Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by pudge (1) on 2002.07.18 16:45 (#10821) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps the most important taboo is the longevity of the United States as both a terrorist state and a haven for terrorists. That the US is the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable.

    The only reason they are the "only one" is because such a court would never ever go after one of the real terrorist states. That Iraq has not been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism is at least as interesting as, if not more interesting than, that the US has been.

    And yes, the US vetoed a resolution which would have been unconstitutional and unreasonable for the US to accept. Under such circumstances, a veto was the right thing to do. Calling on everyone to observe international law sounds like a fine idea, but the problem is that no US citizen is obligated to follow international law while in the United States, unless that law is specifically adopted by the U.S. Congress. So such a resolution could have no legal force in the US.

    Further, even if it could, it would be unreasonable. The reason the US is the "only one" to be condemned by the World Court, the reason the US will not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the reason the last UN Security Council resolution having to do with Arab-Israeli conflicts that was critical of Arab states was over 50 years ago, the reason the US was removed from the UN Human Rights commission in favor of Sudan, is because these bodies are largely anti-America and anti-Israel. We cannot trust them. It is unreasonable therefore to submit to them (apart from being illegal without Congressional support, as noted above).
    • I was wondering how long it was going to take you to bite. :-D

      The last two links selected can safely be called extreme Left views. It is interesting to note that Noam Chomsky (whose 9-11 book I'm currently reading) and Wallerstein both see the extreme Left as discredited (and presumably consider themselves apart from that crowd).

      It appears that you assume that the UN is anti-American and therefore their condemnation is illegimate. Chomsky and Wallerstein seem to believe that bad US foreign policy is to

      • It appears that you assume that the UN is anti-American and therefore their condemnation is illegimate. Chomsky and Wallerstein seem to believe that bad US foreign policy is to blame and take the UN debacle as evidence of US guilt.

        I think the truth is somewhere in between.


        The point is that it is nearly self-evident, that by any possible measure what the US did in Nicaragua pales in comparison to what other nations, like Iraq, like Afghanistan, have done. Where's the condemnation? And it is also self-ev