THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

No, just that we wrought some progress.

Absolute monarchy worked for most of the esteemed ladies and gentlemen you mention, yet still we managed to get beyond that, too, into an age of parliamentary democracy, republics and constitutional monarchies. No reason why there shouldnt be more political evolutions like that.

I agree. We should all hope and work for change and progress.

History gives us a good basis on which to estimate the rate at which our political institutions develop and grow. It suggests that the time constants for such development are in generations and centuries - not decades.

History also reveals that the state of development and the stability of political institutions can vary greatly from place to place during the same age.

Finally history provides numerous examples of the bad results that can flow from the institutionalization of unrealistic expectations.

The stability, governance, and state of development of the UN was demonstrated to be sufficient to bring order in a crisis situation in East Timur following the removal of Indonesian control (and misrule). However it has proven itself insufficicent to deal with more difficult situations in several parts of Central and West Africa. I doubt that direct application of UN governance of (say) Canada would yield any net improvement in either governance or the human condition there.

It is folly to surrender the sovereignty of developed nations to relqatively undeveloped international bodies, in the name of progress. The right historical moment for this may one day come, but it sure isn't here yet.

LINK

That was clever Walter. How did you do it?

I hope Nimh and everyone else understands my intent in the "duh" matter was not to embarass Nimh. He is a good guy, more cordial, reasonable and interesting than most of us here (and I do include myself in that.) It was just a bit jarring to read that again and again, and I'm sure he never intended it that way. I certainly could not approach his ability in English in his language.

I am rather surprised to see that anyone would suggest that sovereignty be surrendered to the United Nations. I see in the present day that sovereignty will become an issue in the attempt to form a cohesive European Union, even if European journalistic pundits eager for that consumation are side-stepping the issue. The current intransigence of Spain and Poland is certainly understandable if one simply sees that nations will not willing surrender an iota of their "parity of sovereignty" when agreeing to act in concert, or to form a union. That Germany and France contribute more to the pot when it is time to ante means nothing in the face of a contention that this entitles them to more control over the affairs of other nations as a result, because that is naturally seen as a surrender of sovereignty. The quid pro quo is not there in the minds of the electorate, a force with greater appeal to the governing bodies of Spain and Poland than any mathematical rationalization on the part of other E.U. members. There was a while ago a thread about how the E.U. would be constituted, to which i contributed one of my typically long-winded opinions. I opined then that sovereignty is an issue which will have to be addressed; the current bruhaha between Spain and Poland on the one hand, and Germany and France on the other is exemplary of what i was attempting to point out. Perhaps what i wrote got ignored because i referred to how divisive this issue was in the constitutional convention in the America two hundred years ago, and Europeans have a marked distaste for such comparisons.

Nevertheless, nations will always jealously guard their sovereignty even as they surrender other aspects of control which are not identified in the minds of their respective populations as touching upon national pride. When big, nasty Austria (only big and nasty with Imperial Germany at their back) gave Serbia an ultimatum in July, 1914, the Serbs caved into every humiliating demand, except that Austrian judges preside over any investigation or trial, saying that this one small point they would reserve. That nation was willing to risk their national survival on a point which they saw as touching sovereignty in an unacceptable manner. So it was, and always will be.

As for the United Nations, i would rather think of that body as the equivalent of the various London conferences held in the 19th century, or the Berlin conference of 1878. That is to say, a consultative body in which the nations may work to avert international disaster, or to work for international settlement of issue which might otherwise loom as disasterous. I don't believe that any of us will live long enough to see world which wishes to unite under such a body as a supreme government.

George, Charles V and Carlos II were the same person, acting in two different roles.

You are right. I meant his legitimate son Phillip II.

His bastard daughter, the Duchess of Parma, had much the more fun, though, Boss. She got to preside over the inception of the Dutch rebellion, and to execute Count van Horn and the Baron Egmont, not to mention chasing all the merry iconoclasts around the Spanish Netherlands. Charlie was a piece of work, and he left a madcap legacy to his legitimate son, and his illegitimate daughter.

Setatnta

Just to to name all the states and not only two:
Austria, Britain, France, Germany the Netherlands and Sweden said the budget should not exceed 1% of the EU's gross national product from 2007 onwards.

Yes,

His illegitimate children, Juan included, were much more agreeable people than the dull, dutiful, plodding, stubborn Phillip. Charles also did a most unusual thing - he retired, still vigorouis and in good health, to live a convivial, pleasant life in Spain.

I fancy I know history very well. However you are far ahead of me. How did you come by it.

I am an exceedingly dull man, Boss, and find more pleasure in reading books like Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic than in the company of my fellow man. (Fellow woman, now that's a different story.)

BTW, after Charlie hung up his spurs in 1555, Henri II of France and Phillip had a little war to celebrate the new monarch. The Spanish lost, but it was all in good fun. That is when the idiot, the Baron Egmont, got to be famous--he was famously reckless in mounted combat with a lance. These days, thanks to Beethoven, everyone thinks he was, and continues to claim that he was, one of the leaders of the Dutch rebellion. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a thoughtless, vain, boy in a man's body, who hadn't the sense to get out of town, even when almost everyone around him told to as they packed their own bags. Count van Horn was dying already, and knew it (probably cancer), and he seems not have cared for Egmont (not surprising, van Horn was an eternal misanthrope), and was glad to have the fool for company before the stroke of the executioner's sword put him out of his misery.

