The UN: Why?
Jerry
Charter any different than the Treaty of Versailles? Or the League of
Nations?
The UN exists because of the conquest of the Axis powers by the
Allies. If that isn't an issue of conquest, I don't know what is!
Read history, everyone!
Jerry
--
Vince Brannigan
it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
Vince
Peter Skelton
Unfortunately it did not provide a functional mechanism for
legitimate changes in boundaries. Governments/ruling blocks have
been trying to legistate stasis for centuries, it cannot work. If
you don't provide a pressure relief, eventually you get an
explosion.
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:Jerry wrote:
:> Vince wants us to accept the UN Charter, but why do so? Is the UN
:> Charter any different than the Treaty of Versailles? Or the League of
:> Nations?
:>
:> The UN exists because of the conquest of the Axis powers by the
:> Allies. If that isn't an issue of conquest, I don't know what is!
:>
:> Read history, everyone!
:
:it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
:
:one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
:the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
Except, of course, that most of the international boundaries in Europe
were changed at the end of WWII, based on force.
Believe what they say, or believe what they DO?
--
"Have you noticed that the most subtle shedders of blood have always
been the most civilized gentlemen? If civilization has not made man
more bloodthirsty, it has at least made him more hideously and
abominably bloodthirsty. Formerly he saw bloodshed as an act of
justice, and with a clear conscience exterminated whomever he
thought he should. And now we consider bloodshed an abomination,
yet engage in this abomination more than ever."
-- Dostoyevsky "Notes From The Underground"
Keith Willshaw
"Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
news:3F9C7C97...@pressroom.com...
>
>
> it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
>
> one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
> the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
>
Of course the victors of WW2 had no trouble doing so themselves
when they chose to adjust the boundaries of the axis nations
after the war.
Keith
Vince Brannigan
this is not correct. Boundaries can be changed, but not by the use of
unilateral force.
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :
> :Jerry wrote:
> :> Vince wants us to accept the UN Charter, but why do so? Is the UN
> :> Charter any different than the Treaty of Versailles? Or the League of
> :> Nations?
> :>
> :> The UN exists because of the conquest of the Axis powers by the
> :> Allies. If that isn't an issue of conquest, I don't know what is!
> :>
> :> Read history, everyone!
> :
> :it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
> :
> :one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
> :the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
>
> Except, of course, that most of the international boundaries in Europe
> were changed at the end of WWII, based on force.
>
> Believe what they say, or believe what they DO?
>
>
you have to start somewhere. The international community essentially
set the limits in 1946. Changes before then by force were "legitimized"
changes by force after that point were prohibited. and yes there was
what was called the Decolonialization exception. But the prinicple is
still important. no matter what the historical grievance, boundaries
cannot be changed by force. This was critical in Ireland.
Vince
Vince Brannigan
and then they drew a line under the changes. You have to start somewere.
Vince
David McArthur
..can we assume you're not a fan then?
(of the UN, not Vince)
And just whose version of history are you suggesting we should read?
David
Keith Willshaw
>
>
>
> and then they drew a line under the changes.
There have been a number of changes since then
which were not exactly consensual, Tibet springs
to ind for example.
>
> You have to start somewere.
>
> Vince
>
Keith
Brad Meyer
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>you have to start somewhere. The international community essentially
>set the limits in 1946. Changes before then by force were "legitimized"
>changes by force after that point were prohibited. and yes there was
>what was called the Decolonialization exception. But the prinicple is
>still important.
Why? Especially inview of the exceptions, which make it much less of a
principle -- if there can be an exception for this, there can just as
well be an exceptioin for that. How many times has the UN put forces
in the field to defend borders under attack since 1953? None that I
can think of. Any "principle" that isn't worth backing doesn't seem
like really much of a principle at all.
> no matter what the historical grievance, boundaries
>cannot be changed by force. This was critical in Ireland.
How so? Do you suppose the Republic would even attempt to conquor
Ulster by force of arms? Or that Ulster (or Britain) would attempt the
reverse?
Vince Brannigan
Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9CEA11...@pressroom.com...
>
>>
>
>>and then they drew a line under the changes.
>
>
> There have been a number of changes since then
> which were not exactly consensual, Tibet springs
> to ind for example.
Tibet is part of the very messy process of decolonialization
its not exactly clear what kind of entity Tibet is and was
e.g. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tibet.htm
(none of which excuses China's apalling human rights record.
vince
Vince Brannigan
Its been an effective legal principle. It was critical to gaining
world support agaisnt Iraqui agression.
It delegitimized violence in Northern Ireland.
It supported the UK in the Falklands
There has been a remarkably low level of "international border" conflict
since the second world war. Decolonializaiton can easily be accompnaied
by land grabs by adjoining countries. e.g. Kuwaiit. Whatever the
historical grievances, those grabs are now illegitimate.
it does mean somethign
Its not perfect but it is a real advance.
Vince
ZZBunker
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :
> :Jerry wrote:
> :> Vince wants us to accept the UN Charter, but why do so? Is the UN
> :> Charter any different than the Treaty of Versailles? Or the League of
> :> Nations?
> :>
> :> The UN exists because of the conquest of the Axis powers by the
> :> Allies. If that isn't an issue of conquest, I don't know what is!
> :>
> :> Read history, everyone!
> :
> :it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
> :
> :one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
> :the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
>
> Except, of course, that most of the international boundaries in Europe
> were changed at the end of WWII, based on force.
>
> Believe what they say, or believe what they DO?
What they meant was a change by *military* force.
The Marshall Plan was not a military force.
Believe whatever you want. Since after we
forced the USSR to give back what they stole,
we're on to bigger and better things, since
we ain't got time for European philosphers.
Peter Skelton
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
Pray describe the mechanism then. For the sake of the argument,
assume that one group has the moral right and the other
posession. The second group likes the way things are.
Also dump the word unilateral, it is extraneous to the discussion
and will cause trouble.
Peter Skelton
Vince Brannigan
The Korean war was a UN mutilateral use of force to preserve accepted
boundaries.
UN Resolution of 27 June 1950
"The Security Council,
"HAVING DETERMINED that the armed attack upon the Republic of Korea by
forces from North Korea constitutes a breach of the peace,
"HAVING CALLED FOR an immediate cessation of hostilities, and
"HAVING CALLED UPON the authorities of North Korea to withdraw forthwith
their armed forces to the 38th parallel, and
"HAVING NOTED from the report of the United Nations Commission for Korea
that the authorities in North Korea have neither ceased hostilities nor
withdrawn their armed forces to the 38th parallel and that urgent
military measures are requred to restore international peace and
security, and
"HAVING NOTED the appeal from the Republic of Korea to the United
Nations for immediate and effective steps to secure peace and security,
"RECOMMENDS that the Members of the United Nations furnish such
assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the
armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Vince
Jeffrey Smidt
And as most liberal ideas of the last half century or so, it's a
theoritically a good idea but practically worthless. The UN only
appeared to have effectiveness when first backed by the force of the
allies and then by the balance of forces of the cold war. Right now
it has the value of used underwear.
Peter Skelton
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
This is a mechanism for boundary change?
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
Except the international community was apparently just fine with the
expansion of Transjordan and its annexation of the West Bank in 1950,
after its expansion by force of arms in 1949.
Again, believe what they say, or believe what they DO?
I think you have to go with the latter.
--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Jerry
wrote:
> ..can we assume you're not a fan then?
> (of the UN, not Vince)
I am no fan of the UN. In fact, I'd like the UN headquarters out of
the US and put somewhere where it would be useful, such as, oh, say,
Iraq -- there are plenty of candidates.
> And just whose version of history are you suggesting we should read?
All of them. That's the only way to sort out reality from propaganda
(and that's not an easy task).
Read history - all of it!
Jerry
--
Fred J. McCall
And then more changes got made. And another line got drawn. And made
more changes. And drew another line.
National boundaries are no more cast in stone now than they have ever
been, and force of arms has always been and will always be a way they
get changed.
All you're insisting on is that the winners get to write the rules,
Vince. That has *always* been the case. It's just that as time goes
by there are new winners and new losers.
Keith Willshaw
"Brad Meyer" <brad...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:80rppv0751ujpftb9...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:36:40 GMT, Vince Brannigan
> <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
>
> >you have to start somewhere. The international community essentially
> >set the limits in 1946. Changes before then by force were "legitimized"
> >changes by force after that point were prohibited. and yes there was
> >what was called the Decolonialization exception. But the prinicple is
> >still important.
