hari argues that while the invasion on iraq violated international law or precendent, the post 1945 international law was by all accounts a massive failure. it did not prevent the numerous autrocities in rwanda, uganda, kosovo, sierra leon, etc. etc.
as many of the ardenet liberals and especailly thinkers have argued, we must break an unjust law. to not be allowed to invade a country that kills its own people is unjust. especailly considering the emergence of cosmopolitan democracy.
hari writes what i think the war (should) come down to:
i believe the answer should be yes. moreover, i think that modern liberalism answers this question with a frim yes. as intellectuals we should support the war and the erection of new international law.
It’s a weak argument though because of the US’s past actions, it has quite flagrantly abused its veto in the SC since the UN’s formation. However no-one has suggested a complete overhaul of the system until the US decides it’s not good enough for them and then demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the UN.
The UN is not supposed to be a world police, it doesn’t have the power to be and nor should it, who’s ‘world-view’ would you enforce on everyone? Your liberal thinking is not welcomed around much of the world and your system of Justice is alien to many, the words you use mean different things to different people. The UN is a talking place where one tries to stop conflict between nations, not in them.
i don’t know where the un came into play, i think that’s a different thread although it does seem logically that the un would monitor the international law areana, they aren’t going a very good job. and the international law they are enforcing is outdated.
listen, to take an absolute hard-line against universals is fucking stupid (in a christmas-y way, of course). certain things are inherent in man: i.e. self-preservation, understanding or rational thought, emotions, etc. its a very general list, but it is an existing one. what you then do is impose this basic list on other nations; those who violate it suffer the consequences. for instance, genocide violates the faculty of self-preservation. do it and consequences will be carried out. not that hard. this general way of thinking will easily be adopted by every regime, save for the fundamentalists who pose to great a threat anyway.
one last thing, its important to look at the war as an event that goes beyond the us intentions. as a precedent setting event, the war dispalyed for one country to act on another, if that country threatened stability. this is a major thing. of course the type of stability was more closely felt by america, then say nicaragua’s instability to the US, but it was there. eventually, these kinds of wars will evovle to a level when minor threats to instability will not be tolerated.
metavoid, neo-cons, weltansicht, have we picked up this terminology from the lesbian pornos? the problem with the peace movement is that they felt that keeping sadaam in power would result in greater peace — it wouldn’t have. if anything, more war would flourish in the long run (kind like dropiing the a-bomb, if you’re familiar with that even)…
i don’t know where the un came into play, i think that’s a different thread although it does seem logically that the un would monitor the international law areana, they aren’t going a very good job. and the international law they are enforcing is outdated.
listen, to take an absolute hard-line against universals is fucking stupid (in a christmas-y way, of course). certain things are inherent in man: i.e. self-preservation, understanding or rational thought, emotions, etc. its a very general list, but it is an existing one. what you then do is impose this basic list on other nations; those who violate it suffer the consequences. for instance, genocide violates the faculty of self-preservation. do it and consequences will be carried out. not that hard. this general way of thinking will easily be adopted by every regime, save for the fundamentalists who pose to great a threat anyway.
one last thing, its important to look at the war as an event that goes beyond the us intentions. as a precedent setting event, the war dispalyed for one country to act on another, if that country threatened stability. this is a major thing. of course the type of stability was more closely felt by america, then say nicaragua’s instability to the US, but it was there. eventually, these kinds of wars will evovle to a level when minor threats to instability will not be tolerated.
the steps toward stability in the region are already beginning to pay off. i do not think libyria, syria, pakistan, etc would have conformed to weapons inspections as readily. further, the isreal/palestine situation is making some progress. these would not have happened had it not been for the war
metavoid, neo-cons, weltansicht, have we picked up this terminology from the lesbian pornos? the problem with the peace movement is that they felt that keeping sadaam in power would result in greater peace — it wouldn’t have. if anything, more war would flourish in the long run (kind like dropiing the a-bomb, if you’re familiar with that even)…
.