Saddam Hussein arrested

[Kuciwalker]

Agathon is back

[Ramo]

But these people are sadly deluded if they believe that they are going to be allowed to determine their own future.

I'm not sure that the US can stop them anymore. Before the capture of Saddam, Sistani nearly thwarted the US' plans for an undemocratic national assembly. Now that the Shia no longer have to fear for the "return of Saddam," they'll be much more politically active, and thus the occupation authorities will have to respond to them and their leaders. I wouldn't be suprised if they do a 180 on the whole election agenda.

[Ramo]

But there's no point in undermining an international order in the name of upholding it. And when the international order is "you must obey the rules, but we don't have to" there isn't much point in having rules.

Shrub is forging a new international order. Iraq is the perfect "rogue state" to attack - its neighbors hate its gov't, which is run by a homicidal manic who used to be our boy, but stopped listening to us. Invading Iraq is intended to force the other states of the world to get in line.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Winston


My justification for supporting the war was that Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator who oppressed his own people, threatened his neighbours, awarded families of Palestinian suicide bombers and was a continued threat to peace, stability and economic development in the entire region. I wanted to see that changed.

When a fight breaks out in the playground one possible thing to do is to look at the reasons Tommy has to hit Billy and to decide whether you think thet are good reasons or not.

But no sensible person does that.

Instead they separate Tommy and Billy, tell them fighting is wrong and go into the dispute between the boys so as to resolve it by other means.

This may involve the use of force. In which case the force used will be sanctioned by rules established by all and employed in support of the rules, not in support of ad hoc subjective evaluations.

Is it different when the protagonists are the political leaders of two or more nation states? Yes, it has been.

And has that been a good idea? No, war rides in full honour with pestilence and death among the horsemen of the apocalipse. It has brought untold misery to a huge multitude.

War has ever been the sport of kings. The fact that the political leaders here are a president and a prime minister does not change that. And agreeing with the reasons which led them to indulge themselves in their sport does not justify the fight any more than it justifies Billy and Tommy.

We need to move on. War between nation states is an evil whatever motivates it. Pick a few wars from the history books and establish whether you agree with the motivation of the aggressor. The answer will differ from person to person and from one war to the next. Instead of arguing the toss about where the moral high ground lies we need to establish some standards among ourselves for what constitutes anti-social behaviour on the part of national administrations and then we need a supra-national method of policing those standards.

And this is not beyond us. Before the Bush/Blair absurdity there had been some really hopeful signs that we were making progress down that road. Virtually all the world joined in putting a stop to the playground fight between the serbs and croats. And we actualy got as far as establishing an international court.

Now it is going to take a while to get back to attempting such things. Because with someone as self indulgent as Bush leading the biggest military power all the rest of us have got to be very leery as to the further ways he is going to find to throw his weight around.

But we really have to do so.

Because if we fail to find a way to end wars between nation states the next big one will end us.

[SpencerH]

I was going to comment, but why bother? Go to the arab news sites and read their reaction to his capture. At the very least, they are putting out unbiased articles- a sure sign that they're pleased with the situation.

[MrFun]

I agree with Spencer -- the majority of Iraqis for instance, seem to be very happy with this news.

[Alex]

They are happy, of course -- who wouldn't be? After all, Saddam was an evil dictator who oppressed his own people and who lead his nation into some disastrous wars.

This does not mean that they are happy with the presence of the invaders, or that democracy now is waiting at the next corner.

[Solly]

we need to establish some standards among ourselves for what constitutes anti-social behaviour on the part of national administrations and then we need a supra-national method of policing those standards.

How would this be achieved?

It's all fine talking idealistically but you're not considering how the hell that happen.

Something needs to be done!

[lord of the mark]

[lord of the mark]

[lord of the mark]

[lord of the mark]

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

This picture would be great to throw in whenever someting bad happens to US or Israel

[East Street Trader]

Establishing a rule of law among nations and the institutions to police it is not something that will happen overnight.

Maybe we need a few hundred years for the job.

But the UN has, at least, got established.

And rapid communications has put us all in touch with each other. That is a huge change and does seem to me to reduce mutual suspicions and tensions rather than to increase them.

A consensus did seem to appear that what was happening in the Balkans was wrong and that the world at large ought to do something about it.

We did not stand back and let those squabbles reach their own conclusion.

And no individual nation state charged in.

Some countries participated in what was done more actively and some less. But there was discussion and I do not think anyone would describe what happened as a war between nation states.

I thought the establishment of an international court to try those whose conduct had fallen short of what is expected to-day from political leaders was, in particular, a sign that some idea of a rule of law among nations might be starting to emerge.

And none, I think, dissented from that.

Now what happened in the Balkans was, perhaps, a much clearer case. Because the former Yugoslavia had disintergrated. Which, perhaps, made sovereign immunity less of a deterent to taking action.

But once it becomes accepted that wanton killing on a large scale is unacceptable then that principle will get itself applied within a state as well as when a state disintegrates.

So my answer to how the hell that happen is for all of us to demand of our political leaders that they only resort to force when they can forge a consensus in the UN.

And we develop the code of conduct that administrations must abide by as all systems of law are devised by argument in the UN.

Whether I am right to think that a code of conduct for the administrations who rule countries will emerge by that method over time or not I do not know. But it will stop wars between nation states in the meantime.

And if we are going to need a few hundred years to work these things out the really urgent thing is to avoid such wars in the meantime.

[Spiffor]

Don't the thumbs up mean something completely different in Arabic traditions. Something about sticking it to your [censored]