> Yup, we don't sign treaties we don't like. Mean old us!
> Now, could you name for us countries which *do* sign treaties they
> don't like? I mean, aside from fascist dictatorships we had to
> stomp on before they pissed all over some effete continental's
> croissanterie?
Good point there - said fascist dictatorships had to be stomped on to produce some measure of democracy. Then, when one of these nations had learned their lesson, and learned it well, and easily saw through the pretence for the Iraq war, all of a sudden it was a scumbag pacifist Old Europe naysayer.
Compared to the European and especially German spectrum, I'd group the Democrat Party of the USA somewhere to the right wing of our conservatives. That leaves the Republicans in an uncomfortable nationalist corner beyond the right, a situation Germany had been facing in the late 1920ies. I sincerely hope that the USA is able to learn from the mistakes made in Old Europe.
> We don't mind WMDs in the hands of stable democracies, like
> Britain. We can live with WMDs in the hands of stable tyrannies,
> like China. We don't see any reason to permit them in the hands
> of avowed enemies, legally already at war with us, who are known
> to be supporting terrorism--like Iraq was.
The only proven instance of support of terrorism outside of their own jurisdiction I have encountered so far was the suicide bombers' pension paid to extremist Palestines. Which is a lot less than legal Saudi organisations have on their record.
What I still miss in Bush's War Against Terror are 20000 or so GIs or international forces under US command in Palestine, to stop the mutual terror there. Now that would be a worthy task, and possibly tackling a lot of the troubles at the root. It's good Saddam has gone, although one might say that a stable tyranny has disappeared with him, and there is no stable successor in sight.
Powered by hypermail