On 2008-Dec-12, at 12:49, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> it was wrong for the US to destabilize Iraq, obviously ... >> >> but we can't blame Americans for Iraqi acts of violence, or can we? > > The notion that a conqueror is responsible for the welfare of the > conquered people or at least the innocent among them is certainly > embodied in international law and tradition. No one questioned it > after WWII and it forms the basis of the theory of a trust > relationship between the US and the Indian nations. Colin Powell > expressed it as the 'Pottery Barn Rule' > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule>
That's interesting :-) Still, old Saddam might have just choked on a date one day and dropped dead. Then who'd be to blame? (for the ensuing tribal warfare?) I'd say whomever was most able would have been duty bound to step in and do something. The fact that your previous government started this is by the way. The job of fixing it should go to whomever is most able and capable of doing so, if they can do so without hurting themselves more than the Iraqi people are hurting themselves. If America doesn't know how to fix it, and staying will mean that in 30 years Iraq will still be in this stalemate, then please leave now and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves by whatever it takes. At some point they'll have to realise that blowing things up is not going to hold back the modern world from their gates. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
