Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (5788)	3/10/2003 4:20:12 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

Your statement wasn't true because it set up a false dichotomy. It was not a comparison or choice between an imperfect process (the feckless League of Nations pronouncing violations and then doing nothing about them) on the one hand and Hitler's and Japan's aggressions on the other hand. It was a case of the imperfect process of responding to these threats causing or directly bringing about the horrors of widespread conflict, civilian casualties and deprivations, and the Holocaust, among other things. What we seem to be witnessing in the UN is an imperfect process of responding to new threats. Those that believe Saddam is not a threat apparently believe that the only way WMD's can be delivered is through traditional means. He has done nothing but act like a threat since he took power. It is not enough to renounce a threat. Hitler was renounced, so were the Japanese, by international bodies formed to ensure "security". The lesson of those times was that an unarmed security guard is insufficient security against violent madmen. Would the world have been a better place if the US had launched a war against Germany in 1936 to counter its brazen violations of restrictions it agreed to after past aggressions? Would history have taken a better course? Those are questions worth pondering. It's not easy to say that the world was better off, really, truly better off, because those things didn't happen.

To: Solon who wrote (5788)	3/10/2003 4:43:41 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7689

Report dated July 22, 1932 League of Nations Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments Resolution adopted by the General Commission on July 23, 1932 digital.library.northwestern.edu The Conference proposed all sorts of great sounding limitations on armaments. Then came the thorny issue of enforcement. Excerpts: Supervision There shall be set up a Permanent Disarmament Commission with the constitution, rights and duties generally as outlined in part VI of the Draft Convention submitted by the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, with such extension of its powers as may be deemed by the Conference necessary to enable the Convention to be effectively applied. .... 5. Violations Rules of international law shall be formulated in connection with the provisions relating to the prohibition of chemical, bacteriological, and incendiary weapons and bombing from the air, and shall be supplemented by special measures dealing with infringement of these provisions. In other words, don't do anything bad, and if you do, well, dammit, we will get back together and talk about it. Which is precisely what happened. Germany and Japan violated these restrictions. But the restrictions were paper laws, rendered useless by the lack of an effective mechanism or will to enforce them. This was really no different than passing a law against murder that said that if somebody kills somebody else we will convene to decide whether we are going to do something about it. It was a bad joke, at the expense ultimately of millions of people and mass genocide. Fast forward to the UN of today. Shall it pass rules, make declarations, watch them be flouted, and talk some more? I for one don't think so.