Posted on 07/12/2002 9:06:48 PM PDT by aculeus
Bravo! This cannot be said too often
An oxymoron.
An oxymoron.
but wait years to do much about a robust and dangerous Milosevic right next door who killed more in a month than Pinochet did in a lifetime.
Milosevic defending his countries' sovereignty and rooting out 'terrorist' like we are in Afganistan is brutal but necessary. Facts are the EU under a NATO umbrella 'killed' innocent 'Serbs' and 'Albanians', Milosevic did no such thing as being proved in the 'kangaroo tribunal' going on now.
It will lecture the United States, which is a civilized and humane state
It was not civilized when chosing 'terrorist' as allies and 'humane' when imposing 'silly sanctions' and punitive 'bombings'.
Stupid is what stupid writes.
Evidently, you were once a devoted NR reader. National Review, Wm. F. Buckley Jr.
I liked National Review.com way back when they had a outstanding 'reader comment' section. Now that's gone as in most sites I visit. Seems like your're always being talked down to. They lack an 'editorial' section to balance the 'media' framing and push.
I was a regular reader of National Review and viewer of Firing Line. Even read a few of Bill's books but not his mysteries, they were yawners.
I stand by what I said. National Review went over the edge, It's no longer is a serious conservative dot.com 'magazine'. Goldbergs' last ramblings and this one by Hanson proves it.
Natural logorithm?
Of ducks?
He is wrong when he insinuates that the ICC is fine for others but not the USA. IMO the ICC and especially the ICTY is totally illigitimate.
He's wrong in believing in NATO's demonizing of Milosevic. He mentions everything in history except the crutial problem of the Islamists, their heinous crimes, pass and present.
Finally, he rambles and indicts like a God so much so that I don't really know where he's headed. The same goes for the 'new' National review.
Since the question of Hanson's qualifications has been raised in this thread, Victor Davis Hanson is a classical scholar with a specialization in ancient warfare. He has broadened from that starting point to become one of the most respected living military historians. He has also been a sharp critic of today's politicized and trivialized academy. His recent works of military history especially takes on the postmodernist cynicism with which war and soldiers are treated in the post-Vietnam academy.
Every conservative should read Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power ; The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny (caution: the Surgeon General has determined that Neo-Confeds may succumb to apoplexy reading this one); and Who Killed Homer? : The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom (co-authored with John Heath).
Hanson began to write for NR regularly about a week after 9-11; his collection of columns since then constitute some of the most insightful commentary on the war and will be published as a book this Fall.
As for NRO, it is not perfect but the smearing it has gotten in this thread is undeserved. It has regular reports on Iran from Michael Ledeen, a first-rate Middle East scholar; reports on the political scene by Byron York, one of the best political reporters in the country; columns on religion and society from the distinguished theologian Michael Novak; commentary on strategic and military issues by James S. Robbins, Mackubin Thomas Owens, and Frank Gaffney. NRO's Melissa Seckora broke the story on Michael Bellisles' (spelling?) fraudelent anti-gun scholarship; and recently NRO's Joel Mowbray exposed the State Department "get your US visa through your Saudi travel agent" scandal.
Anyone who can't learn anything from that line-up, or denies that NRO makes a substantial contribution to conservative journalism, didn't really want to learn anything in the first place.
But of course, NRO writers have occasionally doubted the holiness of St. Slobo, which no doubt damns the whole enterprise to Paleo Hell where there is nothing to read but Pravda and Lew Rockwell.
Nothing in Hanson's article suggests that he believes that the ICC is "fine for others but not the USA" as duckln peculiarly charges. The article is not about the legitimacy of the ICC but about the morality of the Europeans (hint: titles are sometimes a clue) whose brainchild the ICC is. The point is that, whether the ICC is legitimate or not, the Europeans' track-record gives us no reason to believe that it will will be used even by them (much less by barbarian states elsewhere) in a rational and just fashion:
We in the United States have this unpleasant suspicion that the record of European jurisprudence — more scrutiny and concern given to those caught on the battlefield and detained in Cuba than to the Sept. 11 terrorists who planned their murdering while roaming free in Europe — is both biased and opportunistic.
The fact that the Euros hyperventilate at the chance to indict Pinochet, but let Communist killers live in comfy retirement, indicates their moral confusion.
duckln writes that Hanson "rambles and indicts like a God so much so that I don't really know where he's headed." What's really hard is to find any meaning whatever in duckln's rambling godlike indictments, but since duckln apparently already knew before reading that NRO is no damn good, and since Hanson failed the Slobo test, which divideth the children of light from the children of darkness, I think we may well doubt that he tried very hard to understand Hanson's point.
Then of course duckln by his own statement agrees with Chomsky and Robert Fisk that America is not a civilized and humane country, so it may be that he is just on the other side.
Problem is NRO writers are not reporting on the trial, they are part of the coverup 'curtain' keeping the facts from the people. They don't have a Anne Coulter, they can't take the 'heat'.
So the Slobo trial was billed as the biggest of the 'century'. Is it getting a look see by National Review. No, it talks about everything else.
The article is not about the legitimacy of the ICC but about the morality of the Europeans
We have a demonstration live about the morality, going on in a 'kangaroo' tribunal, and from all the Mags on the 'net', it's being shunned into nonexistence.
Hanson failed the Slobo test
Hanson never took the test. Let him report on the 'tribunal'. Transcripts and Video's are all there, but no one in this countries' media is taking it on.
Just watching the 'tribunal' has convinced me, so far, that Ole Slobo has a better case, and that's why it's not being covered. When you have to hunt to find out what's going on then someones not doing their job and that includes NR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.