news
& archives
|
politics archive: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|
10.03.2004 |
the new age—changing international law, the globalisation of international law Now primitive savages can be armed with long-distance spears tipped by nuclear bombs, war is no longer a local tribal sport. Nuclear weapons changed the world at Hiroshima, 6th August, 1945. Humans are only starting to come to tems with that change. For the first time in history, the leaders are in as much danger as the foot soldiers. This changes fundamentally the leaders’ calculations with regard to ‘war’. The situation was rapidly enhanced or aggravated, according to your point of view, by the development of long-range rocketry. Of course, it is still possible to shift a nuclear bomb in a container on a freighter, or use aircraft or submarines, but a rocket can reach anywhere – virtually without warning. From the UK prime minister’s office, given as a speech by Blair on 5th March 2004:
abelard: Now, rightly, it is in the process of being modified. For further background, see the just war. If ever the imperative ‘to right a great wrong’ was applicable, it was over the hell-hole developed by Madsam Whosane and his criminal socialist gang.
The arguments go far beyond ‘global terror’, and they are essentially sound. Blair may be pretending to respect his opponents, while making it clear that they are naïve idiots, but a prime minister is not quite in a position to call opponents ‘miserable dorks’ in public. It also does not go down well with good old British hypocrisy posing as ‘politeness’. That he does not shrink from saying that if (any claim) the invasion was unlawful then it is time the laws are changed is good, for that is the way things are. Any supposed ‘law’ that anyone may imagine exists, or wishes to exist, that protects the likes of Madsam is simply nuts. When something requires changing/updating, then let’s get to it. To guard against a suggestion that any member of the United Nations might invade its neighbour, claiming that the reason is to remove a repressive regime, detailed criteria will have to be laid out. Those who cannot understand the differences – between the legitimacy of a western democracy and a criminal gang of socialists under Madsam hijacking a region and its people – have more than a single screw loose. Madsam had no more legitimacy than a bank robber holding hostages. |
|
advertising disclaimer |
email email_abelard [at] abelard.org © abelard, 2003, 10 march the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/news/politics040310.asp variable words
|