Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: I thought the UN was irrelevant and spineless? What we complained about was that the US assured us Diplomacy would work with NK (which actually has weapons and threatened to use them pre-emptively) but couldn't wait to declare diplomacy dead and give Iraq the smack-down. It's the double-standard we objected to. And it's not just "lefties". That double standard has been cited by critics of the Bush Doctrine all over the world, especially in the Arab would. You don't fight the perception of a double standard and of being a bully by using a double standard and being a bully. By the way, NK hasn't been quiet lately. It's just been ignored. |
'Cept that the world sometimes and, it seems, the Arab world almost all the time holds the US to a double standard. When they finish with their double standards, then they can complain.
NK is actually a different situation that deserves different tactics, and not just because of its large military and lack of oil.
First and immediately relevant, NK is not subject to those Chapter VII UN resolutions of which Simey so boldly reminds us.
Secondly, security agreements and arrangements are very delicate there. Peace in Northeast Asia is almost entirely a result of the US's presence, economically, diplomatically, and most importantly militarily.
That's just off the top of my head right after taking a nap. At the very least, it deserves the thought of taking different tactics - considering differing situations.
Besides, whoever said that foreign policy had to be consistent. That would imply that only one thing in the world is important to us, say weapons proliferation or human rights violations or trade. Once you have more than one of those or other considerations, foreign policy consistency is a pipe dream and should be thought of as such.