doncab said:
In response to a criminal act (the attack on the world trade centre) the U.S. presented Afghanistan with the ultimatum that it hand over suspected members of terrorist groups or face attack. The only catch: the U.S. refused to provide any evidence, to Afghanistan or anyone else. I think the question is "what right do we have to attack countries without evidence?"
Even though I'm a guy with multilateralist/hippy roots, I can't agree with this example. This is an excerpt from the book
War Law by Michael Byers, an international lawyer and professor who is generally quite critical of the U.S.:
"....At the time [the aftermath of 11 September 2001], there were several legal justifications available to the United States for the use of military force in Afghanistan. First, the United States could have argued that it was acting at the invitation of the Northern Alliance, a group which still controlled a portion of the country's territory and could have been cast-albeit tenuously-as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Invitation is widely accepted as a legal basis for intervention under customary international law, since the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force is only directed at non-consensual interventions. Second, the United States could have sought explicit authorization for military action from the UN Security Council. Such authorization would certainly have been granted, given the widespread sympathy that existed for the United States at the time as well as the heightened concern about terrorism felt by governments everywhere....
...the United States adopted a two-pronged legal strategy. First, it implicated the Taliban. By giving refuge to Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and refusing to hand them over, the Taliban was alleged to have directly facilitated and endorsed their actions. The United States even gave the Taliban a deadline for surrendering bin Laden, a move that served to ensure there complicity. Moreover, the Taliban's continued control over Afghanistan was viewed as a threat, in and of itself, of even more terrorism.
...
Subsequent statements by the Taliban that endorsed the terrorist acts further raised the level of their alleged responsibility. (my emphasis) "
doncab said:
Peacekeeping is a great idea though
It is a great idea in my mind too. However, the nature of the beast has changed horribly. J.L. Granatstein wrote a great piece I think, (sorry, another excerpt):
"He (Pearson) appreciated the role that the UN could play, but he was also one of the founders of NATO, and he was never a believer in peacekeeping above all other means of statecraft. Peacekeeping was a tool, a device to freeze a crisis while statesmen sought a political solution to resolve it....
...Pearson's 1956 triumph (Suez) was misinterpreted by his fellow citizens, as they fell in love with the United Nations and peacekeeping and continue today to raise their blue-helmeted soldiers to the levels of icons and myth-Canada as the universally beloved, tolerant, and idealistic peacekeeping exemplar to the world. Being Canadians, however, they understand nothing of how dangerous and difficult peacekeeping and peacemaking have become in the last decade. Nor do they seem to realize that Canada in 2003 has just over two hundred soldiers on UN duties. Given their chronic lack of interest in the military, they do not know that the present Canadian Forces, with well under 55,000 trained soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women, are incapable of doing more for the UN because they are so thinly stretched and ill-equipped. Yet being Canadian, they accept the contradictory idea that the Canadian Forces remain the world's ideal peacekeepers...
...
Canadians do not realize that the major reason the Canadian Forces have proven themselves capable of peacekeeping is that the nation trains its men and women for war. "There is no such thing as a Canadian 'peacekeeper,'" according to Military historian Dr. Sean Maloney. "There are Canadian soldiers. Peacekeeping covers a small band in the spectrum of conflict. Canadian national security demands that we have an armed forces capable of fighting."
It is a truism that a war-trained soldier can fight and also do peacekeeping. A peacekeeping-trained soldier, however, cannot fight in a war-at least, not without dying quickly." (emphasis added again).
I too am of the opinion that war=bad. The West shouldn't be interfering with their ethnocentric bias etc...However, don't we have a responsibility to help others? If you saw somebody who got hit by a car, would you stop to help? We, as a G8 nation, have the resources to help people. We should not turn a blind eye whilst a genocide is ongoing. I find a lot of hypocrisy with many (although not all) of the anti-military types who blast soldiers for fighing in wars overseas and then turn around and cry-out about our governments not doing enough about the situation in a different country. Other options should be used first, however, these are often taken-advantage of by the people who are inflicting the pain upon others, to the detriment of the people who really need our help. I can not sit idly-by while other people who are too weak to defend themselves are victimized. I will help them. Often, unfortunately, the only way to do that is through force. As true today as when Pearson was in power.
edit for emphasis adding and a missing 's'.
