[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Says Mr. Reynolds: "This is also why I prefer a Mussolini-style ending in which Saddam is lynched by his own people to exile, or even a trial. I think that would provide a valuable lesson."

Yes, that's what I always think about lynchings. They'll provide a valuable lesson. Precisely. People get uppity, you know?

But you know, I think Den Beste is right when he says the world political order is about to change. He's wrong about a bunch of other things; he clearly doesn't understand the concept that international legitimacy may be important for any other reason than the immediately practical. I've written before about the sheer folly of assuming that the United States will always be in the privileged power position we currently enjoy, and I've discussed why enlightened self-interest leads us to the conclusion that we must not encourage a world in preemptively securing one's own position by invading other countries is wise. Ah well.

He's still right. Germany's a bigger US trade partner than England. Germany and France together are a bigger trade partner than China. To say, as Den Beste does, that the US needs nobody by its side other than the UK and Australia (poor Canadians; they've been altogether left out) is blind arrogance.

It saddens me that so many have lost track of the meaning of the word "ally." On a mailing list I'm on, someone recently said "why are they allies if they aren't supporting us?" Apparently he confused the word "ally" with the word "subordinate." It's easier to assume that Europe has gone mad than it is to consider why they're objecting. And you know, thinking about why they're objecting doesn't even mean you have to agree with them. It just means it might be useful to think about it, in case there's something you can do about it. But no; easier to write them off as insane.

It's not the defeat of Saddam that bugs people. It's the US occupation of Iraq, and the use of Iraq as a base to force regime change throughout the region.

Anyway. Yes, the world is going to change, and here's one important way it's changing:

For the first time, the United States will invade another country not because that country attacked it, or because it attacked one of our allies, but because we think it might pose a threat in the future.

If you don't think that's a big deal, even if you think the attack is a good idea, you're nuts. And your children will have no right to complain if, in a hundred years, Brazil invades the United States "because we just don't know what they might do with those old nukes." That's the precedent we're about to set.

Comments

[bryant]

I agree with that, but the chickenhawks have more or less explicitly abandoned the idea that there's any universal human rights. The tendency these days is to claim that you only have rights if you're an American, and sometimes not even then. Thus, it seems useful to point out the practical virtues of multilateral thinking.

[gwenix.livejournal.com]

People do realize it's that kind of thinking that got this country made in the first place, right?

[ef2p.livejournal.com]

While I am not a Constitutional Scholar, I would like to point out some of the text of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I: ...or the right of the people...

Amendment IV ...The right of the people...

Amendment V ...No person shall be....

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall...

Furthermore the presidential oath of office is:

I, name, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I can see, but do not agree with, an argument that say that 'the people' refers to the 'American People'. However 'No person' and 'the accused' pretty clearly refer to anybody regardless of residence, current location, or nationality. It sure seems to me that the president is not upholding the fifth and sixth amendments to the constitution and is there by broken his oath of office. (Can we impeach him now?)