>
> Why? Especially inview of the exceptions, which make it much less of a
> principle -- if there can be an exception for this, there can just as
> well be an exceptioin for that. How many times has the UN put forces
> in the field to defend borders under attack since 1953?
The UN authorised the recapture of Kuwait
Keith
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:Keith Willshaw wrote:
:> "Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
:> news:3F9CEA11...@pressroom.com...
:>
:>>and then they drew a line under the changes.
:>
:> There have been a number of changes since then
:> which were not exactly consensual, Tibet springs
:> to ind for example.
:
:Tibet is part of the very messy process of decolonialization
Bull. Tibet was outright conquest.
:its not exactly clear what kind of entity Tibet is and was
:
:e.g. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tibet.htm
I see nothing here to the point, nor do I consider maundering by the
European Parliament to be definitive. Who died and made them God?
--
"Now this is the Law of the Jungle --
as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper,
but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk
the Law runneth forward and back --
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack."
-- "The Law of the Jungle", Rudyard Kipling
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > "Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F9CEA11...@pressroom.com...
> >
> >>
> >
> >>and then they drew a line under the changes.
> >
> >
> > There have been a number of changes since then
> > which were not exactly consensual, Tibet springs
> > to ind for example.
>
>
> Tibet is part of the very messy process of decolonialization
>
Viewing the swallowing of an Independent Tibet by China
as decolonialization requires a level of doublethink that
I am happy to be incapable of.
> its not exactly clear what kind of entity Tibet is and was
>
> e.g. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tibet.htm
>
Which seems to indicate Tibet is illegaly occupied by China.
Keith
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jeffrey Smidt wrote:
>
>
> And as most liberal ideas of the last half century or so, it's a
> theoritically a good idea but practically worthless. The UN only
> appeared to have effectiveness when first backed by the force of the
> allies and then by the balance of forces of the cold war. Right now
> it has the value of used underwear.
this is simply not true, as Bush has found out. Even a superpwoer runs eventually up agaisnt the
reality that it can't muscke everybody.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
>
> This is a mechanism for boundary change?
>
>
Yes A nation whose territory is bing occupied used UN force to push back the
unlawful occupier.
it worls for any unlawful occupation. What unlawful boundary do you hve in mind?
Quebec?
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :> Of course the victors of WW2 had no trouble doing so themselves
> :> when they chose to adjust the boundaries of the axis nations
> :> after the war.
> :
> :and then they drew a line under the changes. You have to start somewere.
>
> And then more changes got made. And another line got drawn. And made
> more changes. And drew another line.
>
> National boundaries are no more cast in stone now than they have ever
> been, and force of arms has always been and will always be a way they
> get changed.
> All you're insisting on is that the winners get to write the rules,
> Vince. That has *always* been the case. It's just that as time goes
> by there are new winners and new losers.
No. Which is why suggestions for breaking up Iraq were rejected, and why we
have a One China policy.
The existance of outlasw does not diminish the role of law.
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :
> :
> :Keith Willshaw wrote:
> :> "Vince Brannigan" <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote in message
> :> news:3F9CEA11...@pressroom.com...
> :>
> :>>and then they drew a line under the changes.
> :>
> :> There have been a number of changes since then
> :> which were not exactly consensual, Tibet springs
> :> to ind for example.
> :
> :Tibet is part of the very messy process of decolonialization
>
> Bull. Tibet was outright conquest.
>
> :its not exactly clear what kind of entity Tibet is and was
> :
> :e.g. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tibet.htm
>
> I see nothing here to the point, nor do I consider maundering by the
> European Parliament to be definitive. Who died and made them God?
Because Tibet's historical status is ambiguous.
Even pro tibet web sites acknowledge it
"In 1943 the British Government formally expressed its view of the status of
Tibet in a memorandum by the Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden to the
Chinese Foreign Secretary, Mr T.V. Soong in which he stated that Tibet has
enjoyed de facto independence since 1911 and that the British Government had
always been prepared to recognize Chinese suzerainty over Tibet but only on
the understanding that Tibet is regarded as autonomous (FO371/93001 of 5th
August 1943). The Chinese did not reply.
The Tibetan Government sought to appeal to the United Nations against
unprovoked Chinese aggression and the Foreign Of fice informed their delegation
in New York that they considered that Tibetan autonomy was sufficiently
established for her to be regarded as "a staten within the meaning of the
United Nations Charter and sought means of helping the Tibetan case
(FO371/84454 of the 9th November 1950); but on representation from
the head of their delegation, Sir Gladwyn Jebb, they reversed their position
and allowed him to abstain from supporting the Tibetan appeal on the grounds
that the legal position was extremely obscure."
http://www.tibet.com/Status/hughrichardson.html
No country ever recognized Tibet as an independent state
vince
Andrew Chaplin
With Peter? More likely Maine, Oregon and Alaska. :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Peter Skelton
<fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a mechanism for boundary change?
>>
>>
>
>Yes A nation whose territory is bing occupied used UN force to push back the
>unlawful occupier.
This was an instance of maintenance of the status quo by force.
>it worls for any unlawful occupation. What unlawful boundary do you hve in mind?
Nope, I'm talking about situAtions where the occupation is legal
but must be changed.
Let me try again.
Group A has posession of territory. It has it legitimately under
international law. Group B is being damaged in some way by Group
A's posession of that territory. The damage is significant and
serious and can only be resolved by a change in ownership of the
territory. Any neutral observer would agree that Group A's
behaviour is resulting in gross violations of international law,
and that Group B's behaviour has not violated international law.
What recourse has Group B, except to arms?
>Quebec?
>
I can introduce you to Quebecios who believe that Canada's
posession of Quebec meets the criterea I laid out. It's a thin
rod they lean on, if you want to throw bricks at Canada it's
better to choose on of the na cases where they have UN
resolutions to support them.
Peter Skelton
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Peter Skelton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:40:17 -0500, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
> <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Peter Skelton wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This is a mechanism for boundary change?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yes A nation whose territory is bing occupied used UN force to push back the
> >unlawful occupier.
>
> This was an instance of maintenance of the status quo by force.
No, it was displacing an occupier. eg when was the status quo
prior to the invasion or at the time of the resolution.?
>
> >it worls for any unlawful occupation. What unlawful boundary do you hve in mind?
>
> Nope, I'm talking about situAtions where the occupation is legal
> but must be changed.
>
?? if its Legal why "must" it be changed?
>
> Let me try again.
>
> Group A has posession of territory. It has it legitimately under
> international law. Group B is being damaged in some way by Group
> A's posession of that territory.
you are describing the damage as coming form bare possession rather than use?
> The damage is significant and
> serious and can only be resolved by a change in ownership of the
> territory.
This is called begging the question.
Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims
to be proving.
An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support
of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support
with them is called the conclusion. If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and
one's premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question.
http://skepdic.com/begging.html
> Any neutral observer would agree that Group A's
> behaviour is resulting in gross violations of international law,
> and that Group B's behaviour has not violated international law.
Doesn't help. First of all lets ask what kind of breach of international law.
Propaganda radio broadcasts?
Damming a river? Pumping oil from a common pool?
Is it or is it not a breech of the peace.
>
> What recourse has Group B, except to arms?
>
CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF
AGGRESSION
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach
of the peace, or act of aggression
and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
with Articles 41 and 42, to
maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before
making the recommendations or
deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties
concerned to comply with such provisional
measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be
without prejudice to the rights, claims,
or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of
failure to comply with such
provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force
are to be employed to give effect
to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply
such measures. These may include
complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,
telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would
be inadequate or have proved to be
inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary
to maintain or restore international
peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other
operations by air, sea, or land forces
of Members of the United Nations.
Why do you say that only change in sovereignty will solve the problem? How about
regime change. in any case the UN can Use force, or authorize the state to use
force.
>
> >Quebec?
> >
>
> I can introduce you to Quebecios who believe that Canada's
> posession of Quebec meets the criterea I laid out. It's a thin
> rod they lean on, if you want to throw bricks at Canada it's
> better to choose on of the na cases where they have UN
> resolutions to support them.
>
I should have added a :-)
The cases which actually come closest to your example involve landlocked or similar
countries that need access across another country for transit of food fuel or other
goods. e.g. cases like the berlin airlift.
