Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma2
[/b]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the US have virtually withdrawn from the NPT. Don't you think it would be rather arrogant of them to point the finger at any other nation who looked as though they may not be prepared to sign it in the first place.
As if the invasion hasn't 'de-stablised' the region?
When one unilaterally takes on the role of 'world sheriff' then one has to take the brickbats with the posies.
This cool, if not brazen, attitude of 'the US will do as it pleases as and when it pleases' often found in the posts on here is one which puzzles me. When did this attitude first start to arise amongst the general populace? Or aren't you on of that kind?
|
1. The US has not withdrawn from the NPT or from the NSG (Nuclear Supply Group), but from the ABM treaty, namely for missile defense from a rogue nation with a nuclear weapon.
2. The invasion did, does, and will continue to have its drawbacks, but given the 13 year history of Saddam Hussein defying IAEA and the IAEA placing Iraq equal to the weapons inspectors (a first), it was the only logical course of action. Those that were against the invasion also had an economic interest to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Of course, the US gets criticized for not doing the job on Hussein in 1991, but then again, there was that UNSC Resolution stated to only drive out Iraqi forces from Kuwait. But then again, proponents want the US involved in every disaster that has occurred including Durfar, Liberia, Haiti, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, etc, but we don't want the US to be the "world's sheriff" now do we? Of course, we could look
armed conflics from 1946-2005 and see just how many of those countries needed UN approval before enacting on those situations. Are you going to criticize them as well, or just play fancy foot?
So, does the US need the UN or does the UN need the US, enigma?
3. Theodore Roosevelt, "Walk softly, but carry a big stick"