Italian immigrants rounded up and placed in internment camps

"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"

Clearly with all the international agreements the USA has previously broken, there has been a national issue with them. Do you disagree?

As far as the "should" goes, I agree that national interests should supercede international agreements.

Do you disagree? Why?

Answer mine and I will answer yours.

Answer mine and I will answer yours.

Question number one: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Question number two: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Let's say for example, that the USA makes an agreement to not burn any additional coal for the next 100 years. At the time of the agreement it was predicted to have a cost of 1 trillion dollars. Five years later the USA discovers that to keep the agreement will cost 50 trillion dollars, which would turn the USA into a 3rd world nation economically. Changing circumstances dictate that the National interests come before the international agreement. Realistically, the USA expects other nations when they form non-binding agreements to pull out as well if their national interests change due to circumstance. The only real international agreements that seem to matter these days are financial obligations, where trust can actually be measured with a dollar sign and a Moody's credit rating. In the end, with nations, most of these agreements are about money, not morals.