Vince
Peter Skelton
<fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:40:17 -0500, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
>> <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Skelton wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> This is a mechanism for boundary change?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes A nation whose territory is bing occupied used UN force to push back the
>> >unlawful occupier.
>>
>> This was an instance of maintenance of the status quo by force.
>
>No, it was displacing an occupier. eg when was the status quo
>prior to the invasion or at the time of the resolution.?
>
>>
>> >it worls for any unlawful occupation. What unlawful boundary do you hve in mind?
>>
>> Nope, I'm talking about situAtions where the occupation is legal
>> but must be changed.
>>
>
>?? if its Legal why "must" it be changed?
>
>>
>> Let me try again.
>>
>> Group A has posession of territory. It has it legitimately under
>> international law. Group B is being damaged in some way by Group
>> A's posession of that territory.
>
>you are describing the damage as coming form bare possession rather than use?
>
Does it matter? The need to remove posessions from those who use
them irresponsibly is well recognized.
>
>> The damage is significant and
>> serious and can only be resolved by a change in ownership of the
>> territory.
>
>This is called begging the question.
Bull.
>Begging the question is what one does in an argument when one assumes what one claims
>to be proving.
I'm not attempting to prove that this sort of sitruation exists
or will exists, not wishing to waste my time on the obvious (not
that it matters, people have often believed it to be the case
which is sufficient). I'm stating that no effective way of
dealing with this sort of situation was put into place when
bioundaries were frozen.
> An argument is a form of reasoning whereby one gives a reason or reasons in support
>of some claim. The reasons are called premises and the claim one tries to support
>with them is called the conclusion. If one's premises entail one's conclusion, and
>one's premises are questionable, one is said to beg the question.
>http://skepdic.com/begging.html
>
Shall I now define what a straw man is? May I talk down to you
while I do so?
>
>> Any neutral observer would agree that Group A's
>> behaviour is resulting in gross violations of international law,
>> and that Group B's behaviour has not violated international law.
>
>Doesn't help. First of all lets ask what kind of breach of international law.
>Propaganda radio broadcasts?
>Damming a river? Pumping oil from a common pool?
Why does this matter? I have defined the essential
characteristics.
>Is it or is it not a breech of the peace.
>
Again it does not matter.
>>
>> What recourse has Group B, except to arms?
>>
>
>CHAPTER VII
>ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF
>AGGRESSION
>
>Article 39
>
>The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach
>of the peace, or act of aggression
>and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance
>with Articles 41 and 42, to
>maintain or restore international peace and security.
As there is no requirement for the security council to address an
issue, this utterly fails unless great party interests are at
stake.
<I've snipped the rest as it does not apply unless the security
council addresses the issue.>
>
>
>Why do you say that only change in sovereignty will solve the problem? How about
>regime change. in any case the UN can Use force, or authorize the state to use
>force.
>
(It can use force, but there is no mechanism to require it to
address the issue at all.)
I've said that because it is one of the two factors which
differentiate the international problems the UN can solve from
the ones it cannot.
>>
>> >Quebec?
>> >
>>
>> I can introduce you to Quebecios who believe that Canada's
>> posession of Quebec meets the criterea I laid out. It's a thin
>> rod they lean on, if you want to throw bricks at Canada it's
>> better to choose on of the na cases where they have UN
>> resolutions to support them.
>>
>
>I should have added a :-)
>
Why?
>
>
>The cases which actually come closest to your example involve landlocked or similar
>countries that need access across another country for transit of food fuel or other
>goods. e.g. cases like the berlin airlift.
Resolving those has generally not invloved moving borders. They
are *really* poor examples.
Peter Skelton
Brad Meyer
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>>>no matter what the historical grievance, boundaries
>>>cannot be changed by force. This was critical in Ireland.
>>
>>
>> How so? Do you suppose the Republic would even attempt to conquor
>> Ulster by force of arms? Or that Ulster (or Britain) would attempt the
>> reverse?
>
>Its been an effective legal principle. It was critical to gaining
>world support agaisnt Iraqui agression.
???!?!? When has there been "world support against Iraqi agression"?
>It delegitimized violence in Northern Ireland.
???!?!? How so? Is there some UN resolution that everybody immediately
followed? There are still a fair number on both sides of the issue
that think resort to force is still quite legitimate. The respective
govts haven't thought force to be legitimate since long before the UN
came into existence.
>It supported the UK in the Falklands
???!!???!?!? How so? Did it send troops, a/c, equipment, food,
anything at all? Did it impose sanctions on Argentina?
>There has been a remarkably low level of "international border" conflict
>since the second world war.
Korea, Viet Nam, India/Pakistan, Israel/Egypt/Syria/Lebanon,
Iraq/Iran, Viet Nam/China, the Balkans, Biafra, Katanga, Rawanda,
etc., etc., etc. Border wars are alive and well. Many more since
decolonialzation then ever before. What are you smoking (and why
aren't you sharing)?
>Whatever the
>historical grievances, those grabs are now illegitimate.
That does not seem to slow down their occurance any.
>it does mean somethign
>Its not perfect but it is a real advance.
On the contrary, it means nothing because there is no will to
impliment it. In fact, it becomes less meaningfull month by month.
Mike1
That's simply a measure of resolve and concern for "face", not an
analysis of, say, military capacity for "getting away with it" -- as
you'll note that following have been doing for decades:
http://www.cnsnews.com/Commentary.asp
Enslave, Torture and Kill, Just Don't Spank
By Sterling Rome
CNSNews.com Commentary
Recently at the United Nations, Libya, a haven to torture, repression
and terrorism, was selected to chair the United Nations Human Rights
Commission while a pre-war Iraq, violator of 10 years of UN sanctions,
was chair of the United Nations Conference on Nuclear Disarmament.
This should give you some idea of the kind of smug utopian fog in which
this so-called "world body" functions. What a country and its leaders
actually do in reality have no bearing whatsoever on their treatment at
the UN. Terrorists, despots, dictators and purveyors of genocide have
nothing to fear.
In fact, they can likely expect to be treated with more reverence and
respect than the countries that actually attempt to respect the rule of
law. Why? Because the list of countries that use the UN as nothing more
than a tool to prop up their illegitimate regimes is becoming longer
than the list of countries that don't. Oh, yeah, and those exploitative
regimes also don't have to pay anything to keep the UN afloat.
Thus, under the aegis of "world government" your tax dollars help pay
for the representatives of genocidal regimes to come to the United
Nations to do all they can to frustrate the plans of the civilized
world.
Often these diplomats actually believe their status raises them above
the level of even their fellow countrymen. Thus rather than being a
representative to the UN they become a representative of the UN.
And since the UN is virtually powerless to impose its will on any
country that decides not to listen (see: Iraq), a tremendous amount of
time is spent criticizing and imposing upon the countries that actually
support their mission.
A prefect example is the recent ruling against Canada by the UN
Committee on Rights of the Child, which stated the country should "adopt
legislation to remove the existing authorization of the use of
'reasonable force' in disciplining children."
Throughout the world children are enslaved as sweat-shop laborers,
tortured as captive prostitutes and even murdered for their race,
religion, or gender - and the response of the United Nations is to
chastise Canada for not making spanking illegal.
This would be hilarious were it not so unspeakably irresponsible.
Further, it illustrates how the United Nations - however well
intentioned it may have been upon inception - is literally useless.
While the affront to our neighbors to the North is bad enough, what is
truly disturbing here is the fact that the United Nations has cast a
blind eye to the parts of the world where it feels that it can have no
effect.
While there have certainly been other edicts from the UN addressing the
more pressing issues surrounding Children's Rights, the fact that any
time whatsoever is devoted to spanking in Canada indicates the moral
equivalence that has become the rule.
Thus, while the Sudanese might enslave children, and the Chinese might
murder infants, the United Nations must find an equivalent problem
somewhere in the West to ensure the patina of "even-handedness."
Such reasoning washes away any differentiation between good and evil,
and turns the United Nations into an asinine debating society where the
representative of a genocidal dictator gets his "turn" to criticize how,
say, Iceland doesn't have enough homosexual out-reach programs.
Rather than receive a face full of rotten vegetables for having the
audacity to even stand in public, said representative is likely
applauded, and if he's lucky, he might even elicit an apology from the
government of Iceland. Further, there is even a chance that Iceland will
adopt the recommended legislation - even against the wishes of its own
people.
