Originally Posted by Cordelier

Because, as Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Originally Posted by crowonapost

Yaaaa... But Cordi that would support my point.....

Originally Posted by crowonapost

They were in the context of the previous mandate that you set up by comparing the post WWI treaty that was not considered relevant by all the world parties, at that time & in that background. Put simply if a contract is not agreed to it's not a contract. You were trying to compare an unresolved contract to the current post WWII contract...um...definitely history is relevant.

As to this current contract dispute, which was considered ratified after Gulf War 1 it could have been resolved in a lot of different courts...ways. The salient fact is that the party involved (the U.S.) in that court proceeding chose to disregard the court process (go it alone with the thinnest of justification without regard to precess & precedent) & well...go..it...alone.

Originally Posted by crowonapost

By the way did you see my last...hi...response on the hi thread...hehe.

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Oh, I forgot to respond to your court analogy, Crow. Once the Court decides on the guilt of the defendent, though.... isn't all that remains the carrying out of the sentence?

Originally Posted by crowonapost

The problem as I understand it though is that the ones involved did not wait for the final decision...they chose to interpret an earlier decision that was still not resolved in the 'supreme court' or 'final decision'. They just chose to change the goal post & depend on the previous/lower court decision....

That would be 'my' interpretation....



As to your previous post...I will have to find another day to respond...because I'm getting tired....Good night Cordi & good conversing.

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I see it differently Crow (wonders never cease, huh? *L*) - the defendent was caught in the commission of a crime, punished, and then paroled... and then he broke his parole repeatedly over 11 years and was seriously punished for it.

Originally Posted by Cordelier

So you're suggesting that Bush, Sr., somehow wanted to go to war with Saddam for some sort of personal gain?

Originally Posted by Cordelier

In such a situation, though, wasn't "doing nothing" itself a possible course of action? If the Security Council was paralyzed by a lack of consensus and would have drifted toward inaction, then what was to stop the US and UK have invoked the "final opportunity" clauses of 1441 to enforce the previously passed Security Council Resolutions? It obviously wasn't the intention of the Security Council to "do nothing" when it passed Resolution 1441, was it not? They may not have all intended to use force, but they definitely didn't want to do nothing.

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Once Iraq was declared to be in material breach of the ceasefire, though, what exactly were those restrictions?

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

The part you aren't taking into consideration though is that when you break parole you are sent back to complete the term of the sentence that you were paroled from.

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I think you're missing the point on the whole Baldwin/Churchill appeasement debate, though, Storman - of course Iraq 2003 wasn't on the same scale as Germany 1936, but the basic principles at stake are the same:

1) How far would you be willing to go to enforce International Law?
Germany of 1936 was in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty, just as Iraq of 2003 was in material breach of the Security Council Resolutions. Was use of force justified to ensure compliance? Or is the flouting of such instruments an insufficient casus belli? Is some other additional provocation required?

2) How do you know when you're at "the last resort"?
It's an accepted tenet of international law that use of force should only ever be a "last resort"... but how do you know when you've reached that point? So long as your adversary is willing to keep talking to you - as Hitler was at Munich - is there ever recourse to a "last resort"? If you truly want to give peaceful negotiation every chance to work, then how can you ever walk away from the table?

3) When is unilateral use of force advisable?
All through the 1930's, as Germany was rearming, Britain's two main wartime allies - France and the US - were unwilling to join in any use of force against Germany. The US was bound by isolationism, and France was paralyzed by the constant political struggles of the Third Republic. In short, there was no international consensus to act against Germany - if there was going to be intervention, it would have had to be unilaterally done by Britain. Should that have served as an acceptable excuse not to act at all?

4) When is pre-emptive use of force justified?
Is pre-emptive force ever justified? Is it only justified when hostilities are imminent? Or is it better to strike when your enemies are at their weakest? If you're dealing with a tyrant with aggressive tendencies - a Hitler or a Saddam - is it not better to strike at them as early as possible rather than wait until they have had time to gain strength and become aggressive?

5) How narrow is your definition of National Security?
Germany in 1936 wasn't a direct threat to Britain - it's military was still weak while Britain was a global superpower. Given time, as we've seen, that situation was to change. So should Britain have intervened before Germany became a direct threat, or was it only justified in doing so when it was allowed to become one? When Hitler went into the Sudetenland, and they started digging trenches in London parks, Chamberlain said the following: "How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul." Should potential long-term National Security threats carry the same weight as clear and present short-term threats? Do you have to wait until the enemy directly threatens your own shores before you act, or is it acceptable to enter quarrels in "far away countries between people of whom we know nothing"?

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Ahhh... Thank you!

When the defendent broke parole, the terms of the original punishment came back into effect - when Saddam broke the terms of the ceasefire, the Gulf War state of hostilities came back into effect.

You see? I knew you'd come around, Areyou!