Disappointment, however, has replaced this emptiness. Disappointment, sadness, and some anger. The celebrations that poured forth after the announcement from Times Square to university campuses to small towns in the West illustrate an incredibly simplistic view of the current world and situation we live in. The world is not broken down so easily into the dichotomy of good and evil. If we take this road, we only reestablish the unflattering, stereotypical image of America and its citizens as unsophisticated, over-zealos patriots who revel in anything that supports their viewpoint while displacing their responsibility and culpability.

We turn in disgust when we see our fallen soldiers dragged behind cars or burned in a riotous crowd and dismiss it as barbaric behavior. We find fault in dancing crowds who burn our flag and stomp on pictures of our president, our soldiers, and our iconic images. Yet, when the time had come, we decided to commit the same obscenities. Thus, instead of being a beacon of understanding and empathy, our actions these past few days convey arrogance and imperiousness.

For the past ten years, we have missed multiple opportunities to show ourselves and our nation to live up to our declarations of being a great country who embraces diversity, multiplicity, and tolerance. The killing of a major symbolic enemy was another. We did not have to show remorse or regret. We did not have to show sadness or pain. What we did have to show was solemnity and dignity for a situation that was made better because a person had to be killed.

Thus, regardless of my skirting around the issue in order to dissuade discussions on the ethicality of killing or the evolutionary accuracy of humans as carnivores, the truth is that being a vegetarian (and even more so, a vegan) is an environmentally sound, responsible and privileged choice the Western World should seriously consider as a means to ease the stress we are causing the planet.  From reducing your carbon footprint to diminishing the demand for rapidly vanishing global fish stocks to saving water, being a vegetarian is one of the simplest yet most effective ways in which to minimize your impact.  In fact, the relatively recent change to a meat-centered diet throughout the world poses a huge environmental threat that must be accounted for in conjunction with a growing population.  For example, the American and European diet “ requires around 5,000 litres of water a day to produce” while a vegetarian diet requires about 2,000 litres.  Compare this to the 250 litres a day the typical American uses for washing and drinking, the numbers speak for themselves in favor of merely reducing meat intake (Economist.com).

So, it is obvious I cannot avoid the political implications of vegetarianism any longer.  This post is my first start.  Take it or leave it, it is what it is.  Regardless, my original position still stands: I still feel healthy, and it is still a good choice for me.  The environmental factor is a bonus.

Yesterday, a Nazi rally took place in our town and Neuss became a police state for about four hours. Blockades were set up while police in green riot gear, pistols and helmets were posted at each intersection in anticipation of any violence. We never saw any of the right-wing demonstrators. Instead, we were relieved to see only the counter-rally of left-wing punks, Marxists, Christians and the Green Party of Germany marching through the streets. Nevertheless, the air was charged with a bit of apprehension which made the day strange and a bit surreal. It was as if the residue of one of the most horrific moments in history actually restored itself, however slightly, in the flesh. The feeling it left was, to say the least, chilling.

But what I find interesting about this relationship between history and the present is not the fact that minor players (however significant they may be at any given time) who march in the streets and create a small flurry of activity provide a reincarnation of the a pivotal moment in history; instead, what is interesting is when major players resurrect history and solidify it in major actions. Even more interesting is the fact that when skinheads march in the streets, the signs are easy to recognize. However, when a government administration wages war in defiance against complex international treaties, the signs are much more covert.

Just over 61 years ago this month, the U.S. led Nuremberg Trials drew to a close with 19 men sentenced to death by hanging or imprisonment from 10 years to life for war crimes. Of those 19, 13 were found guilty on the basis of Count 2: Crimes Against Peace which stated the defendants had “participated in the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.” The count became a major basis in the formulation of the United Nations Charter (which was also backed and approved by the U.S.) and international law regarding war crimes.

Yet, it seems as if this “offence” has disappeared in the last years. In fact, if one looks at the first two Counts from the Neremberg Trials, one could find striking similarities between the Bush Administration and the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Count 1 states how the leaders of the Nazi party “participated as leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity.” Words of interest here are “execution of a common plan” and “conspiracy to commit.” In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the ability to find an “execution of a common plan” to go to war and a “conspiracy to commit” a crime against peace is not difficult. Whereas, I have reservations stating the Bush Administration is on parallel with Nazi Germany of 1921, I do not have any struggle with the knowledge that all of the Administration formed a cohesive unit which utilized false information for their own aims and purposes, namely, the invasion of Iraq. In addition, the probability that certain players in the unit were fully informed while others were partially informed illustrates a hierarchy of knowledge comparable to Nazi Germany. I see no other reason for the ridiculous yet somewhat convincing presentations made by Colin Powell. I also see no other reason for Bush’s continual use of “executive privilege.”

Thus, the question comes down to whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression in violation of international laws. Clearly, this seems to be the case. The United States went to war without approval from the Security Council of the United Nations and broke international law.

Where, then, is the international community of law? We seem content to wait for next year’s elections in hopes that a Democrat will prevail and pull out of this aggression. However, such a scenario is not guaranteed. A Democrat may still lose. A Democrat may be unable to withdraw the troops. Instead, laws in which we constructed, we formalized, we utilized and we supported are available. Call the war illegal, put those on trial who are responsible (and I mean everyone…sorry Europe, you are not immune) and end it on legal grounds.

If we uphold laws which guard humanity and morality, we may have hope for the reconstruction of it in a region which has seen so little.
Further Reading:

Yale’s Law Site – Searchable Database on the Nuremberg Trials

Interesting Article with Benjamin Ferencz, former prosecutor in the Nuremberg Trials, on the Iraq War.

Full Library of Congress Database on the Nuremberg Trials