-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: >> The UN. Please read my reply to Roberto. Irrespective of what these or >> those politicians claim, the text of the Charter of the UN is simple: no >> war or force without explicit endorsement by the security council. >> > So, if the US and other countries finally decided to get off their butts > and do something about the atrocities in the Sudan, it would be wrong if > they did not have UNSC endoresement? > >> Before: similar to Iraq. Then *they* started a suicidal war, leaving >> their country in ruins and many people dead. The violence was started by >> the Germans themselves, not from someone outside. That's the whole lot >> of a difference. Germany was in ruins after the war, by its (or its >> governments) own fault. >> > You wouldn't consider Iraq's little incursion to Kuwait violent?
Iraq's invasion to Kuwait was violent. There was/were UN resolution(s). There was a military liberation of Kuwait. Done. This is a different war. It's impossible to tell for sure, but I guess the situation to move Iraq to democracy and stability would have been better then, but the situation was missed. > What > about Saddam's insistence in trying to convince *everyone* that he had > WMDs? (Whether he had them or not). Iraq is in "ruins" today (nothing > comparable to post-WWII because of Saddam's failure to actually keep > infrastructure up to date. Saddam is dead so he's no problem any more. The problem the US are experiencing are not problems with Saddam or the old regime, the problem is that a broad support among the population is missing. In West Germany there was broad consensus among the population to move towards democracy. Most people were simply glad that the war was over and not opposed to the allies. The allies were than not seen as illegal and immoral invaders. That is the difference. The other problem is that the US don't control the country. It started when they failed to prevent the lootings after their victory. >> Plus: the allies managed to set up law and order after defeating the >> Germans. >> > Umm, the Germans were not exactly intent on killing occupiers and other > Germans (with a religious ferver, no less). Yes. Partly, because the Germans are a different people than those in Iraq, but partly because the Germans were not attacked from outside. They lost a war that they themselves had started. The Germans knew, that legally and morally the allies were right. (Besides, there were not many buildings and bridges left for suicidal attacks at that times. ) The situation in Iraq is difficult. There is no easy way out. But I think that the whole mission has contributed more to fueling violence and terrorism than to end either. No matter what the intentions of the US were before the war. My .02 The situ Johannes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGQurwC1NzPRl9qEURAqexAJ94k9aSuuMSkcTTkCh1y7zypxU+FwCdFKX5 7jvIyjIAObuwcvGtw00V2tA= =FpSi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
