From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 01:06:30 MST
Brett writes
> Would you not see the Bush administration's decision to
> go to war without a Security Council resolution and
> against resolution 1441... as against a trend to World
> Government?
Yes, if it comes to that, then yes, the U.S./U.K. decision
to go it alone (i.e. with 19 or more other nations!) does
diminish the role of the U.N. But it's not to imagined that
national sovereignty is to be in any way abandoned in the
foreseeable future. No way. Hence it's irrelevant for
"World Government", a rather loony and hopeless idea, (unless
we are attacked by Vogons or something).
> Seems to me to be a very substantial poke in the eye for
> international law, may even set it back 50 plus years.
Would you consider the decision of the Clinton Administration
to go to war against Serbia without even CONSULTING the U.N.
or Russia to be a poke in the eye for international law?
Do you suppose that this did put international law back 50 years?
> Personally I find it difficult to forget that it is the same Presidential
> administration that seems to be countenancing stepping away from the
> UN that is also trying so hard to ban embryonic stem cell research
> wherever it can. Maybe the coupling is irrelevant and coincidental.
Yeah, I don't really see the connection. A Clinton or Gore administration
might very well have done the same thing, but would have got a lot less
heat since Clinton was no "cowboy", and he was from the liberal part of
the American political spectrum---yet a Clinton or Gore administration
might very well have endorsed embryonic stem cell research.
The only consistency that you can expect from people is ideological
consistency. But there is only a mild correlation between religiously
motivated Luddism and a sterner attitude towards threats to one's
nation.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 05 2003 - 01:05:21 MST