This is elitism run-amok. Unaccountable representatives of countries
that prove incapable of delivering anything to their people short of
repression, famine, and death get to have a say in the establishment of
world political norms.
By the way, these norms will never be adopted back in Libya, Iran, or
China - but the delegates from these nations will be outraged in they
are not honored in Canada. That such UN edicts are described as the
establishment of "world government" is a complete misnomer.
Instead what we have is a world body attempting to gag the civilized
world on the bile of its own political-correctness and insipid
utopianism. For proof, consider that the same representatives that ruled
that Canada should outlaw spanking hail from countries where schoolgirls
are left to burn alive for fear of saving them without their head
scarves on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage
where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the
citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest
periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." [Ayn Rand,
The Nature of Government]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Paul J. Adam
<brad...@attbi.com> writes
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:34:09 GMT, Vince Brannigan
><fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>>Its been an effective legal principle. It was critical to gaining
>>world support agaisnt Iraqui agression.
>
>???!?!? When has there been "world support against Iraqi agression"?
1991. Iraq grabbed Kuwait and _everyone_ (the Soviets, the Syrians,
France... I think Jordan and the Palestinians were the only ones
suggesting Iraq was right, and it was an expensive mistake for both).
>>It delegitimized violence in Northern Ireland.
>
>???!?!? How so?
Violent action to either bring about a united Ireland, or keep Ulster
British, is a matter of civil law. Kill a British soldier, or a Catholic
taxi driver, or whoever stands near your bomb in a supermarket, or
whoever else your version of ideology tags as "legitimate target", and
you aren't a "political prisoner" or a PoW: you're just a simple
criminal.
"Delegitimising violence" is not ending violence, any more than
"criminalising drugs" will end the narcotics trade.
>Is there some UN resolution that everybody immediately
>followed? There are still a fair number on both sides of the issue
>that think resort to force is still quite legitimate.
However, the groups who insist violence is legitimate are also those who
are furthest out on the margins (Continuity IRA, Real IRA, and some of
the similarly fanatic Loyalist killers).
>>It supported the UK in the Falklands
>
>???!!???!?!? How so?
UNSC resolution 502. When Argentina refused to withdraw, the UN backed
British recovery of the islands.
>Did it send troops, a/c, equipment, food,
>anything at all? Did it impose sanctions on Argentina?
Arms embargo on Argentina. Given the circumstances of the campaign, who
could have supplied troops, aircraft, equipment...?
>>There has been a remarkably low level of "international border" conflict
>>since the second world war.
>
> Korea, Viet Nam, India/Pakistan, Israel/Egypt/Syria/Lebanon,
>Iraq/Iran, Viet Nam/China, the Balkans, Biafra, Katanga, Rawanda,
>etc., etc., etc. Border wars are alive and well.
But we're having to look far more widely for them. We've gone sixty
years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
record; and there's no prospect of one. Compare that to the British
intriguing against the French, the French being invaded by the Germans,
the Germans worrying how to beat the Russians, and the Russians picking
a "short and easy war" against Japan.
The difference in your list is that nowadays, wars in Africa and the Far
East are newsworthy; while in the past you might eventually hear "Brutal
Tribal War in African Territory... No Westerners Hurt". To take an
example, Shaka's war of conquest, associated with sundry genocide and
what we'd now call 'ethnic cleansing', didn't make many headlines in
Europe or the US; the Zulu were only a problem when they refused to be
readily defeated by redcoats.
Just read a little Kipling for the level of "small wars" being fought a
century or more ago.
"We’ve fought with many men acrost the seas,
An’ some of ’em was brave an’ some was not:
The Paythan an’ the Zulu an’ Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o’ the lot.
We never got a ha’porth’s change of ’im:
’E squatted in the scrub an’ ’ocked our ’orses,
’E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An’ ’e played the cat an’ banjo with our forces.
So ’ere’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your ’ome in the Soudan;
You’re a pore benighted ’eathen but a first-class fightin’ man;
We gives you your certificate, an’ if you want it signed
We’ll come an’ ’ave a romp with you whenever you’re inclined.
We took our chanst among the Khyber ’ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An’ a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We ’eld our bloomin’ own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us ’oller.
Then ’ere’s to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an’ the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an’ of course we went an’ did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an’ it wasn’t ’ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin’ you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square"
Five wars in serving memory? Even allowing for soldiers learning of
conflicts from others than fighting them all personally, five lively
conflicts in the term of one enlistment is considerably warmer business
than soldiers today would recognise, especially since 'frontier duty'
then made places such as Bosnia look like peaceful havens.
>Many more since
>decolonialzation then ever before.
More _reported_ since decolonisation than before, but that may have more
to do with mobile news crews than with events. Of course, Victoria's
soldiers could go sort out awkward natives without CNN observing. (I
believe Britain still holds the record for the shortest war in
history... thirty-eight minutes, IIRC, from the Sultan's rejection of
terms to his striking colours and surrendering. I believe we added the
bill for the ammunition used in shelling his palace to the
settlement...)
>>Whatever the
>>historical grievances, those grabs are now illegitimate.
>
>That does not seem to slow down their occurance any.
It's certainly reduced their frequency in North America and Western
Europe. Are the assorted conflicts in Africa and Asia more frequent, or
merely better reported?
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Brian Allardice
says...
>>Its been an effective legal principle. It was critical to gaining
>>world support agaisnt Iraqui agression.
>
>???!?!? When has there been "world support against Iraqi agression"?
Alzheimer's, perhaps?
Cheers,
dba
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Brad Meyer" <brad...@attbi.com> wrote in message
But provided neither forces nor funding, so far as I recall.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Fred J. McCall
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
:> This is a mechanism for boundary change?
:
:Yes A nation whose territory is bing occupied used UN force to push back the
:unlawful occupier.
Really? When did that happen?
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:>
:> All you're insisting on is that the winners get to write the rules,
:> Vince. That has *always* been the case. It's just that as time goes
:> by there are new winners and new losers.
:
:No.
Yes.
:Which is why suggestions for breaking up Iraq were rejected,
That would be "Turkey and our concerns about a fundamentalist Shiite
state along the lines of Iran".
:and why we have a One China policy.
That would be because the minute we recognize Taiwan as an independent
nation, whether it is called China or not, we expect a war in the
region.
:The existance of outlasw does not diminish the role of law.
And the presence of fantasy doesn't affect how and why things happen
in the real world.
--
"If it's the fool who likes to rush in.
And if it's the angel who never does try.
And if it's me who will lose or win
Then I'll make my best guess and I won't care why.
Come on and get me, you twist of fate.
I'm standing right here, Mr Destiny.
If you want to talk, well then I'll relate.
If you don't, so what? 'Cuz you don't scare me.
-- "Gunfighter", Blues Traveler
Fred J. McCall
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:>
:> I see nothing here to the point, nor do I consider maundering by the
:> European Parliament to be definitive. Who died and made them God?
:
:Because Tibet's historical status is ambiguous.
And that has what to do with either the European Parliament or why we
should give a damn about what their opinion might be?
:No country ever recognized Tibet as an independent state
And that makes conquest and ethnic cleansing ever so much 'nicer' and
more 'legal', don't you think?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Vince Brannigan
doesnt change the law
Vince
Vince Brannigan
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :>
> :> I see nothing here to the point, nor do I consider maundering by the
> :> European Parliament to be definitive. Who died and made them God?
> :
> :Because Tibet's historical status is ambiguous.
>
> And that has what to do with either the European Parliament or why we
> should give a damn about what their opinion might be?
>
> :No country ever recognized Tibet as an independent state
>
> And that makes conquest and ethnic cleansing ever so much 'nicer' and
> more 'legal', don't you think?
no crimes agisnt humanity can clearly be committed by sovereign states
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:> :
:> :The UN authorised the recapture of Kuwait
:>
:> But provided neither forces nor funding, so far as I recall.
:
:doesnt change the law
More of that fantasy. A UN diatribe is not "the law". Law is
ultimately based on the ability to exert force, Vince. No funding, no
forces, no law.
It's really quite simple.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Brad Meyer
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <oruqpvknh0393v9f5...@4ax.com>, Brad Meyer
><brad...@attbi.com> writes
>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:34:09 GMT, Vince Brannigan
>><fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>>>Its been an effective legal principle. It was critical to gaining
>>>world support agaisnt Iraqui agression.
