Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I seem to recall pudge [] pointing out repeatedly last year the matter of enforcing U.N. resolutions (1205, 1194, and more).

    Of course, there's the matter of U.N. resolutions against Israel, but I like to get around that by claiming the U.N. is institutionally incapable of making an intelligent decision there.

    • by Ovid (2709) on 2004.02.13 11:18 (#28426) Homepage Journal

      The resolutions are an argument in favor of the war and I was considering bringing that up but it seemed such a weak argument that I decided to focus on the "bad man" argument. The UN issue is a curious one. The US often ignores World Court rulings, ignores treaties (in violation of the US Constitution, I might add) and harsh UN rulings against our allies are often vetoed by us. Thus, any argument that our country -- which repeatedly flouts the rule of international law and blocks its application against our allies -- engaged in action in Iraq because Iraq was an international lawbreaker seems a bit hollow.

      Pointing out US hypocricy in this matter does not absolve Iraq, but pointing out how selectively the law condemns (much less applies) makes it less clear that Iraq was deserving of singular attention.

      • I still fail to see a problem. Sometimes the interests of the U.S. (ahh, metonymy) align with those of the U.N. Sometimes they don't. International sovereignty, blah blah, why does the U.S. get a vote if disagreement is bad, blah blah.

        The "bad man argument" is just stupid. If I claimed that the 1993 Mogadishu action was just Clinton trying to impress a dumpy fat chick, it'd also be simplistic.

        I do agree that the U.S. has supported a lot of terrible people and makes alliances with some really shady g

        • I'm not sure if you'd prefer that the executive branch waits for perfect action, motives, and information before acting.

          No, I certainly don't think that's reasonable. However, I would argue that supporting blatantly immoral behavior while claiming a moral high ground can undermine support from the international community. While many nations routinely suffer from such hypocricy, to pre-emptively attack another country based upon it is a far more serious thing than condemning behavior while tacitly supp

          • In The West Wing a few seasons ago they had this thing where the US was supporting a regime that didn't respect women's rights, and the press secretary was complaining to the National Security Advisor (both of them women), and the NSA said, "it's a dangerous world, and everybody has guns, and I'm doing the best I can."

            Pakistan has nukes, propped up the Taliban, probably has Bin Laden in its borders, and its government is the result of a military coup of the democratically elected government. And now we fi