The headline article in today’s Sunday Times is entitled “US plans new anti-terror raids”.
Unfortunately, in order to read it you need to register. Registration is free (if you are in the UK) but for some reason my computer won’t allow me to register so I can’t cite the online article.
However I have the newspaper itself in front of me so I will quote from that. The article contains this passage:
So far, so good. But then we get this:
Huh, sorry, what was that? Could you repeat that bit please?
Impatient with the diplomatic nicities of international law enforcement?
Impatient with the diplomatic nicities of international law?
Impatient with diplomatic nicities?
Impatient?
Rumsfeld is impatient?
Yeah well fuck you, Mr Rumsfeld.
And fuck your impatience.
I’m sure Hitler was impatient with diplomatic nicities too, right before he invaded Poland.
Diplomatic nicites and international law are there for a reason asshole. To stop megalomaniac idiots like you from using military might to get their way.
So fuck you, Donny-boy. Fuck you with a 3-foot chainsaw.
Need I point out that the rules of war and of peacetime diplomacy are different? Or point out that a law-enforcement model is ineffective in defeating a military or paramilitary for?
Yeah, Hitler was impatient with diplomatic niceties, as were the terrorists that plowed jetliners into our buildings (incidentally, missing my office by a fraction of a mile.) Should we have depended on the World Court or some other imnpotent body to wag their fingers in Hitler’s face?
I don’t trust world leaders who are “unhappy” with international law and so unilaterally decide to change it. If you are “unhappy” with international law then have your government use the appropriate diplomatic channels to amend it.
Don’t just decide to bypass it whenever it suits you.
So America’s gonna invade countries and board ships anywhere in the world whenever they feel like it? Breaking God knows how many international laws and treaties.
You people may have voted for the current US government but I didn’t.
So, I repeat, fuck your impatience Rumsfeld.
And the horse it rode in on.
(PS I was aware of the Godwin implications but I decided to post it anyway because the importance of my point outweighed the Godwin problem)
Godwin isn’t the least of your problems, Jojo. You don’t have a really clear understanding of international law.
Who’s going to amend the law? What elected body is there to do so? The UN? Hah!
Didn’t you ever notice that the only thing the UN ever passes are resolutions? Or that it takes the actions of sovereign states to make these resolutions happen, or not?
I repeat, international law in normal, peacetime relations between states is different from the law when there is a conflict. You can’t board a ship in peacetime, but you sure can if there is an ongoing conflict.
The diplomatic niceties countries observe smooth things along in normal times, but they were never intended to be used at all times, even in war. You don’t go into a shooting match drinking tea with your pinkie sticking out.
Besides, I served in the Navy from 1993-1998, at all times under a Commander-in-Chief I hated. I never voted for him; he never got a majority of the popular vote. I sucked it up and followed my orders. I came through it just fine.
If you’re that upset with Bush, vote against him in two years. Until then, tough shit!
And that’s another problem with that darn squeaky Bush guy! People like Jojo, who live in the U.K., won’t be allowed to vote against him in 2004! Fascism!
And the whole point of obtaining permission to sending troops into another country is to give that country WARNING about a few hundred battled hardened elite soldiers who will be most likely operating within one of their cities.
The last thing I want to see, if us sending in troops them getting caught in another running battle like in Somalia and then having the incident being used by one of the Middle Eastern nations which already has a strong anti-american feeling and starting a war.
In parts of the middle east there seems like there is enough hatred right now all at least one leader needs is an excuse to act like the victimized party and we may have a bigger fight than anyone was expecting.
Also look at it this way:
We get permission to operate in said country with terrorist cells in it. We have a few targets already selected… The country finally lets us in, but most likely the terrorists have some friends in the government who give them a heads up. So the terrorists move… It’s a lot easier to catch a running target than to catch one holded up some place where we can’t fight effectively.
As I see it, terrorism is a way people wage war without having to follow the rules, or suffer the consequences, of war. Nobody is suggesting that the US just be allowed to go into a sovereign nation and take it over (Iraq excepted, I guess). Rather, the U.S. needs to root out terrorists who hide behind a nation state’s sovereignty.
If terrorists blow up Westminster Abbey and 10 Downing Street, get back with me on this issue. I don’t know of any comparable commercial or military buildings in the UK - this was the best I could do.
Insofar as nations actively sponsor terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, then the rules of engagement might become somewhat different. Oh wait, we love Saudi Arabia.
I wouldn’t be so upset with Rumsfeld. As I recall, the Sec’y of Defence is appointed at the pleasure of the President, so one is probably safe in assuming that Mr. Rumsfeld’s “impatience” is shared in the Oval Office. In any event it is no more than usually ironic to find that the administration has announced its intention to use just the sort of methods to target “terrorists” that it apparently finds horrifying when practiced by, say, Israel.
It took me a while to come round to this view, but more and more I feel that this administration’s simplistic take on global politics takes its inspiration from the heady days of Teddy Roosevelt’s “big stick”. Shores of Tripoli, and all that.
Setting aside the odious thought that US officials now seem to be saying that the sovereignity of any other country is of no significance, the potential success of these planned covert ops assumes accurate intelligence. Since our intelligence assets currently have difficulty discerning between a wedding party and and a terrorist hideout, I have high confidence that at least a few of these operations will leave an embarrassing trail of non-combatant bodies. That won’t bother us much, though. We’re better and more important than anyone else in the world, and if you don’t buy that, we’ll smack your sorry ass down too.
I agree with El_Kabong. I am deducing what the US policy on terror may be. Nobody has properly explained, much less justified, what the hell is going on. What ever happened to the “global reach” part of the war on terrorism? At least that seemed to offer some alternative to an open-ended eternal war. Bush often seems unable to explain his policies even in the simplest terms.
To quote Michael Durant,* “Innocent civilians being killed is wrong.” That does not mean accidental death is the same as killing civilians on purpose. I concede, smart bombs have been looking pretty stupid. I attribute this to the amphetamines and downers our pilots are forced to take.
*The “Blackhawk Down” pilot in Somalia who was captured and questioned for propaganda purposes.
As for Iraq’s sovereignity - you guys are aware that Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire agreement at the end of the Gulf war, right? Doesn’t that technically give the U.S. the right to respond?
Let’s also not forget that Saddam tried to have the president of the United States assassinated. That’s an act of war.
Finally, I find it hard to work myself into a lather over the ‘sovereignity’ of a dictator who has been ruling his people with an iron fist and using weapons of mass destruction on them, who has invaded a sovereign neighbor, and who has launched missiles at Israel. This guy has NO reasonable claim to sovereignity, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the world. Note that even the people who are against the U.S. invading Iraq aren’t invoking Iran’s sovereign rights, but rather they are saying that the costs are too high and/or that the end situation would be worse.
Actually both El_Kabong and I both mentioned sovereignty.
All I want is a declaration of war before we invade Iraq. Iraq is a sovereign nation, no matter how crappy a person Saddam Hussein is.
I don’t think we can use the inspectors as a pretext to invade Iraq - they were thrown out in 1998. If in fact that is the cease-fire violation of which you speak. Since then Saddam has been quiet, so those who argue for containment seem to have a point. Everyone knows Bush doesn’t really want inspectors anyway. God forbid they allow them in and we have to find Iraq “in compliance”* and lift the counterproductive sanctions.
I’m glad you mentioned the peace after any invasion. How do we manage that?
*Meaning, of course, Saddam hides his WMDs successfully.