So...

[Galmin]

the president of the USA said: "When it comes to our security, we need noones permission", in respect of the then pending Iraq war.



What if no WMD are found?

1, Awww, we broke international law for all the wrong reasons. But the side effect with getting rid of Saddam was worth the endeavor!



2, Great, an opportunity to march for cheap reasons based on unverified accusations into Syria. Lebanon. Jordan. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Oman. Qatar. Bahrain. The United Arab Emirates. Iran.

Edited by: Galmin  at: 5/7/03 9:32:03 am

[MIKE BURN]

Galmin, check this article ... (you can translate it I guess )

[LarreeMP3]

Timid EU must reckon with US forevermore

By William Shawcross

April 14, 2003

Body Politic



IRAQ is only part of the crisis between Europe and the US. Europe's problem with the US is to do with power: the US has power and is, not surprisingly, inclined to use it. European states now have very little power. Their inability to act seems to have led many of them to an abhorrence of action.



During the Cold War, the US and Europe had a common project – the containment of the USSR. It was a long and exhausting war but it succeeded and the Soviet Union collapsed. The US instantly emerged as infinitely the strongest power in the world, no longer constrained by the USSR, and benefiting from huge technological advances.



European countries have spent the past two decades deliberately shedding sovereignty. This is an idea that is completely alien to the US, particularly since the September 11 terror attacks. Many European politicians now prefer a system of internationally agreed rules that treat all nations as more or less equal.



That is understandable enough. Europeans have no alternative. We are weak and we do not wish to make the sacrifices to be stronger. And, in truth, whatever sacrifices we made, we could never, even united, match the power of the US. By contrast, US President George W. Bush's foreign policy after September 11 is now proactive.



It is fashionable not just on the Left, but generally among the European intelligentsia, to decry Bush as an idiot. This is not wise. Bush is a formidable politician who constantly defies the predictions of those who think they are smarter than he is; formidable and radical.



The Bush administration is strongly influenced by a small group of neo-conservatives – neo-cons for short – whose intellectual origins were in the Democratic Party, on the Left. One of the most subtle of them is Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, who has argued quite rightly for more than a decade for the removal of Saddam Hussein.



They tend to believe that we live in a special moment of history, one that is characterised above all by the US's unparalleled military power and the opportunity to expand the boundaries of democracy around the world. This is the time for a grand strategy to assert Pax Americana. This is the decisive decade in human liberty.



They are wary of permanent alliances and are attracted to bold geopolitical moves for the expansion of American values. They are not wedded to stability; they are not afraid of challenging the status quo. Shockingly, in my view, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder made clear that they much preferred the status quo in Iraq, horrific and dangerous though it was.



A few weeks ago I talked in Washington with one of the leading neo-cons. He argued rather persuasively that it is the EU, not the US, that is isolationist. He thought that Europeans do not care about the rest of the world as long as they win the contracts and get some respite from threats of terrorist attack. Mr Chirac's disgraceful policy on Iraq is governed by two rationales – cupidity and the desire to hobble the US.



But beyond Iraq, perhaps this has been a disaster waiting to happen since the end of the Cold War. In the early 1990s, the EU and the US split and dithered over how to deal with the fall of Yugoslavia and the consequent conflicts in the Balkans. At one time this seemed to threaten NATO. One EU dignitary declared that the hour of Europe had come but it went – without Europe distinguishing itself. In the Rwanda genocide of 1994, the Clinton administration turned away, and Europe was unable to act: 800,000 people were murdered.



In the Balkans, all Europe did was to dump the crisis on the UN, whose peacekeepers did indeed save many lives. But the member states refused to give the UN secretariat adequate resources, and the UN's deployment reached its nadir in the (northern) summer of 1995 when Dutch peacekeepers watched as the Serbs murdered 7000 Muslim men in Srebrenica.



At that point the US acted, as only the US could. The conflicts were ended when finally the Clinton administration did come in and apply force.



Then came Kosovo. As in the case of Iraq, the fighting was done without a Security Council resolution, because the Russians made clear that they would veto it. But on that occasion France and Germany did not complain that the venture was illegal.



NATO's successful action exposed serious tensions in the alliance, because the commitment of US power was so much greater than that of its partners. There was just no other way – the Europeans had none of those resources. In all, about 200,000 people may have died in the Balkans on Europe's watch. It was the US that stopped this bloodshed.



In 2001, it was only the US that could liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban. The results in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan today are not perfect. But all those countries are better off than they were, and only the US could make those changes. American participation is essential to the world. American power is often the only thing that stands between civility and genocide, order and mayhem.



I do not want to pretend that everything the US has done has been right. The manner and methods of this administration sometimes are counterproductive. But that is not grounds for the shameless attack on the US and its dilemmas launched by Chirac and Schroder.



You don't have to love Bush but, I repeat, do not make the mistake of underestimating him. You do not have to accept the neo-conservative doctrine in toto, although much of it is very optimistic and attractive – particularly to the Iraqi people at this moment. The point is that the US is the only country that has the capability to defend and expand the liberal democratic world. It is a vital force for progress, in the Islamic world as much as anywhere else. Europe can never replace the US. And if it tries to hobble it, Europe will undermine, if not destroy, its own security.



