hey-the brits stole it (fair and square)
we merely took assignment of the account when it became burdensome.
If I read this correctly, what the good General means to imply is primarily air force bases, to offer air support as needed to the Iraqi forces, thus rendering Iraq into a permanent, stable aircraft carrier made of dirt. Of course, if the Iraqi forces should prove incapable of defending such facilities, American troops may need be deployed beyond thier advisory role. Rather like Da Nang. Rather too much like Da Nang.
Isn’t that why they’re called, y’know, enduring bases? Of freedom?
BTW, here’s a good informative article from a year ago, when contracts to build the “enduring bases” were being let: http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/03/enduring_bases_iraq.html
From the article linked above:
(I’ll try to keep this hijack short)
Agreed. But then again, countries don’t have any rights. They have only interests. And our government is charged with protecting our interests, and not with protecting the interests of other countries.
At some point, the interests of other countries overlaps with our own, insofar as serving their interests makes things better for us. But no country has a right to do anything.
This also means that no country has a right to be free of anything, either. So we can assert that it’s in our interest not to mess with other countries (because it sets a bad precedent that may lead to other countries involving themselves in our affairs, or whatever), but there’s no legal right to be free of other countries protecting their own interests.
So your basic claim is that America is utterly sociopathic ? If we decide it would be profitable to grind up the population of Brazil to make some product out of them, that’s fine with you ?
By that logic, it’s perfectly OK if China smuggles nukes into America and blows up our top 50 cities, as long as it serves their interest.
No. It would be terrible. Duh.
But just because it would be terrible or inadvisable doesn’t mean there’s some legal right protecting people against it.
You seem to be confusing the concept of legal rights and what’s morally or ethically right. Those are two distinct concepts. (I know, homonyms are tricky.)
It’s not ok to blow up cities with nukes merely because it serves our interests. But we don’t have a “right” against other countries serving their own interests, even if they do so at our own expense.
Legally speaking: There is such thing as international law, Age. Under which countries have rights, just as individuals have rights under most national legal systems (and under international law).
Ethically speaking: Of course countries have rights (and duties) as well as interests.
And the conduct of the U.S. government WRT Iraq has been reprehensible by either standard.
Wrong. There is such a thing as international law, but it doesn’t work in the same way as domestic, American law. Some countries may have legal recourse, but they don’t have “rights.” And just repeating your assertion doesn’t make it so.
Wrong. Countries don’t have rights. They may have moral obligations and duties, and there may be an ethically “right” (meaning “correct”) course of action, but countries don’t have “rights.”
Oh, well, if you say so.
The concept of rights is fundamentally ethical not legal; the argument for the existence of rights is an ethical one.
Besides which, you’re still arguing that America is sociopathic; why ? What point are you trying to make ?
Yes we do; that’s pretty much the point of the concept.
Countries actually do have certain rights, guaranteed to them through treaties, international conventions, and the UN Charter. Among them is the inherent right to self-defense.
“Vietnam’s got its own Vietnam in Cambodia.”
-Doonesbury, ca. 1979.
But…but Condi said the Iraqis had 227,000 quality troops!
She wouldn’t lie to us, would she? Not Condi!
uh, with respect, “quality” is an open ended attribute.
There is “high quality” and then there are other levels of quality, like “really low-run -for -the= hills =I -hear- the- echo- of- gunfire- quality.”
That’s a fair point. But it’s also why I pointed out that international law doesn’t work like domestic law. Generally, international laws are only applicable to those countries that willingly sign those treaties, conventions, etc. And the fact that we’re dealing with nations – rather than individuals – is recognized by the UN in its charter:
So the “rights” afforded under the UN Charter are afforded by the agreement of the parties, and may be taken away at any time.
Just to further complete the hijack, I’m not sure I see your point. Countries have even more rights and powers than individuals by virture of their sovereignty to manage its own internal affairs, control its borders, defend itself from attack, represent the people of the nation-state abroad, and regulate the travel of its citizens abroad. The UN Charter grants certain rights and privileges to member states just as any organization an individual joins grants rights and privileges to individual members. The key factor in both examples is membership, not the status of a party as individual or nation-state. The UN Charter, or any other treaty or int’l convention I am aware of, does not provide any conditions or procedures for taking away the chief source of a nation-state’s rights and powers - its sovereignty.
I understand there is a bill in the House, to specifically not fund anything that is connected to these permanent bases. Anyone have details on it?
House OKs bill to pay for Iraq war
Barbara Lee Amendment on Permanent Bases Approved in Debate on Iraq War Supplemental Spending Bill
Can you make an ethical argument (at this point we’re discussing ethics, not law) to back up that position?