Jump to content

U.S. withdraws from international accords, says U.N. world court 'politicised'


webfact

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, VillageIdiot said:

Trump is no "freak", he has immense support in the USA.

In a very real sense he is "...the spirit of my country."

Yes, the type of spirit that bitter, foolish old men drink, and eventually blinds them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

When was the last time that China bombed a country which hadn't attacked her?

Come on....you dont think that China is an irredentist country with Imperial ambitions? The Pacific is viewed as their Lake, and only we stand between them and a lot of Chinese speaking.

 

But here, I'll play. Ever hear of Mongolia? Ever hear of Tibet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, milwaukeeboy said:

You can start calling the US "isolationist" when they get their troops and noses out of the business of 150 other countries.

Everything isn't about the current administration.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...