>>
>>???!?!? When has there been "world support against Iraqi agression"?
>
>1991. Iraq grabbed Kuwait and _everyone_ (the Soviets, the Syrians,
>France... I think Jordan and the Palestinians were the only ones
>suggesting Iraq was right, and it was an expensive mistake for both).
Point taken.
>
>>>It delegitimized violence in Northern Ireland.
>>
>>???!?!? How so?
>
>Violent action to either bring about a united Ireland, or keep Ulster
>British, is a matter of civil law.
On the contrary, it is a matter of international law. They are, after
all two different nations.
>Kill a British soldier, or a Catholic
>taxi driver, or whoever stands near your bomb in a supermarket, or
>whoever else your version of ideology tags as "legitimate target", and
>you aren't a "political prisoner" or a PoW: you're just a simple
>criminal.
But an international one. Were the people who took down the towers
"simple criminals"?
>"Delegitimising violence" is not ending violence, any more than
>"criminalising drugs" will end the narcotics trade.
>
>>Is there some UN resolution that everybody immediately
>>followed? There are still a fair number on both sides of the issue
>>that think resort to force is still quite legitimate.
>
>However, the groups who insist violence is legitimate are also those who
>are furthest out on the margins (Continuity IRA, Real IRA, and some of
>the similarly fanatic Loyalist killers).
Does being "on the margin" make them somehow less lethal?
>>>It supported the UK in the Falklands
>>
>>???!!???!?!? How so?
>
>UNSC resolution 502. When Argentina refused to withdraw, the UN backed
>British recovery of the islands.
Empty form. What did they _do_?
>>Did it send troops, a/c, equipment, food,
>>anything at all? Did it impose sanctions on Argentina?
>
>Arms embargo on Argentina. Given the circumstances of the campaign, who
>could have supplied troops, aircraft, equipment...?
ALmost anyone. Who supplied troops, etc., to either of the wars
against Iraq?
>>>There has been a remarkably low level of "international border" conflict
>>>since the second world war.
>>
>> Korea, Viet Nam, India/Pakistan, Israel/Egypt/Syria/Lebanon,
>>Iraq/Iran, Viet Nam/China, the Balkans, Biafra, Katanga, Rawanda,
>>etc., etc., etc. Border wars are alive and well.
>
>But we're having to look far more widely for them.
On the contrary, they are more common.
> We've gone sixty
>years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
>record . . .
No where near. Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
even a large portion of the world at large.
Paul J. Adam
<brad...@attbi.com> writes
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:20:03 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Violent action to either bring about a united Ireland, or keep Ulster
>>British, is a matter of civil law.
>
>On the contrary, it is a matter of international law. They are, after
>all two different nations.
No: by and large it's local residents committing the crimes. Where you
do get cross-border crimes, there's been a solid agreement between the
PSNI (before them the RUC) and the Gardai to deal with it.
>>Kill a British soldier, or a Catholic
>>taxi driver, or whoever stands near your bomb in a supermarket, or
>>whoever else your version of ideology tags as "legitimate target", and
>>you aren't a "political prisoner" or a PoW: you're just a simple
>>criminal.
>
>But an international one.
Is a drug dealer in Detroit who shoots a business competitor an
"international criminal"? That's the level of much Northern Irish
violence. Turf wars and "punishments" meted out by locals who use "the
struggle" as justification for criminal activity.
>Were the people who took down the towers
>"simple criminals"?
Were they US citizens? No.
>>However, the groups who insist violence is legitimate are also those who
>>are furthest out on the margins (Continuity IRA, Real IRA, and some of
>>the similarly fanatic Loyalist killers).
>
>Does being "on the margin" make them somehow less lethal?
It certainly slashes their support, their funding and their ability to
conduct operations; so, yes, it significantly does so.
>>UNSC resolution 502. When Argentina refused to withdraw, the UN backed
>>British recovery of the islands.
>
>Empty form. What did they _do_?
Stepped back while we got the job done, which is what we asked for.
>>Arms embargo on Argentina. Given the circumstances of the campaign, who
>>could have supplied troops, aircraft, equipment...?
>
>ALmost anyone.
You jest, surely? How are they going to *get* to the islands? Let's say
that the US offers a wing of F-15s and a flight of AWACS: those will
surely provide complete air superiority over the Falklands.
Now, look at a map and work out how many refuellings are needed for one
F-15 to get from Ascension to Stanley and back, let alone have any
worthwhile CAP time there. No bases in the region makes it very hard to
funnel forces in.
The limit wasn't troops or aircraft: we sent a fraction of the UK armed
forces. It was sealift and sustainability that were the limits, and very
few nations had much to offer in that regard.
>Who supplied troops, etc., to either of the wars
>against Iraq?
Offhand I recall the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Belgium and
the Netherlands providing troops, ships and/or aircraft to GW1. GW2's
sealift was protected by several multinational task forces at the choke
points en route, a point little mentioned but freeing up many US and UK
warships for more combative duty in the Persian Gulf.
>>But we're having to look far more widely for them.
>
>On the contrary, they are more common.
Source for this? Are they more common, or merely more reported?
>> We've gone sixty
>>years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
>>record . . .
>
>No where near.
I'm curious where we've achieved a similar period of peace.
>Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
>even a large portion of the world at large.
But caring overmuch about most of the globe is a relatively recent
innovation.
Vince Brannigan
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> "Keith Willshaw" <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :The UN authorised the recapture of Kuwait
> :>
> :> But provided neither forces nor funding, so far as I recall.
> :
> :doesnt change the law
>
> More of that fantasy. A UN diatribe is not "the law". Law is
> ultimately based on the ability to exert force, Vince. No funding, no
> forces, no law.
>
> It's really quite simple.
you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
another.
Vince
Fred J. McCall
:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:20:03 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
:<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>
:> We've gone sixty
:>years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
:>record . . .
:
:No where near. Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
:even a large portion of the world at large.
More to the point, I can't believe that Paul seriously thinks that the
UN had *anything* to do with the lack of a major war in Western
Europe.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
Yes, it is. However, that has nothing to do with what I said, now
does it? So you'll have to explain just how that observation makes me
'wrong'.
Jerry
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
> doesnt change the law
Doesn't enforce the "law" either...
Jerry
--
Jerry
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
> you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
> another.
But we're talking about "law" with out force. Stick to the point,
Vince.
Jerry
--
Jerry
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
> no crimes agisnt humanity can clearly be committed by sovereign states
Would you care to reword that so that is understandable and makes
sense?
Jerry
--
Jerry
<mike1_jun...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Enslave, Torture and Kill, Just Don't Spank
> By Sterling Rome
> CNSNews.com Commentary
Thank you for posting this, Mike. This article expresses most of the
objections I have to the UN and One-Worlders like Vince.
Jerry
--
David McArthur
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:49:53 UTC, bexl...@yahoo.com (David McArthur)
> wrote:
>
> > ..can we assume you're not a fan then?
> > (of the UN, not Vince)
>
> I am no fan of the UN. In fact, I'd like the UN headquarters out of
> the US and put somewhere where it would be useful, such as, oh, say,
> Iraq -- there are plenty of candidates.
>
> > And just whose version of history are you suggesting we should read?
>
> All of them. That's the only way to sort out reality from propaganda
> (and that's not an easy task).
>
> Read history - all of it!
If we read ALL of history(?) we'd be none the wiser - try reading a
British and German history of WWII for instance!
Also, propaganda often becomes history given enough time...
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
>
> :you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
> :another.
>
> Yes, it is. However, that has nothing to do with what I said, now
> does it? So you'll have to explain just how that observation makes me
> 'wrong'.
because law exists as a normative field separate from government and force.
Vince
Fred J. McCall
'Law' without enforcement is merely sterile maundering in the parlor.
It's meaningless philosophizing, signifying nothing. Note the
construction of that world enFORCEment. That would be cops and courts
(and lawyers). Without the enforcement, what do you need the lawyers
for?
I note you've cleverly snipped off all the original statements. This
is a lovely tactic if you're suffering from a shortage of intellectual
integrity, but not exactly effective otherwise.
Now, care to go back and address how my ORIGINAL STATEMENT was
"wrong"?
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jerry wrote:
far enough , its missing the comma
> And that makes conquest and ethnic cleansing ever so much 'nicer' and
> more 'legal', don't you think?
no, crimes agisnt humanity can clearly be committed by sovereign states
Vince
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :
> :> :you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
> :> :another.
