THE LONG, LONG ROAD AHEAD
Just got back from working out a little bit ago; I had the news on down in the gym. I was floored by one of the stories (to which Stuttaford links over at the Corner, I see) -- that Iraqi leaders are calling for a timetable for US withdrawal (which frankly doesn't bug me that much), but also that they voted to recognize a "right of resistance" and apply it to the head-sawers in Iraq, and that they should not be labeled "terrorists" if they don't target civilians or institutions meant for the public good.
My brother likes to repeat a single word when we come across unbelievable moronity such as this: "DOOOOOOOOOOM." He means that civilization is doomed to collapse under the weight of useful idiots.
Now, let it be said that I believe that the United States of America was founded upon a legal principle which recognizes a "right of resistance," and armed, if necessary. Our Revolution was a violent rebellion against the vested legal authority, and it was justified.
However, a "right of resistance," under that principle, exists only under certain narrow conditions. The animals who burn bodies and leave them on bridges, and perform brutal acts of horrific terror on camera, fulfill exactly none of them, neither in condition, behavior, or standing to do so.
For a right of resistance to apply, there have to be certain conditions. First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.
Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that most of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.
Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.
This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.
That the Arab League would pay this kind of lip service and give a wink and a nod to the insurgent animals is not surprising. But this appears to have been adopted among Iraqi governmental representatives, which is horrifying, sickening, and casts a pall on everything we've tried to accomplish for four years.
It begs a question -- in the end, were these people WORTH saving from Saddam?
My brother likes to repeat a single word when we come across unbelievable moronity such as this: "DOOOOOOOOOOM." He means that civilization is doomed to collapse under the weight of useful idiots.
Now, let it be said that I believe that the United States of America was founded upon a legal principle which recognizes a "right of resistance," and armed, if necessary. Our Revolution was a violent rebellion against the vested legal authority, and it was justified.
However, a "right of resistance," under that principle, exists only under certain narrow conditions. The animals who burn bodies and leave them on bridges, and perform brutal acts of horrific terror on camera, fulfill exactly none of them, neither in condition, behavior, or standing to do so.
For a right of resistance to apply, there have to be certain conditions. First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.
Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that most of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.
Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.
This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.
That the Arab League would pay this kind of lip service and give a wink and a nod to the insurgent animals is not surprising. But this appears to have been adopted among Iraqi governmental representatives, which is horrifying, sickening, and casts a pall on everything we've tried to accomplish for four years.
It begs a question -- in the end, were these people WORTH saving from Saddam?
posted by GumSlinger at 11:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home