This is based on the 2003 Harkness Lecture, delivered at Kings College, London. The full text is available at www.cps.org.uk

[Galmin]

Is that alternative 1 or 2, Larree?

[RonOnGuitar]

<<we broke international law>>



You seem to experience a great deal of confusion on that question - somewhere you refered to a few obscure words in a UN charter preamble, confusing it with "law". It's very common for those learning English to experience such errors. (Those just learning Svensk - or any language - will also experience similiar linguistic mishaps.) I can assist you somewhat, but Spit has a better handle on engelska-svensk questions.



But as a start, I'd suggest looking to find a svensk term interchangable with "preamble"; perhaps "prolog", "inledning" or "introduktioner". Inte "lagen". Förstår?



A law ("lagen") - in contrast to a few words in a charter preamble - is specific as to crime & punishment and requires an authority to act on any given law. For example, I can claim it's a "law" that you cannot eat apples on Tuesdays when it's raining. But since I have no prescribed punishment - and even more importantly - no authority to enforce that "law", I have to accept that the "law" exists only in my mind.



As you learn more and become used to English usage, my guess is such very basic differences in terms won't be as problematic.



Ron

[debbie mannas]

Ron, that post of yours is one of the most arrogant I seen from you and thats saying something.

[RonOnGuitar]

It's important to know the meaning of terms that we toss out, Debbie. I am somewhat conversant in Swedish (ethnic thing), but if I were to go to a Swede book discussion BB unaware there are different words to indicate such things as liner note, review, forward, introduction, etc. , I would expect someone to point that fact out to me. We cannot make up our own definitions and hope nobody notices!



In this case, the problem is incorrect conclusion(s) based on his misunderstanding. A principle of US law is that if the basis is something is false, than the rest will also be incorrect. A corollary legal principle is if someone gives false testimony on point A, when the witness goes on to give an observation on point B the false testimony of point A carries over, nullifying both testimonies.



Ron

[Seismic Anamoly]

Da Man RonOnGuitar....



....Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names...



EXCELLENT, but more importantly, CORRECT, points of legal fact...very nicely done, Sir.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

You seem to experience a great deal of confusion on that question - somewhere you refered to a few obscure words in a UN charter preamble, confusing it with "law".

---

No I didn't, I linked to the entire United Nations Charter because you asked: "*What* "international law" is that?", remember? Have you read Article 2, section 4 yet, by any chance?





I quoted the Introductory Note since you asked:

" *When* was it invoked by *what* recognized authority?"

Quote:

---

It's very common for those learning English to experience such errors.

---

Probably, I wouldn't know. Are you talking out of experience?

I command five languages, English included, confidently enough to negotiate in any of them.

Quote:

---

But as a start, I'd suggest looking to find a svensk term interchangable with "preamble"; perhaps "prolog", "inledning" or "introduktioner". Inte "lagen". Förstår?

---

It is very sweet of you to worry about my reading comprehension and command of the English language. I can assure you that you have absolutely nothing to worry about in this regard. My advice is that you start worrying about your own clear and present problems in the same area.

Let me quote you: France desecrates graves of Brit war dead"

Quote:

---

A law ("lagen" - in contrast to a few words in a charter preamble - is specific as to crime & punishment and requires an authority to act on any given law. For example, I can claim it's a "law" that you cannot eat apples on Tuesdays when it's raining. But since I have no prescribed punishment - and even more importantly - no authority to enforce that "law", I have to accept that the "law" exists only in my mind.

---

We have an international war tribunal where Milosevic is sitting right now. He broke the International Law. See? It's easy.

Quote:

---

As you learn more and become used to English usage, my guess is such very basic differences in terms won't be as problematic.

---

Alas, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, Ron. Don't overdo it.

[Galmin]

Here's the preamble for the UN Charter, something I have neither mentioned nor quoted before this very post.

[DreamTone7]

I don't know Galmin, I've seen you make some small mistakes from time to time in your posts. I tend to overlook such things as I could still understand what you meant....but when you start claiming "command" of a language, you should be better than my 13-year old at it!



I don't know that anyone really has command of the English language to the extent that they could claim so. There are, after all, some words in some languages that have no direct translation in another. This makes writing anything like the UN Charter in a way so that it has equal meaning in all languages something that is difficult, at best!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

but when you start claiming "command" of a language

---

I said I command it confidently enough to negotiate in it, yes.

The fact that you understand what I mean, every time I make an apparent mistake, proves the truth in my claim.

Quote:

---

There are, after all, some words in some languages that have no direct translation in another. This makes writing anything like the UN Charter in a way so that it has equal meaning in all languages something that is difficult, at best!

---

Then we are extremely lucky that the United Nations Charter is written in English, a language the president of the United States (or Ron, should he someday choose to read the Charter) should be able to understand.

[debbie mannas]

I think Galmin's English is as good as good native.



Ahhhh I can't wait for the rebuttal on that. Perhaps a scathing analysis of my own reading abilities and understanding, since I'm Indian, living in Hong Kong, and prone to believing anything against the US govt...



Ron/Dreamtone, do you work for the US govt by any chance?

[Seismic Anamoly]

I Do....

Edited by: Seismic Anamoly at: 4/17/03 3:36:05 pm

[LarreeMP3]

Wherever terrorists are hiding out, we will march on them. We are on a mission.



9/11 changed everything, baby.