Derivatives For Dumbies

"Children playing at soldiers" Goya (1746-1828)

is assumed, and I say supposed, that the rulers of the country are smart and responsible people sometimes have to difficult decisions and meditate before taking the weighing the pros and cons. And especially when faced with a war that not only have to decide how they will perform, but it is going to do when this ends.

But too often we see that these leaders do not do any of that was supposed to be reasonable and do not realize, or care, that war is a great tragedy with tremendous consequences for the suffering of a people is huge and brings death, fear, hunger and destruction.

When children play in the war know it's a game, seriously choose who is the boss you are without question and know the enemy and therefore their reactions, and the outcome of those fighting is as much a few bumps and scratches, even one to lose a tooth, but when removed from the battlefield is as if the fight never happened.

Unfortunately this is not the case of higher than we are showing that when playing war are worse than the children and shows no more to see what is happening with this war in Libya apparently, as some leaders even if no intervention is war.

Here:

The first would clarify that it is a war and what is an intervention:

War struggle = armed conflict between two or more nations or between parties of one nation

Intervention

= action and effect of intervening

Intervene = 6. Said one or more powers: In international relations, temporarily manage some internal affairs of another. (To say nothing about wrestling)

So given that there are soldiers and bombing I would say it is simply a war.

The second would clarify who has the power to decide whether this war is just or not:

Apparently on the layer of Earth there is only one organization that power, the Security Council of the UN (with five permanent members: U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China and ten temporary), and so is depending on which foot is lifted with its members the war is just or not. And I say this because those members who decide they do looking at the convenience of the countries they represent, not the countries that are supposed to defend, and if not, how is that as an excuse for the attack on Libya that Gaddafi used violence on his people? I'm not saying it's not true, but based on that why not intervening in other countries that are less exploited by their leaders?

The third amazed and sorry to see the ease with which these decisions are taken which is not even a drop of organization and planning:

Russia and China using its veto abstained from the vote, now regrets the civilian casualties that will occur by the Allied intervention.

Germany grabs his frigates and says he plays.

France is determined to play at all costs.

Italy now says she is embarrassed

Gaddafi says Turkey provide six ships and six fighters, but not to attack.

Spain at first Gaddafi wanted to leave, now says he does not go against him.

United States currently had the address, now says he does not want

the panelists do not have a single command, go for free

Some want the NATO command wields it, other do not want, but it is clear that someone must take the blame when this mess is over.

fourth thing would be for someone to tell me:

if this is serious and responsible,

reasonable if leaders behave worse than children given that their actions in reverse than theirs, if they cost lives,

that a few countries (which also have much to be silent) have the right to decide what is right or not for the rest of the world,

and the amazing thing that we want to convince the justice of this war with phrases like Zapatero said ( taken from the newspaper El País):

"use of force is not an easy or pleasant situation. It is likely that people who suffer, but three days is a lot more people left to suffer "

And I wonder is it because she is dead?