DonFerrari on 21 December 2016
mutantsushi said:
DonFerrari said:
Good, sign an agreement that you won't reinforce.
Or are they going to nuke each and any country were religous/a-religious freedom isn't full? |
It's not even that though. Even an agreement establishes some international understanding of a goal.
This isn't an AGREEMENT, it's just airheads in Washington DC telling themself how good they are.
No other country gives a flying fuck about it. Why should they? It's fucking absurd.
On it's face it might be potential material for an international treaty. Except it's a unilateral US "law".
And on those international treaties without enforcement mechanisms with automatic consequences,
US does not seem to feel them important enough to actually ENFORCE as the law of the land,
even though by the US Constitution they are, nobody actually takes them seriously.
e.g. Geneva Conventions. All nuances aside, they require countries to educate their populace to them.
Great idea if you want people to follow thru on them. Was I ever educated to them in public school? Hell no.
Obvious material breach of the treaty. But zero consequences. That is just a minor one.
If legislators want to make public "calls" or "statements" for global policies they like, whatever.
But don't play make believe that doing so is actually establishing any legal protection for anybody.
|
But on political capital these guys will inflate their ego and approval rates, people are moron.
