The US, The UN and Iraq

Blatham

Since when are power grids off limits? They don't contribute directly to the enemies capability to conduct war ??????

I'm OTO that this guy should limit his activities to that which he may know something about---perhaps cooking. The nearest he has ever come to combat is fighting the Washington Beltline traffic.

I submit that under International Law such are in fact valid targets, directly contributory to military efficacy. Civilian Morale is a Military Asset. In that it be attacked with care to limit collateral damage (don't even go there ... great care IS TAKEN by The US to limit Collateral Damage ... otherwise we would, as a cost/benefit consideration, merely use cheap dumb iron bombs in carpets, erasing not just The Target but its extended environs), I find no basis for condemnation of the practice. A large part of war is to destroy one's enemy's WILL, as well as ABILITY, to wage war. There will be no "Wanton slaughter of civilians and gratuitous destruction of civil infrastructure" beyond any such as may be effected, for its propagand value, by The Iraqi Regime itself.



timber

Am i seeing things, or did Walter have a post here which has now disappeared?

(caught red-handed)

I deleted it, since I don't want to post long legal articles and quotations (which shoud be translated into English before).

'K, makes sense . . . be sure you got yer shark repellant next time you jump in the pool, Boss . . .

Walter, in all respect, an opposing belligerant nation's power, transportation, industrial, and communication infrastructure are legitimate military targets ... as "Legitimate Targets" go. Shopping and residential districts, and cultural artifacts, are not. This is my reading of "The Law", and it is consistent with interpretations put forward by many more qualified discussors of the issue than I ... not all, or even most of whom, happen to be American.



timber

Blatham continues to produce biased and poorly supported articles to support his premise that there is something dark and sinister in the American Psychie that makes us unfit to protect ourselves anytime we are required to go beyond our borders. If this premise is valid why did we waste so many men and so much money defending ourselves in France and Germany during both World Wars?

Blatham and I have already discussed this in PMs but I think it is a matter for public discussion

Blatham continues to produce biased and poorly supported articles to support his premise that there is something dark and sinister in the American Psychie that makes us unfit to protect ourselves anytime we are required to go beyond our borders. If this premise is valid why did we waste so many men and so much money defending ourselves in France and Germany during both World Wars?

Blatham and I have already discussed this in PMs but I think it is a matter for public discussion

I cannot make the legal arguments here, in that I simply am not familiar enough with the laws pertaining.

But until I see something other than our suppositions, would you mind if I at least temporarily assume that the author, the organization he/she represents, and the Boston Globe editorial staff have it right?

perception

My views on this were actually covered quite thoroughly some pages back. But the Lapham piece said everything rather better than I'll be able to do.

What is that old addage about ---ass--u--me?

With all due respect, why would you assume that? I would surely offer the article as fodder for the team, but I would not assume the position it took was accurate unless I had personal knowledge that it was or I took the time to check.

The press very often gets it very wrong. Sometimes this is just a factor of not being able to know EVERYTHING, yet still having to report on EVERYTHING, and other times they get it wrong knowingly, because they prefer a lie to the truth. In either case, it behooves us to recognize their fallibility, and always be skeptics, even when presented with information that tells us what we want to hear.

perception, blatham is as welcome to his point of view and his choice of supportive documentation as is anyone else ... even you.
blatham also is aware the source and tone of his offered documentation will be considered by some, and is comfortable with that.

Non-Issue, in my book. The argument and its support are indistinguishable in most cases. Opinion is a matter of opinion.
We all have opinions. blatham more generally than some others differentiates between personal position and statement of fact.


Next business?



timber

Daggone Timber you just turned me back into my happy---serene---"Guppie" self

timber

You know, one of the problems I think we run into here is that--at least with the linguistic limitations I'm pushing against--it can be very hard to convey tone with your words when limited to text.

As an example, I know that when I wrote my most recent response to blatham, I wrote it in good humor. Yet, when I read it back myself now, it comes across as being contentious and "in yer face". This is not at all how I meant it to read, yet I myself find it comes across that way.

It's small wonder then that things get a bit heated at times, even when we're trying our damnedest to be civil.

blatham - If I sounded like I was being a jerk, I wasn't trying to be. I simply meant to prod you into questioning why you assume the author knows what he or she is writing about. I think it's something we should try to do, even when we agree with him or her.

tress

No, I didn't take your post (or perceptions) as accompanied by a 'in your face' tone (of course, timber is another kettle of boiling work-boots all together). Your point is taken re what one reads or hears.

But this seems not likely to be much mistaken. Though I don't know this author, I respect the organization she represents, and the Globe, and expect them both to get a simple factual matter like this right.

ps
And I despise secrecy in government and in international bodies which effectively create laws.

Yeah, I agree. Especially this administrations intelligence information that Saddam has WMD, but they can't share, because it'll reveal their source. With that kind of logic, no government will be required to prove anything before a pre-emptive strike on another country. Bad, bad, policy. c.i.

Fair enough, though Timber's comments lead me to believe that there are conflicting opinions as to what the law is in this area, and perhaps your source could have acknowledged that while still educating us regarding their being concerns as to whether the US was trampling international law, rather than simply stating that we are.

Just a thought.