Después
"The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is rebuilding and rehabilitating schools all across Iraq . Part of that effort is to replace mud schools. In November, the Gulf Region Southern District was provided $4 million to build and furnish these schools. Contracts for 38 schools have been awarded and construction has begun at 38 sites." (vía Digital Marine)
A visto. Era todo por el petróleo.
argenblogs
11 comentarios:
>>Sucios norteamericanos, construyen escuelas nada más que para deformar a los inocentes niños irakíes, felices en el abandono y la ignorancia!!<<
Si te muestro las escuelas que vi en el norte del Chaco, más de uno votaría para que el US Army venga a hacer obras, ante la incapacidad o la venalidad de políticos que se enriquecieron a costa de quitarle al pueblo lo mínimo indispensable para una vida digna.
Acá hemos tenido a más de un Saddam, lástima que ninguno se hizo el piola con la amenaza de construir armas de destrucción masiva.
Francisco P
Esta es mi version de la verdad:
1) Despues de tantos desplantes que le hizo Hussein a la U.N., y sabiendo lo de la corrupcion en el Oil for Food Program, ni Estados Unidos, ni ningun otro pais sabia a ciencia cierta si habia alguna capability de armas toxicas (que se sabia habian existido) o hasta nucleares que puedan ser vendidas a terroristas. Habia que entrar y ver de primera mano aunque haya que pagar el precio de no encontrar nada.
2) El gran enemigo del mundo occidental son los gobiernos religiosos fundamentalistas que pueden desencadenar una guerra debido a su fanatismo. Una vez que el Taliban se fue del poder, establecer algun tipo de gobierno con lazos con occidente en Irak es lo mas racional para controlar el desarrollo nuclear de Iran, ya que esperar apertura hacia occidente en Iran es muy dificil.
3) Pensar que es una lucha por el petroleo es algo ficticio. En un pais globalizado, los paises productores de petroleo necesitan seguir vendiendo para sobrevivir, los paises manufacturadores como China, necesitan de los paises consumidores para sobrevivir tambien. Todo esta atado en un paquete.
No por nada Chavez, quien vive hablando mal de EE.UU., importa la soja de EE.UU. (no de Argentina) y encima manda 1 millon para Katrina (cuanto mando a Santa Fe?). Argentina solo le sirve a Chavez para jugar a los soldados con su revolucion bolivariana, pero los negocios los sigue haciendo con los poderosos.
La invasion de EE.UU. fue mas beneficiosa que perjudicial para Irak, y el establecimiento de un gobierno autonomo y no dictatorial es mas beneficioso para todos.
x 2!
Hola tengan todos un excelente dia! Adhiero a que el mundo es un mejor lugar sin Saddam. Me puso muy mal que se pongan escuelas como ejemplo de US en una guerra cuando lamentablemente niños murieron como moscas ahi.
Lamentablemente no capto la lógica del último mensaje.
Que el mundo es mejor sin Saddam, adhiero. Que no tendría que emplear fotos de escuelas? Que allí murieron niños como moscas?
Aparentememte el lector se refiere a la cantidad de chicos muertos en atentados islamofascistas, motorizados por las mismas intenciones que había detrás de aquellas escuelas ruinosas.
Ergo... qué mejor ejemplo para mostrar el cambio que las nuevas escuelas, dejadas como jalones por el US Army.
Increibles, que fenomeno!!
Y yo pense que aca habia gente inteligente.
Una cosa es pensar como liberal y otra cosa es comerse una foto berreta y pensa que a eso se fue a Irak.
Si se fue a construir escuelas porque no se eligieron paises como Guinea Ecuatorial que ni siquiera tienen agua potable? Ah cierto no tiene petroleo.
Vamos muchachos una cosa es ser liberal y otra es justificar cualquier acto de Bush y Cia!!!
El mundo es mejor sin Saddam pero......... mejor esperemos a que caiga el ayatolah en Iran.
Ahora parece que son todos Heidi.
Levantemos un poco el nivel porque si eso era propaganda de Kliche todos la comentaban como una berretada
Anónimo, para mi también el mundo estaría mejor sin el ayatollah, y si Chávez, y sin...
Y mi camioneta (SUV, digamos) consume bastante gasoil, así que si fue por el petróleo, también adhiero.
No me vas a correr con la vaina!
The Doctrine of Just War
Imagine a village of 220 inhabitants. It has one heavily armed police constable flanked by two lightly equipped assistants. The hamlet is beset by a bunch of ruffians who molest their own families and, at times, violently lash out at their neighbors. These delinquents mock the authorities and ignore their decisions and decrees.
Yet, the village council - the source of legitimacy - refuses to authorize the constable to apprehend the villains and dispose of them, by force of arms if need be. The elders see no imminent or present danger to their charges and are afraid of potential escalation whose evil outcomes could far outweigh anything the felons can achieve.
Incensed by this laxity, the constable - backed only by some of the inhabitants - breaks into the home of one of the more egregious thugs and expels or kills him. He claims to have acted preemptively and in self-defense, as the criminal, long in defiance of the law, was planning to attack its representatives.
Was the constable right in acting the way he did?
On the one hand, he may have saved lives and prevented a conflagration whose consequences no one could predict. On the other hand, by ignoring the edicts of the village council and the expressed will of many of the denizens, he has placed himself above the law, as its absolute interpreter and enforcer.
