Well, when I "fixed" the web site, I thought I had managed to transfer the old site's archives to new site. Unfortunately, I was mistaken. Hence, the archives for this web site are lost per saecula saeculorum . Ah, how fleeting is digital glory.
But it is not going to stop me from doing what I do best during this half-hour study break I have allotted myself:
Dialogues on the Present Crisis
Powell came to the UN, Powell left the UN. What happened?
3. That the current Administration has two strong arguments for going to war against Iraq. (With a Hobbesian/ Lockean/ Fergusonian-Waylandian analysis)
A. It was the argument of the President during the State of the Union Address that:
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. "
After being vanquished in war by the United States and her allies, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm in return for his continued sovereignty over Iraq. This was the Faustian deal that has done incalculable harm to his people. By not disarming, tricking weapons inspectors, and not providing the proof of disarmament himself, Saddam Hussein has violated the compact upon which his sovereignty stands. Removal by the power whose force ensured that compact, i.e., the United States is a justifiable action.
B. To which I object that the United Nations made the compact, so only the United Nations may authorize the use of force by the United States.
A. To which I reply that the United Nations is not a commonwealth, but a confederacy of bodies corporate and politic within the state of nature that operates according to the rules of a simple society. Admittedly, if the United States were to act unilaterally, it is entirely possible that the United States would have violated the rules of that simple society and ought to be expelled by the United Nations. Yet the United States is obligated by the natural law to act for its own protection. Even if the United Nations were a civil society or commonwealth of nations, the United States would have some right to act in its own self-preservation and according to the laws of nature.
Hence, I am brought to the Administration's second argument which is that Iraq is giving aid and comfort to Al-Qaeda. First, Iraq's actions violate the natural law. Terrorists as pirates were are hostes humani generis as the jurists put it: enemies of the human race and may be punished by whatever authority into whose hands they fall. Yet if a nation gives aid and comfort to such reprobates, that nation is in violation of the law of nations, for it threatens the self-preservation of every nation. Most significantly of all, the terroristic power sheltered by the Iraqis is an avowed enemy of the United States of America. While Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign nation, it can be considered a body corporate and politic. Any alliance of the Iraqis with politic body that has made open declarations of war in both speech and writing against the United States of America is rightfully an act of war. Indeed, the possibility of the Iraqis funneling weapons to Al-Qaeda would make any warlike act by the United States a justifiable act in its self-preservation.
B. To which I reply that this doctrine seems too harsh and un-Christian.
A. To which I reply that we are never justified in taking up arms in the name of Our Lord, the Prince of Peace, or any of the other Persons of the Trinity. Yet we are justified in taking up arms in the name of a secular state for the preservation of the Earth and our race. (I apologize for being overly enthusiastic there.)
4. That Powell substantiated the first argument but was not sufficiently convincing as to the second one.
A. Without objection, I am sure that the taped evidence cited by Powell speaks for itself. The Iraqis have been trying to hide their weapons. The second argument stands on more specious evidence. An Al-Qaeda connected organization, Ansar al-Islam, has been operating in Kurdish territory, which Iraq does not control. Yet Powell claims that Ansar al-Islam has established a base in Baghdad. Until direct cooperation between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam has been substantiated, the United States has no right to go to war unilaterally.
B. I will agree with your statements of fact but not their consequences.
A. Oh well. It is often impossible to agree with oneself.
ESA (20030206.7)
But it is not going to stop me from doing what I do best during this half-hour study break I have allotted myself:
Dialogues on the Present Crisis
Powell came to the UN, Powell left the UN. What happened?
3. That the current Administration has two strong arguments for going to war against Iraq. (With a Hobbesian/ Lockean/ Fergusonian-Waylandian analysis)
A. It was the argument of the President during the State of the Union Address that:
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead his utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. "
After being vanquished in war by the United States and her allies, Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm in return for his continued sovereignty over Iraq. This was the Faustian deal that has done incalculable harm to his people. By not disarming, tricking weapons inspectors, and not providing the proof of disarmament himself, Saddam Hussein has violated the compact upon which his sovereignty stands. Removal by the power whose force ensured that compact, i.e., the United States is a justifiable action.
B. To which I object that the United Nations made the compact, so only the United Nations may authorize the use of force by the United States.
A. To which I reply that the United Nations is not a commonwealth, but a confederacy of bodies corporate and politic within the state of nature that operates according to the rules of a simple society. Admittedly, if the United States were to act unilaterally, it is entirely possible that the United States would have violated the rules of that simple society and ought to be expelled by the United Nations. Yet the United States is obligated by the natural law to act for its own protection. Even if the United Nations were a civil society or commonwealth of nations, the United States would have some right to act in its own self-preservation and according to the laws of nature.
Hence, I am brought to the Administration's second argument which is that Iraq is giving aid and comfort to Al-Qaeda. First, Iraq's actions violate the natural law. Terrorists as pirates were are hostes humani generis as the jurists put it: enemies of the human race and may be punished by whatever authority into whose hands they fall. Yet if a nation gives aid and comfort to such reprobates, that nation is in violation of the law of nations, for it threatens the self-preservation of every nation. Most significantly of all, the terroristic power sheltered by the Iraqis is an avowed enemy of the United States of America. While Al-Qaeda is not a sovereign nation, it can be considered a body corporate and politic. Any alliance of the Iraqis with politic body that has made open declarations of war in both speech and writing against the United States of America is rightfully an act of war. Indeed, the possibility of the Iraqis funneling weapons to Al-Qaeda would make any warlike act by the United States a justifiable act in its self-preservation.
B. To which I reply that this doctrine seems too harsh and un-Christian.
A. To which I reply that we are never justified in taking up arms in the name of Our Lord, the Prince of Peace, or any of the other Persons of the Trinity. Yet we are justified in taking up arms in the name of a secular state for the preservation of the Earth and our race. (I apologize for being overly enthusiastic there.)
4. That Powell substantiated the first argument but was not sufficiently convincing as to the second one.
A. Without objection, I am sure that the taped evidence cited by Powell speaks for itself. The Iraqis have been trying to hide their weapons. The second argument stands on more specious evidence. An Al-Qaeda connected organization, Ansar al-Islam, has been operating in Kurdish territory, which Iraq does not control. Yet Powell claims that Ansar al-Islam has established a base in Baghdad. Until direct cooperation between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam has been substantiated, the United States has no right to go to war unilaterally.
B. I will agree with your statements of fact but not their consequences.
A. Oh well. It is often impossible to agree with oneself.
ESA (20030206.7)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home