« Egypt likes its army. | Main | Name your interlocutor »

15 January 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alba Etie

We would be hard pressed ; I think to write a Constitution from scratch these days in These United States .

William R. Cumming

And the term "WAR" undefined?

David Habakkuk

More scepticism about the basis for the claims that the Ghouta atrocity could only have been the work of the Syrian authorities comes in a technical analysis co-authored by a MIT professor discussed in a McClatchy report yesterday. An extract:

‘In Washington, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said its assertion of Syrian government responsibility remains unchanged.

‘“The body of information used to make the assessment regarding the August 21 attack included intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. That assessment made clear that the opposition had not used chemical weapons in Syria,” it said Wednesday in an email.

‘But the authors of a report released Wednesday said that their study of the rocket’s design, its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

‘In the report, titled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argue that the question about the rocket’s range indicates a major weakness in the case for military action initially pressed by Obama administration officials.’

(See http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/15/214656/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html )

William Fitzgerald


I believe your arguments can be further supported by referring to the concluding paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. The particular passage reads: "these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states;.......; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." That, together with the Treaty of Paris, and the degree to which the states acted independently of the Continental Congress definitively refute the historical basis of Sutherland's assertion.

This is a marvelous essay and I'm eagerly anticipating the next installment




Thank you Dr. Polk for this well written essay.

Norbert M Salamon

Sorry off topic:
Iranian Foreign Minister on RT 1/2 hour interview by Sophie Shevardnadze [grand daughter of USSR's FM of past years]

William R. Cumming

Traditionally "War" since the Treaties of Westphalia involve organized violence against other nation-states or coalitions of nation-states by a single nation-state or coalition of the same!

Other uses of organized violence by a nation-state fall to different labels than "war"!

IMO of course!

And again thanks for this post and comments!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad