As far as I understand, the US reply (both at court) and by officials' statements points out that some of the issues raised and included in the ruling have been excluded from the sanctions anyway (more to do with the humanitarian angle). Regardless, not entirely sure what was the point of retaining the agreement all them years - or how would withdrawing from it can be construed as much of an issue, given relations between the countries. I don't know that there's an actual intention to withdraw from all such agreements, opinions on this topic notwithstanding.

 

With regard to the wider scope - the Trump administration rhetoric aside, there is an issue of balancing between national sovereignty and the authority of international bodies. I get it that there could be differing views on that, and that different countries (or different governments) can have varied positions on this score. IMO, on a global level, we're not quite at a level of sociopolitical evolution allowing international bodies to take precedence over national sovereignty. That it may be the way forward, or even an inevitable next step, is fine - but doesn't relate to how things are at present.

Edited October 4, 20187 yr by Morch

Troll posts reported and removed.

 

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I wouldn't know that the figure cited is relevant, and I'd wager that with regard to a whole lot of them countries, US presence is by invitation. But hey, this is a bash topic, so facts don't matter.

Like Syria?

1 minute ago, milwaukeeboy said:

Like Syria?

 

My comment wasn't wholesale. Sure, there are places where the US is militarily present in ways which might be questionable, illegal or not according to wishes of relevant governments. I think, though, that this doesn't apply to the majority of US deployments worldwide. Citing a single example doesn't make the case for the 150 figure cited.

 

And to be clear, on related topics, I have agreed that the US presence in Syria rests on rather dodgy grounds, if that.