Annan says Iraq war illegal

I NEVER thought I would find myself agreeing with KenH against Joe Botwinick. I am generally skeptical of international institutions, mostly because they're rooted in part of the liberal worldview which is internationalism, and their hostility to nationalism and its perceived obstacle to human perfection. Somehow, nation-states are deviations from their Rousseau-ian state of nature but international bodies are not, probably due to their misguided fawning over the "brotherhood of man".

However, nation-states because they are guided by evil men, should govern themselves in their conduct toward each other according to mutually agreeable standards of proper conduct. I do agree that the Geneva Convention, and to some extent the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (though the latter is idealism rooted in an acceptance of statism, and its concepts of rights are rooted in humanism) provide a reference point by which civilized countries can hold, not only themselves accountable, but also uncivilized nations (the transnationalism of terrorism presents a complication that I believe can be overcome, and largely is by the present structure).

It would be easy to say that because we are a moral country our conduct should guide that of that of the rest of the world. There is much in that that appeals to me, but I think it is a prideful approach. It is obvious that the rest of the world looks up to our standards, however much they decry our success, but evil leaders and nations should be judged by standards of behavior that are widely held. No, widely held doesn't make them right, but we can know that they are widely held because they are right. If those standards deteriorate so will the consensus, I believe.

 

Here's another one:

Neither Adolph Hitler, Nero, Judas, Idi Amin, Pennsylvania JIm, or Church Mouse Guy desire(d) to die from a brain tumor. We must be "peas in a pod", as they say.

 

BTW, Church Mouse, another fallacy in your original point is that you lumped Peroutka together with Annan inthir opinions of the war...

But Annan was talking about "international law" (the UN) and Peroutka was talking about US law.

Once again, you man Bush is far more in line with the UN than is Peroutka, who thinks we should kick them out.

 

Wow, a powerful argument...anyone who disagrees with you is simply irrational, and their opinion is not respectable. You are a deep thinker, CMG...brilliant.

 

Yeah, sure. You equate CP members with Communists, then accuse me of personal attacks. Go down to Walmart and pick up a mirror.

 

By US law, yes. This is the first one in a long while where Congressional approval was sought ahead of the fact.

But as for international law? Most people in the US & UK, perhaps (fewer & fewer & fewer), but not most rational people and, I doubt, not most people in the world (which includes, after all, France, Germany, Scandanavia, South American and the Mid East).

What is the sentiment in Australia these days?

 

For a second there I thought you were talking to yourself. You have a very strang logic, to try to say that the Constitution Party, that calls for kicking the U.N. out of the country, and the U.N. are "birds of a feather". You seem to forget that there are also some Republicans and Democrats in Congress who voted against the war that agree with Micahel Peroutka as well.

It was President Bush who signed the bill that gave more of your tax dollars to the U.N., and it is President Bush who is requesting even more of your tax dollars to pay for a standing U.N. Army in Africa.

 

I think Bush made a serious mistake justifying the war "because of UN resolutions."

Even partially basing our foreign policy at the direction of others is a mistake. It's apparent that he was not sincere about that, and just using it as a pretext, but it still creates a precedent.

We should attack countries that pose an immediate and serious threat to us. Those that don't need to be handled in other ways.

 

Daisy, I would disagree that both sides agree that the war was legal from the perspective of US law.

I understand that from your rather leftist perspective, that may be your opinion, and the same goes for Church Mouse. But those who have not given up on conservative values, it looks otherwise.

 

Australian PM John Howard stands firmly with the US & UK.

New Zealand has a small force of reconstruction engineers & workers, but they haven't been able to do much lately because of the insurgency. New Zealand is going to pull its force out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan (who?).

In other parts of the world:

France declined to comment, saying its position was well know and hasn't changed. China, also opposed, also declined to comment formally.

 

Let's have a little fun with "Mouse logic".

GW Bush, Ted Kenedy, and Karl Marx agree that the national government should take a bigger role in education.

Therefore, all Republicans and Democrats are Marxists.


Arlen Specter, Hillary Clinton, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, all think that Planned Parenthood should be funded to provide abortions. Margaret Sanger was a leader in the "Eugenics" movement, upon which Nazi racist policies were based, and spoke of using abortion to limit the black race.

Therefore, the GOP, the Democrat party, and the German Nazi Party of 1940 all think that people should be killed or live based on their race.

WOW!!! Church Mouse Guy, the possibilities are endless. You may be on to something here.

BTW, CMG...do you agree, along with Satanists, that minus ten degrees is cold enough to need a coat?

 

Yeah, sure, CMG. I hope you get better soon.

 

Mouse, you should quit while you're only way behind. Jim's got you on that one.