| |
|
5. februar 2003
|
|
Powell convinces no skeptics
Colin Powell presented several lines of evidence against Iraq today, but it's unlikely he managed to convince any of the skeptics. The UK and Spain were already convinced. France wasn't, and it still isn't.
But it's hard to see France, Russia and China allowing the UN to be sidelined when it comes down to an ultimatum.
7:49:31 PM 
|
|
"International law"
Opponents of a war on Iraq often use the term "international law" to argue against a unilateral attack on Iraq from the US and its allies.
Just to be clear on what this means: If the UN Security council agrees to a resolution explictly permitting use of force against Iraq, then nobody can reasonably say that an attack violates international law. If the security council doesn't, we have a number of old resolutions that are ambiguous, which means, opponents will say a war violates international law while proponents will assert it is according to international law.
Everybody want to come across as respecting law and order. However, "international law" in this case is not much more than a negotiation system for brute force. During and immedialey after WWII, the United Nations was created. The victorious powers the USA, the UK, France, China and the Soviet Union (now Russia) were given permanent seats with veto power on the Security Council, the UN's supreme lawmaking body. France was, to be frank, not really a victarious power, but at the time the US and the UK assumed it would be an ally against Stalin's Soviet. The same applied to China, but we know what happened when China went communist. The losers of WWII, Japan and Germany, may well be major powers, but for these historical reasons they have no veto power.
Essentially, if China uses its veto powers to stop a resolution permitting war, an attack on Iraq would be (arguably) in violation of international law. China is a highly oppressive dictature, ruled by an geriatry of men who everybody realises don't give a damn about the lives of Iraqi civilians, international law or any humanitarian concerns. If the US led coalition should fail to get a strong security council resolution, it will be because the big powers don't consider it to be in its narrow interests to support an attack.
This is the kind of "rule of law" opponents of war rely on. A sobering fact, indeed.
4:38:47 PM
|
|
30,000!
My blog just passed 30,000 readings this morning. That is an overwhelming response to my blog, which was started only September 25th last year.
Thank you to all old and new readers, to those who comment, and to my fellow bloggers. You have all contributed to make this fun and rewarding.
9:29:59 AM
|
|
The Onion's Bush Prophecy
The Onion is one of the best satire sites on the net. The key words are satire, parody and humour. It is not intended to be taken fully seriously, even though, as everybody should know, real humour is often a serious business. Furthermore, as I have pointed out many times: good parody is indestinguishable from true fanaticism. And when the Onion published an article condemning J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series as an "encyclopedia of Satanism," some Christians took it seriously and started passing the article around, leading many fundamentalists to fight to have the book series banned.
Thus, the Onion's satire sometimes comes scarily close to reality. I doubt, however, that the author of this piece about George Bush, written in January 2001, could possibly expect to hit the target so spot on.
The article begins by having George Bush say that when he's now taken over after 8 years of prosperity under Clinton, "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over." The fictuous Bush continues the prophetic speech:
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Not only did the article predict the end of economic prosperity, massive increase in debts and the return of his father's recession, it also all but predicted Gulf War II:
"During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years."
The Onion surely beats the Bible hands down for prophetic accuracy.
7:34:51 AM
|
|
Smoked gun
Rayne brilliantly summarises all the questions about the underreported story about the Iraqi defector. So who is Gordon Thomas?
6:16:22 AM
|
|
No comment necessary
4:09:00 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.03.2003; 00:14:33.
|
|
|
