|
that's your view of what the effects of such an action would be, ace, and it cuts to a basic philosophical difference between us--i think nation-states are already functionally obsolete---you don't. so you see this as a problem of sovereignty, where i see it as a matter of accountability for crimes against humanity. and it should not be the case that the only parties who can commit such crimes are those who lose wars. that is your other argument, btw---if you don't lose a war, anything goes. i find that astonishing--even as it reflects the realpolitik of the moment. if law that has been promulgated to prevent crimes against humanity are to mean anything, they have to be applied based on actions themselves, not based on whether you win or lose a war and then actions.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|