As I said, despite the fact that the United Nations is an impotent body in terms of establishing or enforcing international law, as though such a thing existed, I will give it the benefit of the doubt.

the reason the UN is impotent are the vetos, majorly the USA, but also the other four. That could be dealt with, but is not

First, the Versailles Treaty did NOT pave the way for Hitler. It was a convenient excuse that he used to his advantage. Besides, had Britain and France threatened war in 1935 for Versailles violations Hitler would have been dead in the water. He had no tanks, a pathetic air force and no means to defend his country. "Constructive peace-building" is an empty phrase that means nothing without a resolute threat of imminent war. Oh, and you said "Bombing is no solution". I agree. Bombing is insufficient. A full-scale ground invasion and occupation of Iraq is needed.

We disagree here on the interpretation of history, then. Do you seriously Germany would have stood by without what all the other countries had while the world ran on its course? VAging war on Hitler in 1935 would have brought resentment, you can bet on it. But there is no way we can know, however. Ground invasion and occupation will turn the arab world against you in no time. You might end up with more bands like Al-Quaida. A Norwegian peace-professor said that if the USA did that, it would fall within 20 years.

In addition, the weapons inspectors DID find something yesterday, and Hans Blix has stated that Iraq has been obstructing weapons inspectors and generally not complying. Finally, there is the matter of 500 artillery shells filled with mustard gas that we know the Iraqis had in 1998 but which are unaccounted for now. The Iraqis claim that they lost the documentation. The Iraqi government has detailed documentation on everything, up to and including, as a former weapons inspector said on the news today, "the location and quantity of spare tires for army vehicles". But now they can't find 500 artillery shells with chemical weapons, or the documentation on what they did with them.

EMPTY warheads. Barely counts as "something". I do not know about the mustard gas, but it could have been used against the Kurdish population (wouldn't surprise me one bit). I am not here to defend Saddam.

Moreover, "innocent until proven guilty" is a procedural protection for Americans in United States courts. The United States is not making a court case, nor is the burden on the United States. Saddam Hussein, if he wants to have sanctions removed, has to prove that he has complied with UN Security Council resolutions. Regardless, if the United States operated under courtroom procedures in international affairs, we wouldn't have been able to attack Afghanistan for harboring al-Qaeda. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a means that the polity of citizens agreed upon and which their government respects. We have no such obligations to other nations.

So justice only counts for Americans?

On the point of Israel "flaunting resolutions", I am surprised how often people are deluded about the situation surrounding Israel. While I agree with many that Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands is in many respects an injustice, a few facts MUST be remembered. Resolutions passed against Israel have been passed under Article V of the UN Charter, which does NOT permit military enforcement. They have been non-binding resolutions expressing nothing more than condemnation. Any resolutions which would go any farther have been subjected to US veto. Resolutions passed against Iraq have been passed under Article VI of the UN Charter, which DOES permit military enforcement, and the resolutions have been binding and have threatened on numerous occasions military consequences for non-compliance.

my point: the US veto. Why protect Israel and not others? It does not make sense and creates resentment

Finally, if you want to attack the United States, please don't bring in subjective arguments such as "the USA is notorious in many parts of Europe for how badly it treats its own citizens". For example, many in Europe think the death penalty is wrong. I don't, nor does the majority of the American public. I think that the Europeans have it wrong. Europeans also think that socialized medicine and the welfare state work, despite the dismal economic growth that such ideas spawn. This is a matter of political ideology.

The welfare state does work. I live in one. And our economy is currently stronger than the American, if I am not mistaken...

Personally, I think that Europe is weak and effeminate and that within another two generations or so, "Mohammed" is going to be a common European first name and France will become the Islamic Republic of Northern Algeria. If you guys let Turkey into the EU, it might happen after just one generation.

effeminate? I hardly see that happening. Why should it?

However, my point is that whether you're right or I am, or we both are in odd ways, you can't compare the United States with Iraq in any form of moral equivalency. You can't compare a democratic republic that provides its citizens with protections of due process, free education, and equal opportunity with a brutal dictatorship that tortures its own citizens and puts on sham elections that are farcical on their face. You just can't do it. Europe and America have different visions of the future and what form of government is best, but you can't let political polemics turn the US into some sort of evil empire. I know that it's fashionable these days, but it just isn't right!

The US provides some of its citizens with protection (I will not get into the lack of welfare, as you have stated your view on this), but is it not fair that those rights should be universal, and that we should always act according to them?
I never said the US is evil. Wrong, but not evil.

On the matter of Russian...I haven't checked my mail.ru account recently. I'll have to do that this weekend and we can get back to the lessons.

wonderful I suspected as much


Magnus Alexander corpore parvus erat
Dissenting voice of wotmania
Frightfully stubborn pacifist

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent