Thank you, gentlemen, for demonstrating the point that declared withdrawal causes pile-ons, even partial departure. SonofCCN was still here, but when I left the field Wilga's reply was to expand his claims into many areas. Kane, previously inactive in the thread save for one reply to SonofCCN, also jumped in and replied to my departure post with much invective. And Kendall attempted to misrepresent my statements and declare me a liar in absentia.
And you guys really think Iraq will go peaceful if we'd just leave? You just proved the opposite yourselves!
I'd love to be able to claim that this demonstration was a plan on my part, but I'd be lying. The fact is, with the falsehoods that have appeared after my departure, and (with respect to JMS) with some cooling-off time, it is time to challenge the falsehoods.
1.
Kendall:
I don't take well to claims that I'm being dishonest. This is especially true when it's based on an example, because invariably such attempts only reflect the author's own misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or out-and-out attempt at deception of the audience.
In your case, you went to all the trouble to search for the term "Holocaust", and . . . not finding it, of course . . . concluded that I was lying.
Instead, you should've stopped and realized that maybe you misunderstood. Of course you wouldn't stop to do this since your goal in the effort was to attempt to discredit me, but that's not the point. The statement I made was that one cannot be polite to Holocaust deniers and their intellectual brethren that are active in this thread.
Praytell, are Holocaust deniers in this thread? I haven't seen them . . . I would certainly have made one helluva fuss about the person if I had. And you confirm that they are not present (or at least are silent about it). One might've even thought that I knew no one had denied the Holocaust in this thread, and that I perhaps even expected others to be familiar enough with the arguments in this thread to know that no one had denied it here.
That would be the correct thought.
Most people, then, would look at the rest of the statement, in which I refer to the "intellectual brethren" of Holocaust deniers "active in this thread". One might even dare to conclude that my primary intent was to compare the rationale of certain people in this thread to Holocaust denial.
Should one so dare, they would be correct. Certain people in this thread have been making statements in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories, despite all the knowledge of the world that such theories are the lunatic ravings of madmen and the self-serving arguments of the deluded.
I consider such drivel to be the intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denial . . . delusion of oneself and the attempt to delude others.
Arguments could be made that such things are somewhat forgivable . . . in the modern era of distant news of sometimes-variable reliability, there is undoubtedly a healthy level of skepticism. But there is also an unhealthy, inherently intellectually-dishonest level, and that is where 9/11 conspiracists and Holocaust deniers are firmly entrenched.
(And incidentally, such absurdities aren't even a left/right issue . . . extremists on both sides reach the same misinformed and dishonest conclusions, for different reasons.)
2.
Kane:
Your disagreement with my statements does not make them lies or me a liar. While some wish to debate the matter, many recognize that UN resolutions supported invasion of Iraq. The Attorney General of the UK thought so, we thought so, and many others did too.
The rest of your post is largely drivel, for which I see no need to waste my time.
3.
Wilga:
While much of your posting is equivalent to Kane's, it is at least somewhat better-defended, and hence more worthy of attention. Ergo:
A. Regarding US funding of the UN, you suggest that we're not paying our share and that this contributes to a negative view of the US. However, the United States pays in on the order of 22% of the UN budget, down from earlier years, but still more than any other single country.
Much of this is recouped with UN contracts going to US firms, but those were our tax dollars to begin with so that's a net loss. Meanwhile, countries like Russia pay in only 1.1 percent but get around 10 percent of contracts, per
this lefty site.
Of course your statement also ignores that our individual contributions to other countries (not directly through the UN) account for somewhere in the range of $15 billion (the oft-quoted figure) to $20 billion (the
OECD figure) . . . about ten times what we pay to the UN.
And, of course, private (non-governmental) donations account for some $34 billion
or so.
Yeah, we're such heartless bastards, giving more in aid than the GDP of most countries.
Could we do more? Probably. Would that help? That's questionable. Between UN mismanagement and corruption, plus the whole "give a fish/teach to fish" issue, arguments could be made both ways. I certainly don't see the logic in suggesting that we give up US security in favor of foreign aid to assorted countries, many of which aren't friendly to us despite already receiving massive aid from us.
B.
I have studied jurisprudence and have specialised in international law and human rights. I have studied these subject - beside the regular stuff - three years. I was examined in a juristic state examination. That's the most difficult and therfore highest ranking kind of examination in Germany.
I know from what I speak.
I will accept that you are educated in legalese. However, if true, this has left you fixated on the letter of the law, ignoring both the spirit and the application, and you have a very particular understanding of the aforementioned letters.
For instance, let's ponder Afghanistan.
As noted, Levitte from France reported that UN Res 1368 authorized American use of force on Afghanistan and the Taliban per the conclusion of the European Council, meaning that, basically, all the important Europeans disagree with you. This is even more forcefully demonstrated by the
fact that most European nations with a military (and some without much of one) directly supported the endeavour.
Ergo, yours is a minority opinion. I mean, really . . . are they all war-criminal states?
Yes, Kofi Annan didn't like the idea. But he's not the UN.
The mental block you're encountering in your semantically inept legalese analysis is that, in UN-Resolution-speak, "all means necessary" and words to that effect have, in relevant situations, referred to the use of force. Take, for instance, UN Resolution 83, which brought UN forces into Korea:
"{...}Recommends that the Members of the United Nations furnish
such assistance to the Republic of Korea
as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and
to restore international peace and security in the area."
Note that at no point is there mention of war or force in regards to what the UN members are supposed to do.
Similarly, you make the following claim in reference to 1368 et al.:
There is no authorisation to wage a war. {...} To attack Afghanistan was a violation of international laws.
However, 1368 . . . quoting your own quotation of it . . . says the following:
{...}Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,
{...}Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;{...}
Hell, man, 1368 even uses the word "combat"! 83 didn't even do that when that was the intent.
And again, many of the nations making up the international law you claim was violated participated and assisted in Afghanistan and the destruction of the Taliban.
Therefore, I submit that your gobbledy-gook misrepresentations of the UN and international law are nullified.
