At 15:19 23-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
The answer is "no" on both questions. However, self-defense is what you do when you are attacked. Unless something happened in the last hour or so, Iraq has not yet attacked the US. All the US has right now is *suspicions* that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.> 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?
> >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.
Ah. Thank you for the explanation.
These are different matters, Dan. Hitler did attack Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Iraq however has not attacked the US.> >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?
Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
