help.

BTW, this line is just a little hostile isn't it?
So take your 'oh-she's-so-anti-American' BS and shove it
Anti American is the way you come off, whether you intend to or not.

[Kat]

hesias, sorry, after going back I realised that I confused you with hartman. However, since you wrote that you agreed with what he wrote, I guess putting you two together in the same boat wasn't too much of a mistake after all.

If you want to debate US forigen policy, use the internet to bring up somthing relevant.

Now here is the difference between you and me. Perhaps you consider the US president puking on someone relevant, but to me it's just a really unfortunate case of nausea - nasty for everyone involved!! However, I consider other things to be more relevant. Who's right and who's wrong? NOBODY. We just attach more significance and relevance to different things. What is important to you isn't important to me, and vice versa. Why do you then get so angry for somebody talking about something that interests them? I wouldn't stop you or attack you for posting at great length about the US president puking on any number of foreign diplomats. Please try to be a little more open-minded and accepting of the fact that others don't see everything the way that you do. Hey, both our countries guarantee the rights to free speech, and freedom of belief, right? So let's not just attack each other... let's talk it out and try to work out our differences of opinion. If we can't agree, that's fine, we can agree to disagree in a perfectly rational manner. Right????

The things you want to bring up for discussion here have no bearing on the US as a country

That's your opinion. I disagree. I believe the treaties a country signs and abides by says a lot about the policy and nature of that country.

Either way, what does the signature of the US have to do with the way the rest of the world sees a treaty?

You're undermining and understating the influence the US has globally.

Most of the world hates us anyway, until they want help.

Wow, how cynical. No wonder you're so quick to call people anti-american when they say anything that may disagree with your point of view. You're already predecided that anyone who criticizes anything american, must hate america. I would encourage you to rethink this prejudice of yours. I certainly don't hate the USA, actually I regard your country quite favourably, but I certainly object to some of the things that the USA does and has done. Doesn't mean I hate anything, or anyone, I just don't agree with some things!

Just in case you are interested... would you like me to post things about other countries, including Canadian issues? You brought it up before, and I'm just curious how sincere you were about it. If you would like to talk about foreign affairs, I'm more than happy to post some topics.

peace & happiness!

[Aquaman]

Don't worry Kat, Most educated Americans bash America as much as any other country! :eek: Just think of us as a equal oportunity basher!:D

Seriously though! If you look at the history of most countries attitude towards the USA you will find that there is a definate Love/Hate relationship.

I've traveled to France, most of them can't stand us Americans. We bailed them out of how many wars?. Most of the middle east would love to drop a few nukes on our doorsteps, Japan did their best to destroy us during WWII, I don't think were high on China's list right now. The former USSR has to many problems to worry about us for a change. And this is only the northern hemisphere!

The fact is no country is perfect! and the USA being a melting pot of people from all over the world has had more than its share of problems. We are not perfect by any means, but because we have lead the world in economic, financial, military.

We set alot of policy! but the fact is if a country's leaders have no intention of changing their government, religious, social or economic practices then it doesn't really matter what we sign or don't sign! and like I said to many of our men and women have died on foreign soil for our and other country's freedom.

I'm tired of the all the US bashing, and all the money we spend keeping other countries from failing. Personally my opinion is let the rest of the d*@n world go to heii in a handbasket we really don't need them anyway.

[nk57]

Hi all,

Signu thanks for the welcome but I'm not too new. Usually I stop into the lounge to be entertained. But this thread caught my eye since I've been a long time government employee and continue to work in the field of foreign relations. I've found this thread amusing to say the least because it has all the diplomatic ingredients needed when I or any other foreign relations mediator enters a room to begin mediation.

Most of the time by the time my attache arrives, both side are blowing steam out of every available vent hole. This is good...until it becomes a mud slinging contest. I think we have just about at that mud slinging stage now.

We here in the USA are lucky. The Constitution is a living amendable document that allows us to vent our feelings toward
each other and towards our govt. It was designed that way in order to for the people to keep govt accountable. Is it perfect? Nope. But it without that healthy kind of questioning, we would not have free govt.

As far as bashing and defending goes well...thats is a matter of subjective opinion. And ya ain't gonna change someones' opinion. Any good diplomat knows that. The trick is to come to the table without wearing your heart and your beliefs on your sleeve. Its my job to make both side hear one another...not to agree. In essence, agree to disagree, don't personally attack one another. Once you impose, or give an imperative, or say "if you don't believe what I believe, or else you are an a------e
you lose all crediblity.

Finally as for being an American, yeah this country has been good to all of us universally. Its not perfect but...noplace is. And if you don't think that even those of us who are in the "trenches" don't do a fair amount of bashing....think again. We do it all the time. I relieves stress and sometimes gives birth to new solutions to old problems.

BTW I've been stuck in Sino-American Relations for years. Imagine how the Chinese feel when a little white woman from NY has to come in and negotiate with them.. They freak when I open my mouth and out comes Cantonese !! And... when all is said and done we all shake hands.. I think we ought to give that a try here.

"Nuff said

Nancy

[DJ88©]

Hi Kat,

Saw your post here and had to say I have tried to carry on a rational calm discussion on this board and failed miserably. It doesn't matter if you provide facts to substantiate your thoughts, views or anything. In the end the right-wingers on this board will call you a liar and an America Hater.


Some people here react out of anger and dislike of anything that they feel slanders the US. They don't seem to understand that some are trying to just have an interesting discussion. They seem to want to turn it into a flame war.

I believe it is safer to carry on these kinds of discussions on boards where people will sit back and think about what is happening and not go on the attack. Not all posts or people are out to harm the US. But it appears that some here are scared of anything that doesn't have the stars and stripes attached to it.