What is the greater danger? Turning a blind eye to the exploits of outlaws and outcasts, thus rendering them ever more daring and insolent - or acting unilaterally to counter such pariahs, thus undermining the communal legal foundation and, possibly, leading to a chaotic situation of "might is right"? In other words, when ethics and expedience conflict with legality - which should prevail?
Enter the medieval doctrine of "Just War" (justum bellum, or, more precisely jus ad bellum), propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo (fifth century AD), Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his "Summa Theologicae", Francisco de Vitoria (1548-1617), Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his influential tome "Jure Belli ac Pacis" ("On Rights of War and Peace", 1625), Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1704), Christian Wolff (1679-1754), and Emerich de Vattel (1714-1767).
Modern thinkers include Michael Walzer in "Just and Unjust Wars" (1977), Barrie Paskins and Michael Dockrill in "The Ethics of War" (1979), Richard Norman in "Ethics, Killing, and War" (1995), Thomas Nagel in "War and Massacre", and Elizabeth Anscombe in "War and Murder".
According to the Catholic Church's rendition of this theory, set forth by Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in his Letter to President Bush on Iraq, dated September 13, 2002, going to war is justified if these conditions are met:
"The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated."
A just war is, therefore, a last resort, all other peaceful conflict resolution options having been exhausted.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy sums up the doctrine thus:
"The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be:
Having just cause (especially and, according to the United Nations Charter, exclusively, self-defense);
Being (formally) declared by a proper authority;
Possessing a right intention;
Having a reasonable chance of success;
The end being proportional to the means used."
Yet, the evolution of warfare - the invention of nuclear weapons, the propagation of total war, the ubiquity of guerrilla and national liberation movements, the emergence of global, border-hopping terrorist organizations, of totalitarian regimes, and rogue or failed states - requires these principles to be modified by adding these tenets:
That the declaring authority is a lawfully and democratically elected government.
That the declaration of war reflects the popular will.
(Extension of 3) The right intention is to act in just cause.
(Extension of 4) ... or a reasonable chance of avoiding an annihilating defeat.
(Extension of 5) That the outcomes of war are preferable to the outcomes of the preservation of peace.
Still, the doctrine of just war, conceived in Europe in eras past, is fraying at the edges. Rights and corresponding duties are ill-defined or mismatched. What is legal is not always moral and what is legitimate is not invariably legal. Political realism and quasi-religious idealism sit uncomfortably within the same conceptual framework. Norms are vague and debatable while customary law is only partially subsumed in the tradition (i.e., in treaties, conventions and other instruments, as well in the actual conduct of states).
The most contentious issue is, of course, what constitutes "just cause". Self-defense, in its narrowest sense (reaction to direct and overwhelming armed aggression), is a justified casus belli. But what about the use of force to (deontologically, consequentially, or ethically):
Prevent or ameliorate a slow-motion or permanent humanitarian crisis;
Preempt a clear and present danger of aggression ("anticipatory or preemptive self-defense" against what Grotius called "immediate danger");
Secure a safe environment for urgent and indispensable humanitarian relief operations;
Restore democracy in the attacked state ("regime change");
Restore public order in the attacked state;
Prevent human rights violations or crimes against humanity or violations of international law by the attacked state;
Keep the peace ("peacekeeping operations") and enforce compliance with international or bilateral treaties between the aggressor and the attacked state or the attacked state and a third party;
Suppress armed infiltration, indirect aggression, or civil strife aided and abetted by the attacked state;
Honor one's obligations to frameworks and treaties of collective self-defense;
Protect one's citizens or the citizens of a third party inside the attacked state;
Protect one's property or assets owned by a third party inside the attacked state;
Respond to an invitation by the authorities of the attacked state - and with their expressed consent - to militarily intervene within the territory of the attacked state;
React to offenses against the nation's honor or its economy.
Unless these issues are resolved and codified, the entire edifice of international law - and, more specifically, the law of war - is in danger of crumbling. The contemporary multilateral regime proved inadequate and unable to effectively tackle genocide (Rwanda, Bosnia), terror (in Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East), weapons of mass destruction (Iraq, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea), and tyranny (in dozens of members of the United Nations).
This feebleness inevitably led to the resurgence of "might is right" unilateralism, as practiced, for instance, by the United States in places as diverse as Grenada and Iraq. This pernicious and ominous phenomenon is coupled with contempt towards and suspicion of international organizations, treaties, institutions, undertakings, and the prevailing consensual order.
In a unipolar world, reliant on a single superpower for its security, the abrogation of the rules of the game could lead to chaotic and lethal anarchy with a multitude of "rebellions" against the emergent American Empire. International law - the formalism of "natural law" - is only one of many competing universalist and missionary value systems. Militant Islam is another. The West must adopt the former to counter the latter.
Τhe sixty dаy complimentary trial
ρresent іs а fantаstic selection, іn the case of the fleх
ωaіstband.
My webpage: wiki.dbffo.com
I enjoyed intended for slightly in addition to continued even along with We evolved into
interested to discover how many other games the particular Casino needed to offer
you. Their particular specialty video games include things like Fortuitous Eights, Miracle Sevens, Warm Chop, along with above 100 other games which will keep you actively playing with regard to
hours on end. Just about all you must do is actually head to the web site, download your video gaming software that they can provide
for a computer, put in your money (or take advantage of their own no cost down payment Casino options) and you may commence participating in your preferred video games with just a couple of limited a few minutes.
Other add-ons range from the generous Table Online games complement reward
associated with 125% staggered over your current primary 4 (4) remains (for the price of up to $5, 000);
Have a look at my blog ... online casino
Publicar un comentario