The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
Links
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
*************
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
October 22, 2002
Damn, I'm going to miss Jesse Helms Hopefully the US will not get any resolution of support from the UN for whatever exactly we do in Iraq.
In practice, we don't need their support. As Ann Coulter put it, "In the corporeal world, international law is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is." Saddam badly needs to be deposed or just plain killed, and most likely that means the US and a couple of faithful allies will have to take care of business.
However, many presumptuous people here and abroad have created and continue pushing the unargued premise that the US must have approval from the United Nations in order to have legitimate authority to take military action. This assumption has largely been presented as a given, rather than put forward as a thesis for public debate.
There are at least several obvious reasons for this idea. Much of this comes from the simple Machiavellian grasping for power of lesser countries wanting to put a leash on their better. Some of it is the self-hatred of American liberals. Also, it just seems natural to some people that the UN trumps the US just as the federal government trumps the states or counties.
Much of the presumption of UN superiority comes from the practice that the US government has been going to the UN for validation for most major military actions of the last few decades. This strikes me as a mistake. Because we have gone seeking their approval in the past, it is now the presumption that we need their blessing to make our activities legitimate in the future.
We do not. Let me address this both from the point of legal military authority, and moral authority.
When the US takes military action, US taxpayers pay for it. It's our money. It will be mostly our sons and daughters in harm's way. The French, Chinese, and Oompah Loompahs can bitch all they want, but they are not the people directly involved.
We have elections to select a president and a congress authorized to stake our blood and money. I'm not real thrilled with the sausage factory of our republic, but it does broadly represent the will of the people whose money and children do the fighting. The US military answers to the president as commander in chief, and to the congress which controls the purse strings and has the authority to declare war.
Where from comes the moral authority of the United Nations? They do NOT represent the democratic will of the world. Most of the member nations are despotic or at least not very democratic regimes. The Saudi royal family has no legitimate claim whatever to representing the will of the people of Mecca. Who voted for them anyway?
Moreover, the US by its actions has proven itself to be about the most moral country on earth, with due respect to Britain, Israel and a few others. This does not mean that the US government has never screwed the pooch, but we have a far better track record on any objective basis than almost any other country. We have some misguided efforts, such as the Vietnam war. We have the occasional reprehensible action such as Bill Clinton's dog wagging bombing of the aspirin factory.
However, we just are NOT engaged in empire building. We are not grasping for power, subjugating poor people for tribute, or commiting genocide. Our constitution and democratic institutions work to restrain such things, but mostly just the innate decency and generosity of our people.
Whereas on the other hand, the UN largely constitutes of a rogues gallery of wicked dictators and self-interested bureaucrats with little or no respect for human rights. We're supposed to accept the supposed moral authority of a United Nations Human Rights Committe made of representatives of China, Sudan and Syria? Why in the name of anything decent would ANYONE do that?
The US does not have any right to impose our will on the rest of the world just because we can. Might doesn't make right.
We do, however, have every right to defend ourselves. We may reasonably debate as to whether action against the Iraqi regime constitutes legitimate self defense. Saddam is evil and dangerous, but our justification may be ambiguous lacking immediate and direct provocation.
Having had a year long debate on the topic though, using their constitutionally delegated power on behalf of their constituents, the congress has agreed to give President Bush the authority to use force if and as he deems necessary to disarm or dislodge the Iraqi regime. He now has clear and unambiguous authority under American law. He needs no other.
He need not buy the acquiescence of various countries by promising them money. He need not buy the acquiescence of other countries by agreeing to turn a blind eye to their various abuses. [China, we're looking at you.] Neither of these things would make our position more legal. They certainly wouldn't make it more moral.
Bush does, however, need to let these countries know that the US does not require their approval or co-operation.
Therefore, it would be best if we do NOT have the sanction of the UN in dealing with Iraq. In practice, it would make the immediate task only marginally more difficult, but it would have the major benefit of making the pecking order clear, and it would be more morally clean to act on our own authority rather than hiding behind the skirts of third world dictators.
