Letter to the Editor in the NYTimes this morning, from Ottowa, speaking praise of this war "to save Western civilization." We haven't heard much of this, have we? Perhaps it is lying in lurk.
perc, she said it was silly...
There was a correspondent blog on BBC that said that some of the residences may have been set afire by retreating iraqi troups. Also, some of the pressumed oil field fires aren't that but pools of oil/feul set afire by iraqis to confuse incoming offensive forces.
Interview: Edward Peck Discusses The Possible U.S. Involvement In Iraq Should The U.S. Launch A Pre-Emptive Strike
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2002/oct/021021.edwards.html
This an October interview with a former ambassador to Iraq who said this morning that the US is letting itself into big trouble by attacking Iraq. He thinks terrorist attacks on Americans will increase exponentially, here and abroad (see this morning's interview on NPR's Weekend Edition.)
thanks for that link Tartarin
blatham wrote:Quote:trespassers will wrote:
Quote:
...the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration opposes...
We don't oppose it, we simply don't recognize its authority over US citizens and on US soil. (It's called sovereignty.)
A few shots over Tres' bow for this post. No reason not to add another.
I actually didn't quite believe you'd written this, Tres.
I mean, to make that statement while the US has just begun a war against a
sovereign state.
And, where the
justification for that action is that the attacked state has not abided by a UN mandate -
a mandate which the US clearly feels ought to be recognized and adhered to as it has authority above and beyond sovereignty..
Thus, sovereignty for the US is demanded, but for other states, submission to senior authority is contrarily demanded.
But, of course, the reality is even worse than that. The UN didn't demand this violation of sovereignty - the US did.
America Uberallis.
Too clever by half, Bernie. Iraq gave up sovereignty in this matter by signing a ceasefire within the framework of which they made promises about how they would behave and in so doing ceded sovereignty to the other side until those promises were kept.
Tres
Let's assume then your premise that sovereignty is lessened or compromised only under specific signed agreements. I believe that is a valuable way to think of this matter.
But it thus entails that the US does itself submerge it's soveriegnty with each such signing. Agreed?
from Charter of the United Nations
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Well?????
This is an excerpt from the above
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Since the Security Council has proven itself incapable of taking measures necessary to maintain international peace and security, this discussion is irrelevant.
Please, enlighten us, how have they tried?
blatham wrote:Tres
Let's assume then your premise that sovereignty is lessened or compromised only under specific signed agreements. I believe that is a valuable way to think of this matter.
But it thus entails that the US does itself submerge it's soveriegnty with each such signing. Agreed?
Which is precisely why I applaud their foresight in refusing to join in the ICC insanity.
Tres -- We did not suffer an armed attack from Iraq. We acted aggressively, not defensively. The Security Council did its damnedest to rise to the occasion, find a middle way, and was consistently backstopped by the fact that Colin Powell's assertions turned out to be fabrications, one after another, though several speeches. I hope you had a chance to listen, live, to the discussions in both sessions -- the level of the rest of the speeches I found to be unexpectedly high. I felt sorry for Powell, but not forgiving.
Blatham, et al., I just came back from a journey through bad radio reception territory, but still have a few quotes and things to share with you. (I'll leave the static out!)
AM radio: Antiwar activists have no morals and are illegal. They should be arrested and kept under arrest until the war is over and then tried. There is absolutely no excuse for protest.
FM (public) radio: The list of "what hasn't happened" is growing. No Scuds have been fired. No WMD's have been found though they'd expected to find some (specific) ones by now. There have been no gas/chem/bio attacks, at least not from the the Iraqi side (I don't know how one classifies napalm).
I talked this morning with some people I'm fond of but have frankly been avoiding. They are born Republicans, have never considered the options from what they've told me -- very bright but very conventional. This morning I found that they are "deeply troubled" (and looked it physically) by the administration and the war. I take this to be a very good sign. I think if a centrist fiscally conservative Republican were to run against Bush in 2004, Bush would die a quick and I hope agonizing political death. The Democratic party might too and though I'm a member of it, I wouldn't miss it. I'd trot back to the left and regain my respect for the GOP.
Scuds have been identified. Remains of two missles which fell on Kuwait have been confirmed as Scuds. Other missiles have been involved, but two Scuds have been identified.
Here's something new I just heard about which may be of interest -- particularly to those interested in military theory:
National Center for Unconventional Thought
28 February, 2002
FORMER SECNAV TO LAUNCH NEW POTOMAC CENTER
Arlington, VA-Former Secretary of the Navy, Dr. John F. Lehman will be the keynote speaker on February 28th as the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies announces the formation of the National Center for Unconventional Thought (NCUT). This new center will explore and develop unconventional and innovative concepts in areas such as homeland security, emerging asymmetrical threats, military robotics, and defense reform initiatives. It will provide its findings and recommendations to the U.S. defense community, including the U.S. Defense Department's Transformation Office, the federal interagency community, and the private sector....
http://potomacinstitute.org/media/release.cfm?release_number=1
I like its name, of course!
Tartarin, I like that: a center for unconventional thought. Too bad it wasn't perking along to help our president when his imagination failed him at a crucial time. Heaven only knows what ideas might have saved us from war!
Trouble is, Kara -- unconventional thought can me undemocratic thought, or anti-freedom thought, or....
Blatham -- Today, talking about the generally diminishing oil capacity in the Middle East (still damn good but going down steadily), they mentioned Canada as next on the list of high oil reserve countries. As so I could see a steady demonization of Chretien as a tyrant with WMD's (ice, snow, snowbirds and their RV's) and Canada as a humanitarian disaster (the road food, the architecture, the weather..). And ultimately, of course, an invasion beautifully staged for CNN and Fox.
Timber - BBC says there were no confirmed SCUDs fired.....
And BBC says this:
"Iran's official news agency says rockets have landed on its side of the Iraq border, adding that US and UK aircraft have continued to violate Iranian airspace"
I hope that isn't as bad as it sounds....
Thanks, LittleK! I heard it on a staticky NPR station but didn't pick up the origin. BBC makes sense.
The Iranians and the Turks don't seem to have been taken very seriously by the aggression planners...
todays NYT ;
Quote:This time, both sides have been fighting the missile war differently. So far, the Iraqis have not fired any of the few Scuds they are thought to have retained. Instead, they have been launching the Ababil-100, a solid-fueled missile that is easy to move and that the Iraqis have been firing primarily from areas surrounding Basra. So far, none of the missiles have carried chemical or germ warheads
.
i dont know what the difference is? perhaps some clarification?
