Website review: Comment is free: A criminal idea
laodan discovered this in Economics
•3 reviews since Jan 26, 2008
economics
•commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/james_k_galbrait...
People who like this website
StumbleUpon is the best way to discover great web sites, videos, photos, blogs and more - based on your interests.
Everything is submitted and rated by the community. Discover, share and review the best of the web!
Reviews of this website
laodan discovered 4 months ago- A criminal idea in The Guardian by James K Galbraith
Five former Nato generals, including the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, have written a "radical manifesto" which states that "the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the 'imminent' spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction." In other words, the generals argue that "the west" - meaning the nuclear powers including the United States, France and Britain - should prepare to use nuclear weapons, not to deter a nuclear attack, not to retaliate following such an attack, and not even to pre-empt an imminent nuclear attack. Rather, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a non-nuclear state. And not only that, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of biological or chemical weapons by such a state. A criminal idea Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told Fact is that laws are created under duress of force that comes with the power to impose such laws. Laws can be changed or adapted or cheated upon at will by those who have the power to do so without being threatened by ulterior sanctions. Recent history showed us that the West can indeed by-pass International Law without being sanctioned while other nations are being punished for not observing the laws drafted by those same Western powers. In other words Law follows Force and force is the prerogative of economic power that sustains state power. I think that it would be more productive thinking about why such a proposal comes out precisely at this time of the history of late modernity. Such a proposal comes out at this precise juncture not as the result of an accident. It figures high as a response in the present Western Zeitgeist of insecurity that comes with: - a Western popular backlash against globalization - a Western perception that newly industrializing nations are "stealing" their traditional fossil fuel sources. - a Western perception that those same newly industrializing nations are not playing by the same rule-book and are thus somehow "illegally" disrupting "the level playing field" - a Western perception that China, India and other newly industrializing nations are responsible for the bulk of CO2 ejections that lead to climate change. - and so on. Countering this proposal with legal arguments is thus not going to relieve us from the adoption of that proposal by Western Powers.
- A criminal idea in The Guardian by James K Galbraith
- chrisfreer rated 4 months ago
- Five former Nato generals, including the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, have written a "radical manifesto" which states that "the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the 'imminent' spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction." In other words, the generals argue that "the west" - meaning the nuclear powers including the United States, France and Britain - should prepare to use nuclear weapons, not to deter a nuclear attack, not to retaliate following such an attack, and not even to pre-empt an imminent nuclear attack. Rather, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a non-nuclear state. And not only that, they should use them to prevent the acquisition of biological or chemical weapons by such a state.
- Graham857 rated 4 months ago
- From the page: "Five former Nato generals, including the former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Shalikashvili, have written a "radical manifesto" which states that "the West must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the 'imminent' spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction." Under this doctrine, the US could have used nuclear weapons in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, to destroy that country's presumed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - stockpiles that did not in fact exist."
