you know it is a shame

Ok, then...that IS sad.

 

I can't see that being a member of the UN has "tied our hands." The current war is proof of that. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I didn't mean to limit the cause to the current war, but was speaking in view of the whole issue of international law since the 14 points.

Bro. Dallas

 

Regarding the use of pigs...

One of my professors served in the South African Diplomatic Corps to Jordan and Israel. He told me that back when the British ruled Palestine they used to wrap the dead bodies of Islamic suicide bombers/terrorist in pig hides and return them to their families for burial in that manner. Supposedly, this helped the British keep a greater control over the more radical Muslims. This is probably what drives the current suggested idea.

 

Brother rsr,
Wilson was the first political scientist elected president. The fourteen points, [league of nations] failed in the US, but began the downhill spiral that ultimately has led to institution of helpless international law. What good is that law if it is not enforced? It is only as good as the recognition that threats are not empty but will be backed up. Although international law plays from the systems theory of operations, it is still and must, imho, always be dependent upon the individual (either leaders or national) willingness to support their threats. Once empty threats are permitted to be even perceived, the bully is much harder to convince.

International law only serves to bind those who would honor it in the first place.

This does not mean I agree with mistreating prisoners in any time, place or fashion. But, on the other hand, I have never been in such a situation and had to witness the atrocities that may be perpetrated on my brothers and sisters in arms.

I just don't think the UN is able to garner enough credibility to be of any use, to either the US or any other member nation.
Bro. Dallas

 

Our differences are not a problem dear brother.

But note that my point is that patronage of the UN weakens US civil law, etc.

I am in opposition to the UN because I do not believe that nations will ever relinquish national sovereignty [peacefully] and I think the UN has tasted enough power to maybe be willing in the future to resort to force to increase the acceptance of international law.

The international law is a noble attempt, but I just don't think it is feasible. It will ultimately negate nationalistic authority in countries subscribing, while increasingly widening the gulf between the third and fourth world countries not submitting themselves to much more than a regional tribal cheiftan. At the same time, these regional clans are wondering when their turn on the world stage is. They see no authority in the claims of an international law system they do not respect.

I am satisfied to agree to disagree in this matter. I think in the end it is part of a larger scale that the suppositions of myself will not alter.

It is a fascinating study however to see the way different individuals bring to bear their philosophies upon regional, national and international events. A close study, much closer than I am able to provide, will often reveal motivations the media is unable to see because of their focus on the shock and awe of it all.

Oh well, I have violated my hillbilly citizenship and must discontinue my use of big words for today.

I am thankful we all don't see these things eye to eye, I know the liberal view has operated to enlighten me in certain areas and I hope my conservative view has operated likewise on others. I am, as you probably know an ultr-right-wing conservative, as I told someone else, unable to acknowledge my left side except when shaving. My favorite president was T. Roosevelt, then Franklin, then Kennedy, [so, maybe I am not such a conservative after all?] then Reagan, then Bush 1, if you get older than TR, I would have to go with and stay on Washington as the single most wise individual in US history, including our present political leaders. Who else could have held the army at Valley Forge?

I do think the spiral began at the end of WWI and can be traced to the efforts of nation building, anyway, it is a valid position. The question is whether atrocities are ever appropriate, they are not.

Our first concern is with internal civil rights and protecting these, imho.

But, like always, I have let my mouth outrun my IQ

Bro. Dallas

 

WOW!
Lots of comments I thought of a good idea that I think will solve everything.
We can all get dressed in robes and go over there (well not me just the liberals)and all hold hands light candels and sing give peace a chance. Hug and cry share with each other are feelings. And go walk into Bagdad and tell them you love them.
Are we can destroy that country before they kill us and are children and the land that are fathers died to give us.
Bobby C

 

I agree rsr, tribal cheiftans are a bit, well tribal aren't they?

My point is that these guys aren't losing sleep over the thousands who lost their lives on 9/11. I understand and agree we should not stoop to their level. I don't have any easy solution. I am certain that atrocities have happened and did happen even in our nation's revolutionary war.

I just don't know...what we have is two very different societies, the real battle is going to be establishing a stable government that will resemble a democracy.

I could go off on my right wing extremist kick, but that wouldn't solve anything. I keep remembering that my values aren't always recognized as values, especially in other parts of the world.

Remember the movie 'Black Hawk Down'? the guerilla fighter asked the captured pilot if he was ready to negotiate, the pilot told him he had no authority to negotiate, the guerilla answered that in their culture, power to kill equaled authority to negotiate.

We, even the righties, don't think like that. Perhaps some people just don't want a democratic government, is that possible? I think so. I mean just like all other forms of govt. even ours is not perfect, or am I wearing clear sun glasses here?

God Bless Brother

Bro. Dallas