> :>
> :> Yes, it is. However, that has nothing to do with what I said, now
> :> does it? So you'll have to explain just how that observation makes me
> :> 'wrong'.
> :
> :because law exists as a normative field separate from government and force.
>
> 'Law' without enforcement is merely sterile maundering in the parlor.
I dasagree, as does the legal community.
> It's meaningless philosophizing, signifying nothing. Note the
> construction of that world enFORCEment. That would be cops and courts
> (and lawyers). Without the enforcement, what do you need the lawyers
> for?
To describe the law. Its a separate function.
>
>
> I note you've cleverly snipped off all the original statements. This
> is a lovely tactic if you're suffering from a shortage of intellectual
> integrity, but not exactly effective otherwise.
>
> Now, care to go back and address how my ORIGINAL STATEMENT was
> "wrong"?
ok
here is the exerpt
> More of that fantasy. A UN diatribe is not "the law". Law is
> ultimately based on the ability to exert force, Vince. No funding, no
> forces, no law.
>
> It's really quite simple.
you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
another.
end exerpt.
your claim is that absent enforcement law does not exist. e.g. "No funding, no
forces, no law."
from Britannica, defining international law
also called public international law, or law of nations, the body of legal
rules that apply between sovereign states and such other entities as have been
granted international personality (status acknowledged by the international
community). The
term was coined by Jeremy Bentham .
Like precepts of international morality, the rules of international law are of
a normative character; that is, they prescribe standards of conduct. They
distinguish themselves, however, from moral rules by being, at least
potentially, designed for
authoritative interpretation by an independent judicial authority and by being
capable of enforcement by the application of external sanctions.
end of exerpt.
So all it takes for it to be law is that it is dapble of enforcement. It does
nto depend on enforcement
vince
Jim
> >years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
> >record . . .
>
> No where near. Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
> even a large portion of the world at large.
Now isn't that the truth! They still haven't figured out euorpe isn't the
center of the world and that they no longer run the world... .....
Jim
Jerry
wrote:
> If we read ALL of history(?) we'd be none the wiser - try reading a
> British and German history of WWII for instance!
Been there, done that in multiple subject areas. What are you having
a problem with?
Jerry
--
Jerry
<fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
> To describe the law. Its a separate function.
Nuts! Lawyers _argue_ the law before judges and take whichever side
of the law that they can find in favor of their client. The judges
decide. You act as if the world and all its inhabitants exist for the
sake of lawyers.
Jerry
--
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jerry wrote:
take a course
it will help
vince
Jerry
I assume that you meant "capable" of enforcement. If there is no
policing force, then by your reasoning, no international law is
legitimate because it is not possible to enforce it.
Now who exactly was enforcing international law during the Cold War?
NATO tried, but wasn't able to stop the rape of Eastern Europe.
Ronald Reagan and the US did drive the Soviets to overextend their
reach and collapse, but I don't remember that as policing. It was
duty in the front lines for people like me.
And, to bring this back on topic, who was responsible for keeping the
Israelis from attacking a neutral ship in international waters - OK,
for the sake of argument, let's just assume that the Israelis at all
levels knew for certain that the ship was US.
Jerry
--
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jerry wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:16:40 UTC, "Prof. Vincent Brannigan"
> <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > So all it takes for it to be law is that it is dapble of enforcement. It does
> > nto depend on enforcement
>
> I assume that you meant "capable" of enforcement. If there is no
> policing force, then by your reasoning, no international law is
> legitimate because it is not possible to enforce it.
>
your assumption is wrong. A law is capable of being enforced by its internal
structure.
i.e. can you define the its terms adequately.
for example can you prohibit "cowardice" ? not easily becuse cowardiceis a feeling
, but you can prohibit "desertion"
Since your premise was incorrect the remainder of your question is unanswerable.
Vince
Jeffrey Smidt
> Jeffrey Smidt wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And as most liberal ideas of the last half century or so, it's a
> > theoritically a good idea but practically worthless. The UN only
> > appeared to have effectiveness when first backed by the force of the
> > allies and then by the balance of forces of the cold war. Right now
> > it has the value of used underwear.
>
> this is simply not true, as Bush has found out. Even a superpwoer runs eventually up agaisnt the
> reality that it can't muscke everybody.
>
> Vince
This is simply not true, right back at ya.......... Oh, you want some
evidence to support my statement? You first.
The sad fact of international policy is might still makes right,
though today economic might and ability to diseminate your point of
view is as important as military firepower.
The UN is powerless because it has no united will, and is unable to
inforce it if it did.
Duke of URL
news:3F9EBF9F...@umd.edu
Jerry, why are you bothering to even argue with Vince? You made a
statement about the job of lawyers (which defines why they're called
"advocates" and was 100% correct, BTW) - he responds by implying that
you're stupid and uneducated.
Killfile him.
Paul J. Adam
<fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>Brad Meyer <brad...@attbi.com> wrote:
>:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:20:03 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>:<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>:> We've gone sixty
>:>years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
>:>record . . .
>:
>:No where near. Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
>:even a large portion of the world at large.
>
>More to the point, I can't believe that Paul seriously thinks that the
>UN had *anything* to do with the lack of a major war in Western
>Europe.
I'm surprised at the claims that the UN has been wholly irrelevant for
its entire existence.
What _has_ kept Western Europe not only war-free since 1945, but free of
even the _threat_ of war? (Think back: it's less than a century since we
had entangling webs of secret treaties and hidden alliances that turned
an assassination in Bosnia into a hideously destructive conflict?)
It certainly isn't just the UN, and I'm open to being shown why the UN
was irrelevant, but it's a significant historical anomaly that needs
explaining rather than dismissing.
John Dallman
> What _has_ kept Western Europe not only war-free since 1945, but free of
> even the _threat_ of war? (Think back: it's less than a century since we
> had entangling webs of secret treaties and hidden alliances that turned
> an assassination in Bosnia into a hideously destructive conflict?)
Well, that is one of the basic purposes of the European Union. Frequently
forgotten or ignored, but none the less there. The point was to bind
France and Germany together in ways that would make war unthinkable.
It took a long while - in the eighties, French nuclear delivery
systems were far more suitable for a war with Germany than with the
USSR - but recently, the German Chancellor asked the French President too
look after German interests for the last day of a recent summit, because
he had to go hope for a vote in the Bundestag. Try and imagine that in the
context of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Alan Minyard
>
>
>Peter Skelton wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 02:01:43 GMT, Vince Brannigan
>> <fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Jerry wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vince wants us to accept the UN Charter, but why do so? Is the UN
>>>>Charter any different than the Treaty of Versailles? Or the League of
>>>>Nations?
>>>>
>>>>The UN exists because of the conquest of the Axis powers by the
>>>>Allies. If that isn't an issue of conquest, I don't know what is!
>>>>
>>>>Read history, everyone!
>>>>Jerry
>>>
>>>
>>>it isn't enough to read it. you have to learn from it.
>>>
>>>one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
>>>the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
>>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately it did not provide a functional mechanism for
>> legitimate changes in boundaries. Governments/ruling blocks have
>> been trying to legistate stasis for centuries, it cannot work. If
>> you don't provide a pressure relief, eventually you get an
>> explosion.
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>
>this is not correct. Boundaries can be changed, but not by the use of
>unilateral force.
>
>Vince
Tell that to the Israelis.
Al Minyard
Alan Minyard
>
>
>Jeffrey Smidt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And as most liberal ideas of the last half century or so, it's a
>> theoritically a good idea but practically worthless. The UN only
>> appeared to have effectiveness when first backed by the force of the
>> allies and then by the balance of forces of the cold war. Right now
>> it has the value of used underwear.
>
>this is simply not true, as Bush has found out. Even a superpwoer runs eventually up agaisnt the
>reality that it can't muscke everybody.
>
>Vince
>
>
Exactly who has stopped us from doing whatever we want??? Not that anything that
we have done is in any way a violation of law.
Al MInyard
Alan Minyard
They are both force, and the outcome is the same. The world is not
a courtroom.
Al Minyard
Brad Meyer
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What _has_ kept Western Europe not only war-free since 1945 . . .
NATO
> . . . but free of
>even the _threat_ of war?
It has been far from that. Rather the opposite in fact. It was, until
the collapse of the USSR, more or less one vast armmed camp. NATO had
as little as it felt it could get away with. Warsaw Pact had as much
as it could afford. War was averted by balance of power, not by the
UN.
