----- Original Message ----- From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:35 PM Subject: Re: The UN
> At 16:24 22-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > >Where in the UN charter does it say that a country must gain permission > >before defending itself? > > A country's self-defense is an internal matter, not an UN matter. However, > invading an other country is an act of aggression, not self-defense. So, all wars of self defense must stop at the border? It is wrong to defeat a country that attacks? Further, if one decides to sue for peace short of uncoditional surrender, it is wrong to enforce the terms of the treaty? > > >Your suggestion, that a country should wait until its borders were > >its borders were crossed would fail the Chamberlin test. > > The what? I have never heard of the Chamberlin test. It is considered a trueism that Chamberlin made a significant mistake by refusing to stop Hitler's advance into Czechoslovakia. The Chamberlin test is whether the rules set forth allow any stronger action than Chamberlin's. > > >That is to say, by that rule, England should have done nothing while > >Hitler took over Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. > > England does not have borders with those countries, so when Hitler attacked > them, England was not under attack. So, your argument is that England could only respond to Hitler _after_ English soil is attacked? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
