on 2/28/03 7:14 PM, Robin Bhatty at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> In a message dated 2/28/03 12:09:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
>> But this ignores the simple issue, brought up by eveyone from France to
>> Mexico, that no nation, including the world's most powerful, may launch an
>> attack on another without immediate, quantifiable, and proximate cause.
>> That
>> comes very close to existing in the case of North Korea, where Kim Jong Il
>> has re-started reactors, ripped up the armistice, etc.  In Iraq, we hate
> the
>> history of this bully, but the immediate conditions are not there.  Without
>> those preconditions, striking first is a war crime.  It's as simple as
> that.
>>
>> Loring Wirbel
>
> I have my own reservations about the Bush administration's policies, but
> with all due respect it's not as simple as that.  Those "immediate,
> quantifiable and proximate" conditions you're talking about would be things
> like Hussein acquiring, and demonstrating, his control of weapons of mass
> destruction, perhaps by detonating one on a US city, or selling one to
> someone who will.  While I'm sure it's a brave stance on the part of Germany
> and France to be willing to gamble with American cities rather than sacrifice
> sacred principles of international law (which do not appear to be
> constraining French intervention in the Ivory Coast), it's an attitude I find
> deplorable.  Whatever the deficiencies of the Bush administration's approach,
> they are attempting to resolve a real problem.  The "old Europe" approach of
> sticking their heads in the sand does not strike me as viable or in any way
> an improvement on that of the US administration.
>
> Once Saddam has such weapons, fighting a war with him becomes a much more
> dangerous proposition, if it's possible at all.  In the North Korean case,
> using force against the North will be extremely difficult given the North's
> possession of such weapons and ability to use them against the South and
> Japan.  It's conceivable that the US could lessen the threat by leaving the
> South (they don't seem to want US troops anymore anyway) but that doesn't
> solve the long term problem; sooner or later the North Koreans will have
> missiles with enough range to reach the US.
>
> I have to say, too, that's it's difficult in the extreme to visualize any
> European troops - except the British - doing anything to "enforce
> international law" against the North Koreans.  My own country, Canada, is no
> better, unfortunately.   None of us excepting the US have any useful military
> capability, and as far as I can tell none of us have any intention of making
> the sacrifices necessary to acquire such capabilities.  For that reason
> alone, it might be worthwhile to show a little more circumspection than has
> been the case in this debate to date.  If in fact the US is the only country
> willing to spend the money to maintain the capability to enforce
> international law, then the US ought to have some discretion about how and
> when enforcement takes place.  The rest of us can put up or shut up.
>
> This situation demands an updating of international laws of war to
> address the new kinds of problems technology has bred; a fetishistic (if
> you'll pardon the expression) adherence to the letter of international law is
> not a reasonable policy.
>
> Robin Bhatty

Mr Wirbel misses an important element in his reasoning: The Gulf War of 1991
never ended, no peace treaty was ever signed, it was only a conditional
cease fire based on Saddam not violating the conditions of the cease fire;
which he has time and time again.


Peter Martin (sorry I forgot to sign the other one)