On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > > The UN. Please read my reply to Roberto. Irrespective of what these or > those politicians claim, the text of the Charter of the UN is simple: no > war or force without explicit endorsement by the security council. > So, if the US and other countries finally decided to get off their butts and do something about the atrocities in the Sudan, it would be wrong if they did not have UNSC endoresement? > > Before: similar to Iraq. Then *they* started a suicidal war, leaving > their country in ruins and many people dead. The violence was started by > the Germans themselves, not from someone outside. That's the whole lot > of a difference. Germany was in ruins after the war, by its (or its > governments) own fault. > You wouldn't consider Iraq's little incursion to Kuwait violent? What about Saddam's insistence in trying to convince *everyone* that he had WMDs? (Whether he had them or not). Iraq is in "ruins" today (nothing comparable to post-WWII because of Saddam's failure to actually keep infrastructure up to date. > Plus: the allies managed to set up law and order after defeating the > Germans. > Umm, the Germans were not exactly intent on killing occupiers and other Germans (with a religious ferver, no less). > There are more differences between Germany 1945 and Iraq now, but these > two make a whole lot of difference. > They certainly do. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature