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 (5923)	3/12/2003 3:20:29 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

In the normal course of ethics I cannot see a justification here for active aggression. In 1935, Germany moved troops and military equipment into the Rhineland. THis was a specific violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WW1 which Germany had signed. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having an air force. It soon became apparent it did. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having more than a 100,000-man army. Germany instituted a draft which clearly would violate that provision of the treaty. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? In 1938, France and the UK negotiated an mutual defense treaty with Poland. In 1939, Germany invaded Poland. Was military action by France and the UK have been justified? If the answer to any of those questions is "no", at what point, if any, is military action justified? IS there a "war" between religious fanaticism versus freedom and reason? On the part of certain Muslims, yes. The majority, no. It is the first that we must deal with though. Or, as they have demonstrated, be dealt with. And IF there is a war in progress...are there any ethical constraints on the other side? By "other side:, I presume you mean Muslim. I don't know. Are there? And I refer to the fanatics here, not the great majority who, if left alone, will leave us alone. Is it fair to ask one side of a battle to handcuff themselves to a different set of rules than the other side needs or intends to follow? In 1935, Germany moved troops and military equipment into the Rhineland. THis was a specific violation of the Versailles Treaty ending WW1 which Germany had signed. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having an air force. It soon became apparent it did. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Germany was prohibited from having more than a 100,000-man army. Germany instituted a draft which clearly would violate that provision of the treaty. Would military action by France and/or the UK have been justified? Now those constraints certainly created an unequal balance between Germany and France and the UK. They were intended to do just that. Does this mean that France and/or the UK would not have been justified in enforcing the treaty? At what point is a signatory to a truce or treaty entitled to take action?