Re: This makes me proud of my President

>>>>> "miguel" == Miguel Ramos <[email protected]> writes:

  miguel> re-examination. How many imperialist wars have throughout
  miguel> the time been called "humanitary interventions" ?  

Almost all of them, actually; the 'white man's burden' and all that.

  miguel> I see indeed improvement in
  miguel> comparison with other recent crisis, perhaps we're entering
  miguel> a less intelectually lazy decade, but not more than that.

Oh, I think in the US, which is the only intellectual culture I can
pretend to follow, the post 9-11 response has been terrible,
essentially unchanged since Vietnam era. In fact, a case could be made
that things are worse.

I'm also very disappointed with much of the American left. The Green
Party, for example, already very suspect, has just totally melted down
since 9-11. The NGO liberal reformist "left" is awash in flag-waving.

The only parts of the left that have maintained any since of
principled dissent are the parts totally lacking any real power.

  miguel> There is another striking aspect of the imperialist nature
  miguel> of this invasion that I would like to mention. Did you see
  miguel> what British troops are there? Naturally the burkas!
  miguel> Great-Britains faithful dogs, ready to serve as meat for
  miguel> canons at any time. And from France there is the famous
  miguel> Foreign Legion.  I guess the burkas must also have been
  miguel> there in 1847 and 1880...

The racial politics of the Gurkhas is terribly fascinating. I'd love
to find a good, critical book about them.

  miguel> Another thing I would like to add is something I think I
  miguel> haven't seen mentioned here, take a look at
  miguel> http://www.fidh.org/communiq/2001/ij0310a.htm, a yet to be
  miguel> law entitled "American Service member Protection Act"....

Wow, that's a remarkable piece of garbage.

  miguel> International Criminal Court which intentions are still
  miguel> doubtful (but who knows, may not be in the future) and
  miguel> meanwhile the US is saying that International Court yes but
  miguel> it is only for others ?

I think, given political realities, the ICC is a welcome development;
the US rejectionism toward the ICC is of a piece with its rejectionist
stance to international law in the postcolonial era. 

  miguel> But we have: 1- Disrespect for the UN, by not carrying
  miguel> finantial obligations in full. Not to mention blocking any
  miguel> measure that might be disagreable to the US in the security
  miguel> council.  2- Disrespect for the Genebra conventions in
  miguel> warfare. The using of chemical weapons in Iraq and Kosovo as
  miguel> well as other weapons like napalm, etc. This is a crime of
  miguel> war but only for others.  3- Now this with the International
  miguel> Criminal Court.

Yes, Noam Chomsky's work is generally very good on the patterns of US
rejectionism of international institutions. It's important, I think,
however, to be very precise in our criticism of the US here. It is
neither accurate nor helpful to say, as some do, that the US is
completely rejectionist. We are rejectionist insofar as the law does
not suit us or our interests (which is an extremely ideological
notion, of course); but when we can hold other feet to the fire of
international law or convention, we will gladly wave the UN flag and
scream to the heavens about international law.

  miguel> Clearly, since those international institutions have the
  miguel> respect of the american people, 

They do? I haven't seen any evidence of that at all.

Best,
Kendall Clark