Dennis
>
> one the most important historical/legal events to come of of WW2 was
> the delegitimizing of changes in international boundaries by force
Such as the erasure of East Prussia?
Dennis
Vince Brannigan
Advocates, judges and legal scholars are all lawyers
Im a teacher. I routinely tell people to take courses.
Vince
Peter Skelton
North Viet Nam
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
"Not" is a funny way to spell "and." What the UN is, first and
foremost, is a place where discussions take place at an
ambassadorial level. It has to happen somewhere, and
representatives of all the players need to be available. This
kept going right through the cold war mostly because neither side
dared stop it. Just what would have happened without it no one
can say.
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
:
:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:
:> "Prof. Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
:>
:> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :
:> :> :you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
:> :> :another.
:> :>
:> :> Yes, it is. However, that has nothing to do with what I said, now
:> :> does it? So you'll have to explain just how that observation makes me
:> :> 'wrong'.
:> :
:> :because law exists as a normative field separate from government and force.
:>
:> 'Law' without enforcement is merely sterile maundering in the parlor.
:
:I dasagree, as does the legal community.
Of course you do. You're the ones getting paid to do the maundering!
:> It's meaningless philosophizing, signifying nothing. Note the
:> construction of that world enFORCEment. That would be cops and courts
:> (and lawyers). Without the enforcement, what do you need the lawyers
:> for?
:
:To describe the law. Its a separate function.
Why would anyone need the law 'described'? No enforcement means never
having to say you're sorry.
:> I note you've cleverly snipped off all the original statements. This
:> is a lovely tactic if you're suffering from a shortage of intellectual
:> integrity, but not exactly effective otherwise.
:>
:> Now, care to go back and address how my ORIGINAL STATEMENT was
:> "wrong"?
:
:ok
:here is the exerpt
:
:> More of that fantasy. A UN diatribe is not "the law". Law is
:> ultimately based on the ability to exert force, Vince. No funding, no
:> forces, no law.
:>
:> It's really quite simple.
:
:you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
:another.
:
:end exerpt.
:
:your claim is that absent enforcement law does not exist. e.g. "No funding, no
: forces, no law."
And in any meaningful sense, that is quite true. Note that this has
NOTHING to do with your "Force pursuant to law is one thing, force
without law is another" remark.
:from Britannica, defining international law
:
:also called public international law, or law of nations, the body of legal
:rules that apply between sovereign states and such other entities as have been
:granted international personality (status acknowledged by the international
:community). The
: term was coined by Jeremy Bentham .
:
:Like precepts of international morality, the rules of international law are of
:a normative character; that is, they prescribe standards of conduct. They
:distinguish themselves, however, from moral rules by being, at least
:potentially, designed for
:authoritative interpretation by an independent judicial authority and by being
:capable of enforcement by the application of external sanctions.
:
:end of exerpt.
:
:So all it takes for it to be law is that it is dapble of enforcement. It does
:nto depend on enforcement
But if there is no enforcement, then it must not be capable of
enforcement. Because if it was "capable of enforcement by the
application of external sanctions", someone external would be applying
those sanctions.
Note that the UN, through its inability to act in the case of Iraq,
has demonstrated clearly that it is *NOT* "the law", since it was
obviously incapable of any enforcement of its positions.
It seems to speak for itself. No fancy Latin required.
So, where was I wrong, again?
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Fred J. McCall
:
:
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I'd recommend a course on
a lower floor of the Ivory Tower to help you out.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:24:16 -0800, Brad Meyer
><brad...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:10:50 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>What _has_ kept Western Europe not only war-free since 1945 . . .
>>
>>NATO
>>
>>> . . . but free of
>>>even the _threat_ of war?
>>
>>It has been far from that. Rather the opposite in fact. It was, until
>>the collapse of the USSR, more or less one vast armmed camp. NATO had
>>as little as it felt it could get away with. Warsaw Pact had as much
>>as it could afford. War was averted by balance of power, not by the
>>UN.
>>
>>
>
>"Not" is a funny way to spell "and."
No, "not" is the correct spelling for "not".
>What the UN is, first and
>foremost, is a place where discussions take place at an
>ambassadorial level. It has to happen somewhere, and
>representatives of all the players need to be available.
I can think of no instance wherein discussions between NATO and WP
took place under UN aspicies. Can you?
M.Hamer
everyone else is wrong. If you come out with a valid statement he probably
won't answer you. I've done it on a couple occasions. I've also noted as
I've read his self opinionated rantings that he says he doesn't have a lot
of time and yet he spends half of it spouting his opinions and negating
others. If you come up with a valid argument and he doesn't ignore it he
simply resolves it with personal insults.
Mel Hamer
Vince Brannigan
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> 'Law' without enforcement is merely sterile maundering in the parlor.
> :
> :I disagree, as does the legal community.
>
> Of course you do. You're the ones getting paid to do the maundering!
>
That's my job.
I particualry study whether a given regulaiton is enforeceable.
> :To describe the law. Its a separate function.
>
> Why would anyone need the law 'described'? No enforcement means never
> having to say you're sorry.
>
Law is the technique of social control of human actions. It exists
separate formt he decisions on human actions. Now "legal realism" is a
claim that in analyzing the law you have to look at the effectiveness of
enforcement. Its a very respectable theory.
From wikpedia
Legal realism is a family of theories about the nature of law, usually
associated with the United States ......
* Belief in the indeterminacy of law. Many of the legal realists
believed that the law in the books (statutes, cases, etc.) did not
determine the results of legal disputes. Jereome Frank is famously
credited with the idea that a judicial decision might be determined by
what the judge had for breakfast.
* Belief in the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to law.
Many of the realists were interested in sociological and anthropolical
approaches to the study of law. Karl Llewellyn's book The Cheyenne Way
is a famous example of this tendancy.
* Belief in legal instrumentalism, the view that the law should be used
as a tool to achieve social purposes and to balance competing societal
interests.
The legal realist movement was in its heyday in the 1920s through the
1940s, but as its leading figures retired or became less active, it
gradually faded. In contemporary legal theory, there are many groups
that claim to be heirs to legal realism, including the critical legal
studies movement and the law and economics school.
> :
> :your claim is that absent enforcement law does not exist. e.g. "No funding, no
> : forces, no law."
>
> And in any meaningful sense, that is quite true. Note that this has
> NOTHING to do with your "Force pursuant to law is one thing, force
> without law is another" remark.
>
It has everythign to do with it. I am emphasizing the separate domains
and interactiosn of force and law.
ther eis law withotu force
Force without law
force pursuant to law
Force in violation of law.
>
> :So all it takes for it to be law is that it is capable of enforcement. It does
> :nto depend on enforcement
>
> But if there is no enforcement, then it must not be capable of
> enforcement.
Nonsense.
If you are not havign sex does that mean you are not capable of having
sex ?
Because if it was "capable of enforcement by the
> application of external sanctions", someone external would be applying
> those sanctions.
nonsense
Determinging the enemys capabiliyt is not the smae as deteringin their
current operaitons.
> Note that the UN, through its inability to act in the case of Iraq,
> has demonstrated clearly that it is *NOT* "the law", since it was
> obviously incapable of any enforcement of its positions.
>
> It seems to speak for itself. No fancy Latin required.
>
> So, where was I wrong, again?
>
>
Becsue you think that cpabiliyt is the same as action. its not
Vince
Peter Skelton
<brad...@attbi.com> wrote:
Chose any date between 1950 and 1990. That's the whole point - a
venue for discussion was readily available. If you don't think
that's important look at the melt down that lead to BM1 or the
US's impotence before BM2
Peter Skelton
tw
Jerry
<fir...@umd.edu> wrote:
> A law is capable of being enforced by its internal
> structure.
> i.e. can you define the its terms adequately.
This is totally useless lawyer-speak. Try plain English.
Jerry
--
Jerry
wrote:
> Jerry, why are you bothering to even argue with Vince? You made a
> statement about the job of lawyers (which defines why they're called
> "advocates" and was 100% correct, BTW) - he responds by implying that
> you're stupid and uneducated.
> Killfile him.
Nah! It's fun to describe the Emperor in his new clothes. It's also
good sport to throw rocks at lawyers (and sea lawyers).
Jerry
--
Fred J. McCall
:There's no point arguing with Fred, he believes he is right
Only because I am.
