Skip to main content

View Diary: In bitter earnest (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a question for everyone (6+ / 0-)

    If the US has the right to unilaterally bomb/invade another nation and/or kill its leader as punishment for violations of international law, do other nations in turn have the same unilateral right to do the same to the US or its allies for violations of international law?

    If, in the aftermath of the illegal 2003 Iraq invasion, Mexico or China or Brazil or Indonesia would have bombed the US's production and storage facilities for WMDs as punishment and then invaded and occupied Washington DC and arrested Dubya, Cheney and the others for a war crimes trial in Le Hague, would anyone here have objected to that? How about if that same action had been taken after the US aided and facilitated the Iraqi use of nerve gas during the Iran-Iraq War? Would we support this enforcement of international law?

    And what about US allies? If a coalition of nations, such as Russia, India, South Africa and Australia, or even just one of those nations acting unilaterally, were to enforce UN Resolution 242 by invading Israel and forcibly removing all the illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, would anyone here have any objection to that? Would the US join in that effort to enforce international law?

    Does international law deserve to be enforced on everyone who violates it, by force if necessary----or only against nations we like, and NOT against nations we DO like (including ourselves)?

    Think very carefully before you answer that--the answer will reveal a lot about you, and about us as a nation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site