I would love to sit down and carry on discussions about Canadian policies and politics. For that fact, discussions about most anything. Problem being a good portion of the US doesn’t understand it’s own politicians and would not have the foggiest about ours.

Good luck.. This post has reaffirmed why I prefer not to post here much anymore and am starting to avoid RC. Not all here are that way. :) Just seems I ran into a few who are. :( It took my views of our neighbours down a notch.

[Kat]

DJ88,

Trust me, I've noticed the rabidly right-wing nationalists that frequent this page. Their strident objections to anything they consider critical of the USA borders upon the fanatical. It's virtually impossible to hold any conversation about US issues without being accused of hating the entire country. Which is a little unfair and more than a little amusing, considering these particular persons' unashamed prejudice and hatred against other countries and, for the most part, anything they may consider the unknown.

Personally, what I find even sadder is the fact some of these persons will actually go far out of their way to try and childishly dish dirt, instead of trying to discuss issues like calm, rational adults.

Trust me, I've seen it far longer than you might imagine. It's why I stopped posting for such a long time to both Reef Central and to Aqualink. However, I have decided I didn't like being bullied around by a bunch of people who had nothing better to do than flame anyone who dared express their opinion. So here I am, and here I stay, for despite the intolerant attitudes of some persons here I refuse to be bullied or intimidated.

I hope you don't allow these people to negatively influence your opinion of Americans. Despite the reaction of some you may have encountered here, you can't judge everyone in a country by the actions and words of a very few extremists.

I hope you come to the same conclusions as well. We need more rational and intelligent persons to counteract the prevailing miasma of bigotry that so pervades this online community.

[jimhobbs]

Kat :)
You have an interesting way of baiting your hook to catch the entire right wing of the US:)...Even though I consider myself conservative; I really hope that ALL conservatives are not the way you make us out to be...I actually find watching the discussions between you and the rest of us quite amusing:D...You have a unique way of drawing them into the fight, and it is fun to watch!:):D

Dj88
Two paragraphs of your last reply were removed...Board policy isn't open to public debate:)

Have fun guys!:)

[Kat]

jimhobbs, as regards "baiting," this implies that what I post is irresistable to certain persons, and implies that I deliberately post in an inflamatory manner. I have no control, neither do I wish to have, over whatever any person decides to read or not read, and no control over what these persons decide to reply to or not reply to. If somebody doesn't like what I post, they are free to not reply, and vice versa.

Personally, I don't think all conservatives are bad, and I certainly don't lump everyone into the same category. However, it's the very few extremely fanatical right-wing nationalists which I personally find objectionable. Of course, I'm certain that some of my opinions are as objectionable to these people as well. I hope only that we can agree to disagree whenever it becomes evident nobody can agree upon some happy medium. :)

As a side note, I found it just a little wierd that DJ88's post was edited. Of course, certain policies may not be open to public debate, but why is is so objectionable to simply voice one's opinion? I personally believe that unless one is specifically negatively attacking (flaming) a person or group, they should be allowed to express their opinion. There are persons who have blatantly flamed members without any shred of intervention, and then when these persons who have been so badly treated attempt to reply in kind, they are cut off at the knees. The application of the 'rules' seems to be rather arbitrarily enforced, or as I have personally observed, enforced in favour of certain individuals. Of course, it's damn hard to be a moderator and even harder to decide which situations require intervention. Delete this portion of my post if you will...

[jimhobbs]

No deletes necessary:)

Lighten up gal!..This is supposed to be fun!:D

DJ88 was discussing board policy concerning an exchange he and I had...This was meant to be between the two of us, and not for public debate:)...The part removed only pertained to that, and did not take away from the public forum discussion about the treaties that haven't been ratified:)

Have fun and don't take this stuff so seriously!:)...A good conservative always has a sense of humor:D

Have fun guys!

[Kat]

I see... You're being sweet today (no double meanings!). Thanks for the clarification, if it was a private conversation I have complete understanding as to why it was removed.

be good! :)

[gregt]

You guys have Kat all wrong. She's not anti-american. She's anti-everyone that doesn't do things exactly like she wants. And it's not open to debate. She's right - we're all wrong. There is no middle of the road. :) Any subject she thinks of, she somehow comes up with an evil villian (ok, ok, a lot of time the villian is America...) that is reponsible and the situation must be reacted to with extreme hatred. Most people can put things in perspective, but Kat insists on making every subject a war in which you either agree with her 100% or you are wrong.

Life is not black and white. There are very few true villians. People make mistakes. People act on mis-information. People make decisions with less than perfect motivation (like greed). This does not make them villians to be hated. This makes them imperfect people.

IMO, to understand peoples actions you have to understand where they are coming from. Only then you can attempt to change their mind on a subject. Very rarely will someone change their mind or actions based on the rantings from someone who does not attempt to understand where they are coming from. Why should they?

Kat,

You've improved greatly since my last major encounter with you. You have seemed to stop the personal attacks, although your hatred still shows through loud and clear. I think your passion is a thing to be valued, perhaps someday you'll be able to raise awareness without immediately turning 80% of the people against your cause.

It is true that I normally agree with the general premise of your causes, unfortunately, I rarely agree 100%, and thus you point your anger toward me and end up changing my mind toward the other position.

I now relenquish the soapbox . . .

[Kat]

Might I point out for a moment that gregt's post is the type of negative, unproductive personal attack that perhaps should be more discouraged by the moderators?

gregt, you may wish to take your own advice, before lashing out venomously at those with whom you have a difference of opinion. Sorry you have chosen to take such an extreme position.

be good! :)

[jimhobbs]

Yeah,
I think enough negative stuff has come from this thread...I don't get that "warm and fuzzy" feeling of neighbors who share such a global fence, as our border:D