When you listen to Beethoven's Egmont Overture, just remind yourself what a magnificent piece of music was composed to celebrate a fool without sense to come in out of the rain.

Walter, Where's France in that chart? No give, no take?

c.i.

It's a chart by the BBC. As said above, there are six 'big spender' countries. France is one of them.
(I'm sure, somewhere on the EU-site I could the amount/percentage ...)

Thanks for the history lessons, george and setanta. Very interesting.

George

There was no absolute need to photograph Saddam. DNA testing in Western/Arabic labs could have confirmed his identity. So could his daughter, unless of course we want to kill her too.

But if you need to publish a photograph it could have been done when he was cleaned up and looking more like his former self, rather than a video tape of a confused old man undergoing oral examination and checked for head lice. [was he drugged btw?]

The Geneva conventions state explicitly that prisoners are not to be humiliated by being put on public display. He either is a pow and therefore comes under that protection or he's not. Rumsfeld cant have it both ways.

[I don't believe there is any precedent for such a despot falling into British hands, except perhaps Napoleon Bonaparte. I seem to recall we sent him as far away as possible, St Helena to be precise, hardly the centre of attention, and that was long before Geneva]

You say Saddam's principle crimes were against his own people. I agree. So what was America doing invading Iraq?
Why did America not invade Stalin's Russia? What are you doing to protect the Chinese or Burmese people from tyranny?

The death penalty is generally seen world wide as a cruel and unusual punishment and not appropriate to civilised society. However there are exceptions, the USA and maybe Iraq under their new constitution being obvious examples. I'm against the death penalty, but if the Iraqis wish to inflict it on Saddam, I'm not going to say they should not. Hopefully in time they will understand the need to abolish it.

I don't think anyone said Europe was perfect. Superior to the United States perhaps, but not perfect. The failure to sort out the problems in the former Yugoslavia is a case in point and draws attention to the lack of an independent military under European command capable of significant intervention.

Whilst I'm pleased Saddam is now out of the frame, that was not the reason we went to war with Iraq. We did so to eliminate their weapons of mass destruction, and the search for WMD is the only legitimate basis for the continuing occupation. As we can't find any, and as the Saddam regime itself is now history, the legal basis for remaining in Iraq has collapsed.

Pragmatically speaking, of course, legal bases for the actions of the Bush administration are subjects of not the least interest to the members thereof.

Steve,

Demonstrating in a visceral way the fact that Saddam is powerless and fully in our custody, and no longer able to exercise power in any form was a practical necessity for the stabilization of Iraq. The photographs that were used were quite adequate for that purpose. This was a humanitarian need that very far outweighed any sensitivity for his former exalted status. Your nitpicking on this point defies common sense, unless your own opposition to the U.S./UK intervention transcends the question.

You should read up on the British treatment of captured Boers during the war of that name. (BTW the term 'concentration camps' was first coined there - Lord Roberts, I believe created them for Boer civilians and first used the term.)

We already addressed the fact that we (and your country) tend to intervene in such situations only when our vital interests appear threatened. The fact is that the Soviet Union was a great danger. We and our allies (they were that then) addressed this through a deliberate and well thought out strategy of containment. Some did argue for preemptive action, but the prospect of nuclear war gave the lie to that idea. Surely this cannot be news to you.

You speak of the WMD issue as "the only legitimate basis for the continuing occupation". Where did you get that idea? It may be your concept of a legitimate basis, but it is not the concept of your government or mine. I can think of many equally or more important reasons: they have been endlessly recited on these threads, so there is little use repeating them.

The United States did provide considerable aid to China during WWII and afterwards. Indeed the 4th Marine Division was in Shanghai until about 1947. After that we provided protection for the Nationalist government in Taiwan. As I recall Burma was a British possession. What DID you do for them???

Were the IRA prisoners held in the Maise in Northern Ireland without judicial process for several years POWs? Did you speak out in their behalf? (In fact I believe that overall the UK government handled that very difficult situation rather well. However in doing so they systematically violated several of the principles you have recited here.)

I would have to break out an encyclopedia to verify this, but I believe that the majority of the earth's population resides in countries with the death penalty. Your statement to the contrary;
" the death penalty is generally seen world wide as a cruel and unusual punishment and not appropriate to civilized society."
is simply not true - a bald fantasy.

Europe's inability to take needed action during two years of needless slaughter in Bosnia had NOTHING to do with the lack of a unified Europe-only command. The real reason s were several: (1) The conflicting sympathies of Germany for the Croatia, Italy for the Slovenians, and Russia for the Serbs; (2) a general apathy among the European governments - we had to forcefully prod them to take action. (3) the lack of military forces and transport. There was nothing in the behavior of the European governments to be proud of in this matter: quite the contrary. The only superiority I will concede to Europe is in complacency and unjustified self-satisfaction.

Damn George! You took the words right out of my mouth!

You make some good points.

They owe no more to Sadam as they do to Nick Nolte. The photos would have been leaked if they weren't released.

You'd find those countries who use the death penalty a nice place to move to I'm sure, George.