Re: Ghosts and physcis and stuff

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, John Davis wrote:

> > Um, to my recollection, there have only been, like, two occasions when
> > *anyone* has *ever* asked the UN for permission to go to war -- and on
> > both of those occasions (Korea in 1950, Iraq in 1991), it was the
> > United States that did the asking.  No other nation, to my knowledge,
> > has asked the UN for permission to go to war -- and indeed, America
> > has gone to war in Kosovo and elsewhere without getting permission
> > from the UN first.
>
> You're correct, but does that invalidate the charter?

I think the *deeper* question to ask here is what the UN is *for*.  Like
it or not, the UN is a creation of the 1940s, and it was designed to
address the political realities of its era.  Those realities have since
given way to new realities, and we might ask just how useful the UN is
nowadays, i.e. whether it does more good than harm, etc.

> If the charter is no good, then the UN itself has no authority and then
> our entire stated reason for going in (Iraq blatantly ignored and defied
> UN resolution 1441) is just smoke and mirrors. 

I do not believe that that was your "entire" stated reason for going in --
but it was certainly one of the justifications that was offered.

> > . . . since when has getting "approval from the UN" been a
> > prerequisite for military action?
>
> Since we A: ratified the UN Charter . . .

So no country can go to war, ever, anywhere, without the UN's permission
once it has joined the UN?  Seems to me we should all be complaining about
lots of other countries before we complain about the U.S., then.

> . . . and B: made failure to comply with a UN resoluton the point of
> contention for war. 

It was *a* point of contention, yes.

> > But what assertion is my dad trying to prove?  The only assertion he
> > needs to prove is that you have failed to give your dad the proof that
> > backs up *your* assertion.  And the fact that you lock your dad out of
> > your bedroom and that he lets you get away with it wouldn't be very
> > encouraging.
>
> Who said I locked him out? He came once, left of his own recognizance*,
> and then came back when your dad started mkaing a fuss.
>
> *(Saddam/Iraq never threw UN weapons inspectors out - that's a myth.
> They left because they were frustrated at the way they were being
> treated. But they weren't kicked out.)

Okay, so your dad left your room because you nagged him into leaving, or
because you harassed him into leaving.  The fact that your dad is easily
bullied or intimidated is hardly an argument in your favour!

> He was in there, studiously looking, until he heard *your* dad was going
> to come in with his *own* far more powerful fireworks to blow things all
> to hell.

You're forgetting the parts where you threatened to go to war against my
dad and yours while he was trying to "studiously" look around.  The armies
in and around Iraq weren't exactly twiddling their thumbs for 12 years.

> My dad wants to know the truth, but he also isn't interested in having
> me pick up peices of him from the corners of his room. Why couldn't your
> dad wait till my dad had decided one way or another? 

Because twelve years is long enough?  Because some ruffian threw a Molotov
cocktail through my dad's window a year ago and he has to do something
about threats to the neighbourhood and yes that includes you?

> > Okay, perhaps there is a second assertion my dad needs to prove --
> > namely, that you are plotting to harm him.  After all, what business
> > is it of his if you have fireworks in your bedroom, right?  But if
> > you're friends with a bunch of ruffians, some of whom hate my dad's
> > guts, and some of whom merely hate the guts of my dad's friends, and
> > all of whom have sworn to do nasty stuff to my dad if they ever get
> > fireworks, then that would be pretty convincing proof, I think, that
> > something needs to be done there.
>
> You dad might want to prove I'm friends with these ruffians.

Well, my dad has already seen you try to make friends with those ruffians
-- even if they have not returned your advances yet, the fact remains,
there's no reason he should let your offer stand.

> The only ruffian suspected of doing your dad any harm has gone on record
> several times as hating my guts. 

And this is one of the most irrelevant arguments anyone could ever make
about this whole mess.  The ruffian hates my dad's guts, too, but that
didn't stop him from doing business with my dad when it served both their
purposes, did it?  What makes you think the ruffian has suddenly decided
to place ideological purity ahead of his own pragmatic agenda?

BTW, the fact that we can even talk about you and your dad like this, as
though Iraq somehow occupied a room in the UN's house, speaks volumes
about the UN and its current place in the world.  Perhaps you/we should
come up with a better metaphor or analogy?

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
Nothing tells memories from ordinary moments; only afterwards do they
   claim remembrance, on account of their scars. -- Chris Marker, La Jetee

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/