:and therefore everyone else is wrong.
No, only those who disagree with me.
:If you come out with a valid statement he probably
:won't answer you. I've done it on a couple occasions.
Don't flatter yourself, Mr Hamer. You've never come out with a valid
statement.
:I've also noted as
:I've read his self opinionated rantings that he says he doesn't have a lot
:of time and yet he spends half of it spouting his opinions and negating
:others.
Only because spending time reading whiners like you and whines like
this is only slightly less useful than listening to static on an off
the air TV channel.
:If you come up with a valid argument and he doesn't ignore it he
:simply resolves it with personal insults.
But I generally don't waste my time sniping out of the blue. I guess
that's our real demonstrator of just how much actual content you have
to add as "valid statements".
Now, why don't you run along and play with yourself? Here's a
magnifying glass to help you get started....
<plonk>
Jerry
<fir...@pressroom.com> wrote:
> Im a teacher. I routinely tell people to take courses.
With absolutely no self-interest involved in any degree, right? <G>
Jerry
--
David McArthur
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:23:00 UTC, bexl...@yahoo.com (David McArthur)
> wrote:
>
> > If we read ALL of history(?) we'd be none the wiser - try reading a
> > British and German history of WWII for instance!
>
> Been there, done that in multiple subject areas. What are you having
> a problem with?
Jerry,
Um, no problem I was just wondering where you were going with this
thread you started - When you rouse everyone to: "Read History" I just
thought you had some particular piece(s) of literature or path of
discussion in mind.
or perhaps even a solution to the (perceived) UN problem/question?
(...other than let's get the hell out because we don't get anything
out of it and it does nothing for us)
David
Jerry
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It certainly isn't just the UN, and I'm open to being shown why the UN
> was irrelevant, but it's a significant historical anomaly that needs
> explaining rather than dismissing.
I don't see it as anomalous, because it's an incorrect premise. I
certainly think that the dissolution of Yugoslavia was both a series
of wars, and that all the nations involved were located in Europe.
And does the Cold War not count, or the Russian invasion of Hungary?
Jerry
--
Jerry
wrote:
> "Not" is a funny way to spell "and." What the UN is, first and
> foremost, is a place where discussions take place at an
> ambassadorial level. It has to happen somewhere, and
> representatives of all the players need to be available. This
> kept going right through the cold war mostly because neither side
> dared stop it. Just what would have happened without it no one
> can say.
Yeah! The UN was really effective in the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't
it. <Dripping with irony, if you couldn't tell.>
Jerry
--
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jerry wrote:
my fault, I was editing "bits" to "terms" and botched it .
But this is how we describe it in Techncial regulation
"Regulatory effectiveness analysis is a qualitative technique which
measures separately and together the three key components of a technical
regulatory system: Public Policies, Legal Structures and Technical
Tools. The theory is that all three of these components must be
properly designed to achieve a working regulatory system. Public
policies must be coherent, legal structures must contain all necessary
elements to carry out the public policies, and technical tools must be
available and produce the needed results. Most importantly the three
components interact. Public policy, legal structures and technical
tools have interlocking sets of requirements and capabilities.
Requirements are the preconditions which must be satisfied by other
components before a given component can function. Capabilities reflect
the ability of a tool to satisfy a requirement of another component.
For example, a given public policy may require certain capabilities in
the legal structure. Similarly, a legal structure has capabilities that
can satisfy the needs of public policy. If the requirements and
capabilities do not match, the result is a Discontinuity"
Now, the legal structure incldues both the components of law and the
component of enforcement.
You need all the bits to make the system work, but the bits exist on
their own.
Vince
Peter Skelton
<The iron is a solid chunk connecting your left tympanus to the
right.>
The UN was just baerely effective enough in the way I've
described during the Cuban crisis. That scared them enough they
built the hot line. (The UN was, through the crisis, the only
place equal representatives of the two sides could exchange
messages. Peer communication in a crisis is a good thing but
ambassadors lack the rank to commit, a bad thing.)
The UN is a place for nations to discuss issues and a framework
for collective action if they choose to take it. It is not world
government. It is also not some magic entity that makes
everything turn out the way we'd like.
Peter Skelton
Jim
Unfortunatliy the UN is just about as effective at changing world history as
the as the aforementioned activities are effective at altering the outcome
of saturday afternoons football game... Putting it bluntky, the UN argues a
lot and does a nice song and dance number but has no effect the outcome of
the game.
Jim
Peter Skelton
wrote:
A well-designed arena doesn't affect the outcome. That doesn't
mean we don't need arenas.
Peter Skelton
Prof. Vincent Brannigan
Jerry wrote:
??
Its an alternative to lack of knowledge
I also suggest people read books
Vince
Alan Minyard
>
>
>"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
>
>>
>> :you are wrong. Force pursuant to law is one thing, force withotu law is
>> :another.
>>
>> Yes, it is. However, that has nothing to do with what I said, now
>> does it? So you'll have to explain just how that observation makes me
>> 'wrong'.
>
>because law exists as a normative field separate from government and force.
>
>Vince
Law is a function of government. It does not, and can not, exist without some
form of government.
Al Minyard
Alan Minyard
>In message <3qrspvk8rjvidjeo1...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall
><fmc...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Brad Meyer <brad...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:20:03 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>>:<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>:> We've gone sixty
>>:>years without a serious war in Western Europe, which is probably a
>>:>record . . .
>>:
>>:No where near. Besides, western Eurpoe is not the world at large. Not
>>:even a large portion of the world at large.
>>
>>More to the point, I can't believe that Paul seriously thinks that the
>>UN had *anything* to do with the lack of a major war in Western
>>Europe.
>
>I'm surprised at the claims that the UN has been wholly irrelevant for
>its entire existence.
>
>What _has_ kept Western Europe not only war-free since 1945, but free of
>even the _threat_ of war? (Think back: it's less than a century since we
>had entangling webs of secret treaties and hidden alliances that turned
>an assassination in Bosnia into a hideously destructive conflict?)
>
>It certainly isn't just the UN, and I'm open to being shown why the UN
>was irrelevant, but it's a significant historical anomaly that needs
>explaining rather than dismissing.
The US (and British) nuclear deterrent is what enforced the peace. The UN is a
sad joke, it is ineffective, irrelevant, and immoral.
Al Minyard
Owe Jessen
<brad...@attbi.com> :
>
>I can think of no instance wherein discussions between NATO and WP
>took place under UN aspicies. Can you?
>
I believe there have been some lively discussions in the UNSC around
the Cuban missle crisis.
Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>>I can think of no instance wherein discussions between NATO and WP
>>took place under UN aspicies. Can you?
>>
>
>Chose any date between 1950 and 1990. That's the whole point - a
>venue for discussion was readily available.
A complicated way of admiting you have no such example.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>Am Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:01:23 -0800, schrieb Brad Meyer
><brad...@attbi.com> :
>>
>>I can think of no instance wherein discussions between NATO and WP
>>took place under UN aspicies. Can you?
>>
>
>I believe there have been some lively discussions in the UNSC around
>the Cuban missle crisis.
If so, to what end? Everything concerning the resolution of the crisis
was negotiated directly between the US and the USSR. Did the UNSC
issue any sanctions, or anything at all for that matter?
Paul J. Adam
<prath...@verizon.net> writes
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:10:50 UTC, "Paul J. Adam"
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It certainly isn't just the UN, and I'm open to being shown why the UN
>> was irrelevant, but it's a significant historical anomaly that needs
>> explaining rather than dismissing.
>
>I don't see it as anomalous, because it's an incorrect premise. I
>certainly think that the dissolution of Yugoslavia was both a series
>of wars, and that all the nations involved were located in Europe.
Though well to the east. Compare the last half-century to the diplomatic
mess that existed in the 19th century.
>And does the Cold War not count,
Given the lack of open conflict, no.
>or the Russian invasion of Hungary?
Again, wrong end of Europe. The UN wasn't able to do much about
Soviet-occupied territory.
The United Nations is routinely attacked for failing to be a powerful
policing agent; but many nations, certainly including but not limited to
the US, would deeply oppose any such force. (Would the UN be more
popular in the United States if, for example, it had sent troops to
defend Iraq against unsanctioned US aggression? Get that second
resolution Or Else!)
That it's basically a talking shop is the _point_ - the lack of such has
had extremely bloody results in the past.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk