Re: [OT] The record industry, RIAA and US law
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:06:09 +0200
> Johannes Wiedersich <johannes@physik.blm.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Celejar wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Maybe it's true that you thought that, but besides that your statement
>>>> is plainly wrong. Most Europeans *are* opposed to the US involvement in
>>>> Iraq, because it is neither right legally nor morally. Their number is
>>> Because they think it is neither right legally (which authoritative
>>> body has said so?) nor morally (needless to say, many of us disagree).
>> 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.
>
> Where does any binding international law state that no war or force is
> legal without explicit endorsement by the security council (not a
> rhetorical question - I'm uncertain about this).
<- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_nations#Membership ->
/------
The United Nations Charter outlines the rules for membership:
1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other
peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the
present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and
willing to carry out these obligations.
—United Nations Charter, Chapter 2, Article 4,
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
\--------
The legal situation applies only to member states of the UN. I guess the
US are a member state and therefore have signed the relevant documents
to accept the charter of the UN.
The charter calls on all conflicting parties to engage in negotiations,
if those fail the parties are obliged to bring their dispute to the
security council. The security council will decide on sanctions and
military intervention.
/---------
Article 46:
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security
Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
\---------
Ie. not by the US government. Or any other government.
Chapter VI and VII of the Charter [1] describe in detail the steps to
avoid war and military escalation. The US choose not to follow these steps.
>>>> increasing, because the mission failed and fails besides throwing Saddam
>>>> out of office.
>>>>
>>>> The whole mission is a textbook example of how it probably is impossible
>>>> to bring about democracy, peace and freedom by application of force.
>>> Impossible? Where were Germany and Japan before and after WWII?
>> 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.
>
> Are you arguing that peace, democracy and freedom can arise through war,
> but only if the war is a suicidal one started by the bad guy? What's
> the logical justification for such a distinction?
No I argue that peace, democracy and freedom were not forced on Germany
from the outside. They are in the case of Iraq and that fails.
>> Plus: the allies managed to set up law and order after defeating the
>> Germans.
>
> Well, we're certainly trying; it's (some of) the Iraqis who are
> destroying their country by their vicious, animal savagery.
> So you mean that "It's possible to bring freedom, peace and democracy
> by war, but not if the local inhabitants behave with suicidal
> savagery".
They didn't even try to stop the looting in the days and hours after the
victory. They are not successful in restoring 'law and order'.
>> There are more differences between Germany 1945 and Iraq now, but these
>> two make a whole lot of difference.
>
> I don't really understand the difference, as above. In any event,
> you're conceding that your original statement was an overly broad
> exaggeration. Can you mention the other differences?
1: the US and allies were morally right in 1945
2: the US and allies managed to restore law and order
Johannes
[1] http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGQzIXC1NzPRl9qEURAqmOAJ40pBwmSo3BwgaQSKFtpYfsN1QThACdGCU6
SiEGH6CQPEN4K2M7FAqEcV0=
=HJ3/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: