The US, The UN and Iraq

Lewis Latham is one of the finest essayists in the U.S. and his clear, concise assessment of what we are doing (or not doing) in the Middle East has been enlightening over the past several years. If one wants to see the stock market drop even further, petition for Mr. Bush to speak up again.

0 Replies

Timber - bricklayers and quarrymen who manage to build a wall that resembles the Great Wall of China as built by chimpanzees.

0 Replies

The "Great Wall of Bizarro"?

timber

Actually, I worked as a bricklayer's helper briefly when a young fellow. The analogy is more apt with a conscientious clerk or civil servant. If bricklayers commonly mounted, then stood atop the completed wall, beating their chest like Tarzan - pointing out that they were now some twenty feet closer to God than the others below...then the analogy might work better.

0 Replies

LW

Lapham is absolutely dependable, isn't he. I find this so with Didion as well. One comes away from these people smarter, and with the world more comprehensible.

On the point of oligarchy...Lapham is now tied by marriage to Brian Mulroney, a past prime minister here who brought the Reagan revolution to Canada (a feat which altered the course of Canadian politics no small measure, but which also resulted in a mass hatred for the man and his party so severe that the previously dominant Conservative party is now a non-entity). Lapham himself, in an interview a few years ago, acknowledged the class nature of this union. But he is a fellow with unusual integrity.

0 Replies

What ? ! ? ! ? The Tories despised ? ! ? ! ? Ah, i'll bet if you run over to Kingston, you'll be able to hear the whir of MacDonald spinning in his grave . . .

0 Replies

The constant effort to extract relevance from history merely confirms that human kind and human nature have not changed and the spectrum of good and evil with the same shades of grey in between still poses the same question it always has. Does mankind protect itself from the thugs of the world or does it hesitate and become the victim. I'm on the side of defense and if that means utilizing a strong offense as the best defense so be it.

War can never be fully justified but IMO is preferable to suicide. I much prefer death in battle to torture and death in shackles. There are some things that never change---The thugs will always appear out of the dark----the pacifists will always preach appeasement and then retreat to their sanctuary to criticize the warriors as barbarians----the warriors will always be the ones to bleed and die----some leaders will hesitate and they and their people will become the victims---some leaders will take action and they and their people will survive----the cycle then repeats itself.

0 Replies

Setanta

Do not be alarmed...being a politician, he would have fallen in spinning.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

The constant effort to extract relevance from history merely confirms that human kind and human nature have not changed and the spectrum of good and evil with the same shades of grey in between still poses the same question it always has.

As you know, i will not necessarily agree with the rest of your post. I have extracted this leading portion, however, as it is important in the understanding of why history has lessons to teach us. For this reason, people contend that history repeats itself--it does not, it is simply that human nature is the constant. In learning from history, we are in effect, learning to more clearly refine our understanding of human nature.

BLatham: heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

0 Replies

Setanta

I just threw that out there to test for the intellectual sharks----it got past the HEAD shark, at least partially. Thanks for confirming that human nature is a constant.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Setanta

I just threw that out there to test for the intellectual sharks----it got past the HEAD shark, at least partially. Thanks for confirming that human nature is a constant.

Head Shark ? I'm so flattered. Just between you and me, i rarely get the sort of recognition my viciousness deserves . . .

0 Replies

Truth is sometimes just so ---so---obvious

0 Replies

There seems to be more than one dorsal fin in the water.

0 Replies

(finless post)

Quote:

It is ironic that at the moment the United States, by virtue of its military prowess, can most afford to set the highest standard in armed conflict, it is backing away from time-honored laws that impose the constraints of humanity upon slaughter.

link

0 Replies

Setanta

While you're composing your essay------check six.

0 Replies

<circling with interest, but no aggressive intent>

timber

0 Replies

blatham - I read the article. I'm not trying to be contentious here, but I don't see where the author specifically points to any single thing the US wants to do or is doing in these "new wars" that goes against standing international law as regards war.

Did I miss something? Or is this yet another writer who is long on bluster and short on facts?

- TW

0 Replies

Blatham

Partial quote:"time honored laws that impose the constraints of humanity over slaughter" IMO that is a shameless overstatement and presupposes clairvoiyance on the part of the author.

I ask you to investigate the total number of civilians(slaughter can only apply to civilians) killed in Iraq during the total devastation of that country by our cruise missiles and air force. In the war that is imminent we have no need or desire to target anything that is not military because we want to preserve the entire infrastructure. Civilians are being told to stay in their homes out of harms way
because unlike their leaders we are a compassionate people.

The author and you are supplying raw meat to the appeasement sharks coming out of the depths.

0 Replies

TW
I think you ought to go over it again...just one...

Quote:

This explains the US view that it is acceptable to attack civilian morale in the form of nonmilitary targets whose destruction can undermine public support for war: turning the lights off in Belgrade or Baghdad, targeting the enemy's industrialist supporters, destroying civilian propaganda outlets or symbols of the regime such as monuments or civilian administration. All are off-limits under international law, which limits attacks to targets that make a direct contribution to military action.

0 Replies

You're right. I missed that. I guess I skimmed a bit more than read (in some parts at least). Sad

My bad. Thanks. Very Happy

0 Replies

Perception

Your first paragraph is quoting simply a statement regarding why we have international (or even internal) laws at all regarding combat.

The comparison with Iraq's human rights record isn't relevant. What is under discussion are the rules of international law regarding combat.

To put this in another context, think of civil or criminal law. Our judges and police and prison institutions are themselves governed (constrained) in how they treat the people they deal with. It is a measure of civilization that we constrain these institutions so that, for example, neither a thief nor a murder is allowed to be tortured.

It may be that new circumstances require a new look at such international laws, and I don't think this writer is ruling out any changes. What she is doing is making an alert that this debate is occurring behind closed doors, and making an alert that the US, in it's present state of mind, may well not have it right.

0 Replies

The US, The UN and Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know