, too unwilling to embrace international treaties and international cooperation in dealing with such issues. Do you consider this a reasonable criticism? Why or why not?
Here is the lat of my Qs for today guys. Thank you for everything!!!
2007-01-30 17:06:11 · 5 answers · asked by COBAN 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
~The hubris of the US is what puts us in such great standing around the globe and makes folks want to fly planes into buildings. All was cool when the US had the only nuclear arsenal and was the only nation on earth to have used one. It was ok to have missles in Turkey and all manner of nukes in Europe, but look what happened when the Soviets parked a few in Cuba. Uncle likes to aim the gun, but doesn't cotton much to being the target.
We are going to invade North Korea because they touched off a tinkertoy bomb? And Iran because they might? With what, some of our 10,000 warheads. Oh, that's right, it's okay for us to have them, but we'll kill for peace to hang on to the monopoly. How many nations besides the US keep stockpiles of anthrax, smallpox and who knows what other cuddly little bugs?
We did allow Pakistan to resume its nuke program, but it was alright because we needed bases and strike routes from which to invade Afghanistan.
Yeah, Saddam at one time had WMD's. We provided them to use against Iran, who couldn't use our F-14's because we wouldn't provide the promised (and purchased) spare parts. The fact that Georgie the Younger claimed Saddam was a threat did not justify a preemptive war. Preemptive war has been banned by countless treaties, some of which the US signed and others which the US would not condescend to sign.
Read the papers, watch the news and wake up to the world around you. Isn't US policy on treaties pretty obvious? No? Talk to the Souix. And stay away from tall buildings and large cities.
2007-01-30 18:32:01 · answer #1 · answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, when it came to the landmine treaty the US decline to sign on the theory that the DMZ was a case of, "good fences, make good neighbors". I can't really disagree with the logic of that. US policy can't help to be unilateral to some degree because American exceptionalism is inevtiable. Even the most vehement anti-Americans agree that the US is an exceptional nation-just exceptionally bad.
What I'm saying is there is a time and a place for unitlateralism, and a time and a place for multilaterism. So the contradictions brought about by that tension are always going to spur criticism-and that's totally reasonable.
2007-01-31 01:24:07 · answer #2 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As an American citizen I enjoy more rights and privileges than most people on the planet. I see no compelling reason to give any of that up. Too many of our military men and women have died to give any of those rights up.
I have always found interesting that these treaties always want us to give up something and it's always our rights and privileges. The ones wanting us to do that are countries that already deprive their own citizens of their rights. I guess they figure if they can dim the light of our freedoms than maybe their own subjects won't be so unhappy with their lot in life.
2007-01-31 01:37:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the entire question is illegitimate and intentionally vague.
what treaties?
cooperate with who? a coalition invaded Iraq for example.
what critics?
nope this is not even a good question, it's a statement designed to stoke the fires.
2007-01-31 01:11:40 · answer #4 · answered by Malikail 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ahmedinejad said he wanted to blow Israel off the map. He shouldn't expect bi-lateral talks...
Other more respectable nations don't have this problem because they don't have a nut trying to rally for nationalistic support like Mahmoud has.
2007-01-31 01:12:00 · answer #5 · answered by d.anconia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