Thinking as a Hobby

Get Email Updates
Email Me

Admin Password

Remember Me

3477754 Curiosities served
Share on Facebook

Treaties and War
Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Read/Post Comments (6)

Edward J. Prenner from Forest Hills, New York writes in to the New Republic and says:

Were we wrong? No, we were right. I find it astonishing that nobody ever mentions the clearest and best reason for the war: Iraq defied the cease-fire terms set forth in U.N. Resolution 687. That resolution, agreed to by Iraq in 1991, required the disarmament of Iraq and the free access of inspectors. Iraq violated the agreement for twelve years. That alone was sufficient, and it was the best reason for war. A treaty is not optional. The analogy, of course, is with the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which demanded that Germany not place military forces in the Rhineland. In 1936, Germany broke the treaty. The clear obligation of Great Britain and France, the victors at Versailles, was to take military action. They were too befuddled and cowardly to do so, even though it would have been easy to throw back a few thousand German troops. Had they acted, Hitler might have been deterred from further adventures and tens of millions of lives might have been spared. What is most significant is that everyone, including the pacifist left, is now furious at the French and British for failing to make preemptive war in 1936. If peace treaties are to be credible, they must be enforced. The losing side must know that its choice is between compliance and war.

Good point.

Read/Post Comments (6)

Previous Entry :: Next Entry

Back to Top

Powered by JournalScape © 2001-2010 All rights reserved.
All content rights reserved by the author.