Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ricechex
I think the strong arm tactics of the U.S, and by that i mean, telling a country a country they can't have nuclear energy even for non-military use, will that work any longer?... especially when we are promoting them all over the states here.That's what should worry us. Will telling a country "yes, freedom, freedom, but you can't do this b/c we say so"..will that work in this modern era?
|
Well, so far it's worked in dealing with North Korea(I say "so far"). Although it doesn't win any fans, do I think the US is capable of using intimidation of war as a means of forcing a country to comply with the UN? Without a doubt, but I don't agree with doing things that way. The problem is not "nuclear energy" exactly: the problem is their dual use of nuclear energy and their interest in enriching uranium and the threat of another country making nuclear weapons in the middle east.
I don't know if we can use the term "modern era", US and Iran all in the same sentence just yet. Iran is still heavily influenced by religion(not to say that the US isn't, but we all saw what happens when you convert to christianity over there...).
Clinton used bombing raids on Iraq when Iraq refused to cooperate with UN inspectors, so it's not totally out of the question for the US to use force if Iran refuses to comply with the UN.
The US Gov't can't and never will win any respect. If they act on dictators like Hitler, then we are war mongers. If we stand back and let the UN fuck up everything(like Kosovo & Rwanda), then we are "lazy" for not doing anything. But that's the price to pay when you're the most scritinized gov't expected to be "perfect" and please everyone.
I'm not a fan of the Gov't by any means, but I do think some hatred of the US Gov't is a little unjust at times.