The great thing about having a blog is that you can just vent about almost any issue you want. 


Most La Trobe University students really need to learn some realism. I dont mean the Morgenthau etc theoretical arguments, that I dont entirely follow, just some practical realities of the international system as it exists today. Discussing international law today, specifically criminal law and enforcement, some students were outraged that the leadership of the Khmer Rouge would face a criminal trial, while it was 'the Americans' that devastated the countryside of both Cambodia and Vietnam in the 1970s. Are they arguing that one sided justice is worse than no justice at all? I would rather have the powerful criminals stay untouched while the weak criminals face justice than neither of them face justice at all. It is unrealistic and stupid to expect the most powerful state to simply hand over its leadership to face a criminal trial, or hand over any jurisdiction to such a body that they could not control. Anyone who believes they should needs to go back to watching Today Tonight.

It is very fashionable today to issue blanket anti-US statements that arent based on facts, just emotion. Most La Trobe students also need some perspective on international humanitarian issues. While I dont agree with arguments from neoconservatives about Americas global mission, or Hitchens style arguments about US moral superiority. But, people are way too ready to argue that because the US is the most powerful state, it means it is responsible for everything, and is the source of all evil in the world. I might be inadvertantly attacking alot of the people I agree with, and even my own arguments here, but the US is not the Great Satan that many make it out to be. It sounds contrived, but the world could probably have a worser hegemon than the USA. In saying that, the US is not some sort of overwhelming force for good, and has done bad things. but that doesnt mean we should lose sight of all the other criminals across the globe. The events at Abu Grahib were horrendous, but on par with a deliberate and systematic genocide? No.

A lecturer today made the argument that the 20th Century's 'return to barbarism' means that the US is in effect responsible for the September 11 attacks. Wouldnt a more rational argument be that September 11 is an example of barbaric acts? She was talking as if there was nothing wrong with the act itself, that attacking civilians is justified because of the barbarism of the USA. How can someone arguing against barbarism, argue that a barbaric act is justified? If killing the 'innocent' people in the WTC is justified, then surely the firebombing that signals the beginning of this renewed barbarism was justified too?

As a disclaimer, I consider myself to be almost as left as the come, but some of the unintelligent and un-thought through arguments of many others on the left really discredits some of the more intelligent ones. I know many of the arguments I have made here are not prime examples of great argument (and I contradict myself within this very post, guess where!), and I probably sound quite elitist in arguing this point of view. You may even consider me part of the supposed unintelligent left. As Chomsky argues, intellectuals have a responsibility to criticise and denounce the crimes of their own side, but when this leaves behind reasonable argument and appeals purely to emotion it will never prove an effective check on the abuse of power.