Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
To say that "no country with a significant military force took the threat of military force seriously" seems like a bit of a stretch to me. How, exactly, do you know this? It could easily be argued that the US actions in Serbia prove that UN sanctions can result in significant military pressure.
Yes, America has shown that we are willing to back up our threats with actions regardless of global opinion (and I would bet that the citizens of GB, Austrailia and Turkey aren't quite as supportive of our actions as their governments are) but we have yet to see any real rewards for this shift in policy. As I mentioned in previous posts, I'm not aware of any lessening of state supported terror or any increase in global stability. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have yet to be corrected.
|
Serbia was a "peacekeeping" mission not an invasion. They did not have to fight to gain ground and the situation was far different from what would happen in the case of a country dedicated to defending its borders.
Libya has disclosed and disbanded their attempts at building nuclear capabilities. Iran for a time, before they clamped down on reformists and it became more apparent that the US would not open another front in Iran anytime soon, became more open with disclosures about their arms building. Pakistan is helping us in more ways than ever before. The Phillipines are cracking down on terrorist groups (with the help of US forces) more than before. The Indonesian government is more committed to rooting out terrorists in their midst.
I absolutely see a link between these actions and the US change to a more aggressive stance with regards to terrorists and "rogue" nations.