arachne-digest Monday, January 13 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:57:25 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Possessing Guns (was Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human rights) Hi All, Guns. Hmmmm. I used to be rather neutral on the issue. Thought that perhaps the day was long past when here, in the heartland of "freedom and democracy", the government could somehow be hijacked by a gang of thugs. If we worked on meeting the needs of poverty and oppression and hired 'good cops' to enforce 'good laws', everything would be work toward a peaceful future (and we could all be one big, happy family). Then I went to Liberia. Observing 3 Liberian Army soldiers beating a man, I asked what crime the man committed. "Different tribe" was the answer. "Where are the police", I asked. The reply ... "They were afraid and left." "Why?" "Their guns don't work, and they don't want to be in trouble with the soldiers." "Why doesn't somebody do something?" "We don't have any guns, either." "It's not like this in America", I said. "Yes", a man told me. "It was different before in our country. But now we have no choice." "Why not?" "Because now we have no guns." Perhaps some of the early Americans had a similar scenario in mind when they insisted that each State retain the constitutional guarantee to form and mobilize an armed militia. Several States refused to ratify the Constitution unless it included safeguards to protect the individual rights of its citizens. The result was the original 10 amendments - the Bill of Rights (including the second amendment - the right to keep and bear arms). Like a Kosovar friend once told me, "We knew we were in trouble when the Serbian government passed a law against owning a gun." It's like a prophecy ...what comes next is guaranteed (which is probably why DMCA and TPCA were raised by some as an important issue). And Arachne was reportedly made for a similar reason, so that the "right of the people to the free access of information and communication" could not be infringed upon by the government or corporate powers. The right to peacefully assemble (by email) and freely share ideas - made possible because of a disgruntled hacker from Czech Republic. Michael Polak - American patriot. (In spirit, if not in fact). (Maybe that's why people cannot unsubscribe from the list - secession would break up the union). Butyl Bob, the organic radical - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:56:22 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:25 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > > And the world has changed as well ... > now the UN can do much good ... > Hi Ricsi, Keep in mind that the UN is an organization of national governments. UN membership merely represents the fact that the previous members have agreed by vote to allow newcomers to join. If you recall the former Yugoslavia, you'll probably remember the dialog about the right of members states in the Yugoslavian Confederation to opt for cessation and whether the UN members should recognize the newly declared state. Until Germany and Austria announced that they would recognize Slovenia, the other UN members (including the USA) maintained that Slovenia was a rebel province and everybody agreed to respect the international boundaries of Yugoslavia. Internally, national governments function as they wish (on internal issues). So the world really hasn't changed that much since the Westphalia Treaties. Were it not so, states like Sudan would have been under UN control for many years. What WOULD be a change in global politics is a way to universally recognize the rights of minority groups within nations, without first requiring a destabilizing foreign intervention and change of national leadership. I obviously am not an advocate of a greater UN. I have yet to see a situation where the local people agreed that the UN presence in their homeland was a positive thing. I asked one guy in Kosovo if he could name ONE country where a UN intervention has fixed the problem. I'm still waiting for an answer. Meanwhile, I'll continue with my theme of advocating a completely free and open exchange of information among people as a prerequisite for freedom and peace. And Arachne is a GREAT tool for empowering the little guys for THAT. CU, 2 Butyl Bob - the organic radical - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 04:00:06 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: actiontec modems I have a USRobotics internal PCI hardware modem that works with DOS but not with EPPPD, only with LSPPP. IRQ is 11, base address is 0xd400, which I determined by running a PCI program by Ralf Brown. This same information also shows in Linux in /proc/pci . Sometimes an ISP or more distant server will change things a little, and DOS software that previously worked no longer works. Previously I let LSPPP dial, but when there was a portmaster change that I could hear in the modem after dialing, LSPPP was no longer able to make the IP connection, but then I let chat0.exe (from DOSPPPD package) dial, and LSPPP then was successful in connecting. Then it is also possible to be unable to connect for some time due to bug or downtime at the ISP end. I don't think DOS would be able to dial at all with a Winmodem, and I don't think DOS or any other OS would be able to dial if either the IRQ and/or base address were wrong. I think my init string is AT&F1S6=7 and dial string is ATDTW followed by telephone number. So it waits up to 7 seconds for a dial tone if dial tone is not immediate. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 05:12:10 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:55:47 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > Hi All, > I've got to disagree with Sam: >> This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as >> being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. > Really? Sadam, until not to long ago, was one of the best good-old-boys in > the entire region--both armed and supported by the US. If he hadn't gone > off-side in the Kuwait thing, he'd still be Washington's buddy. The only > reason that the US wants to snuff him now is that he is seen as a threat to > Israel. Given the treatment his Moslem brothers are receiving from Israel, > and given that they are the ones who hold Washington's leash, it isn't > surprising that he hates them. But, so far, he has not attacked them > (Israel), or ANY other country (except Kuwait), until AFTER war has been > waged against him. Sadam violates on an almost daily basis the treaty agreements he made with the US and its allies by his attacking coalition aircraft in the No-Fly Zone. Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a successful suicide bombing mission. I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea. The US and the UN are pledged to support Israel by securing that country's viability even as she finds herself surrounded by very hostile enemies. There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel some time in the near future. It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so that he can plan his attack according to his own time table. If the US waits for Sadam to attack first, then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost. The moral issue is about how to solve the problem with the minimum amount of destruction and loss of life. There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any US leaders except in US courts. The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. Americans want to do their own thing. We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us. I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and occupying their territory and to steal their oil. US intentions are only to disarm Sadam of his WMD's and to replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people. Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem with that? > To date, he has only used his 'weapons of mass destruction' on his own > people, and on nations that are at war with him. Sure, he's a butcher, but > that has never been a problem for the American government, has it? So far, > there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sadam has any intentions > of starting a war that he couldn't possibly win. Even if he does have WOMD > (like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.) there is no doubt in my > mind that he won't use them *until*he*is* *attacked* -- and then why > shouldn't he? Every rule of international law says that an attacked nation > has the right to defend itself in any way it can. The psychopath of the > piece is GWB, who should be tried as a war monger who would make the Fuhrer > blush. Pakistan and India's having WMD's is not a problem because they don't have any enemies other than each other. Although they may continue to have occasional border skirmishes with small arms, there is little danger that they would get into any really serious conflicts with each other because of the already proven facts established during the Cold War about how well the MAD theory works. (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). Neither country would dare launch nukes against the other because that would result in both countries becoming a devastated and irradiated wasteland. > The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries > something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally > justified. >> The Bush administration >> thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly >> even bought off. Although the North Koreans even admit to having >> some nukes, we do not believe they have any ideas about actually >> using them against nearby countries, at least not in the immediate >> future. Their corner of the world is not anywhere as troubled as >> the Middle East. I think the North Koreans are producing the nukes >> not to start a war, but only to increase their bargaining power at >> the negotiating table when dealing with countries which don't want >> them to have them. The North Koreans are now in a stronger position >> than the one they held before they had the nukes. They can offer to >> stop producing and to dismantle their nukes in exchange for some >> concessions and better treatment by the countries they don't get >> along with very well. I think the North Koreans and the rest of the >> world can work out a peaceable and positive outcome for everyone >> concerned. > Now, Kim Il-jong ... there is a nutbar. Unlike Sadam, this guy boasts > about having nukes, and about the fact that he's about to start making > more. He also boasts about having missiles that can deliver them, and > about the fact that he is making even better delivery systems as we speak. > In contrast to the Iraqi's he has just thrown UN inspectors out of the land. > He is still, technically, at war with the US, and North Korea engages in > almost non-stop military provocation against the South. Kim even says, out > loud, that if he is embargoed, he will consider it an act of war! Sadam is > Mother Theresa by comparison. > Just my 2 cents worth :-) Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:02:54 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: OT: amazing polls about american politics Hi All! Very amazing results on european edition of american time magazine ... - -------------- http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? North Korea 10.4 % Iraq 16.0 % The United States 73.6 % Total Votes Cast: 76862 NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion. - ------------------- http://www.time.com/time/europe/me/ Why does the U.S. want to attack Iraq? To disarm Saddam 4.6 % To effect regime change 12.2 % To get Iraq's oil 75.9 % To make the world a safer place 7.5 % Total Votes Cast: 1884 NOTE: This is an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion. - --------- CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> We NEVER grow up, we just get older, and older,and... <=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:14 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: OT: weapons Hi All! I don't understand what suicide attacks have to do with guns or the lack thereof. Anyways ... I see that there is a HUGE cultural difference on how guns are viewed. But it is clear that owning guns is no deterrent to crime, as well as the capital punishment is (provenly) also no deterrent. Anyways ... I will *very* much enjoy to see this movie "Bowling for Columbine" CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Sleep: fleeting moment before the alarm goes off <=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:46:23 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Headers: "From Ronald Bleckendorf" Hi Roger! 12 Jan 2003, Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: RT> Has anyone else noticed that virtually all of the headers indicate RT> that they are from "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This individual sent all letters he got back to the list, instead of sending it to arachne-owner or michael or [EMAIL PROTECTED] He doesn't understand that we can't help him, AND furthermore he burdened all other people which (just like him) want to unsubscribe ... RT> Roger Turk CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> My God ... It's full of stars! <=- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:26:44 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:20:46 -0000, John Sparks wrote: > I will have to concede then that in the current USA widespread gun ownership > is desirable. Nope. I don't think so. More guns equals more shootings. It's as simple as that. Here's why: accidents and crimes of passion and stupidity. (Road rage, exhusbands, former spouses and lovers, drunks, children, teenagers and others of impaired judgement) Easy access to guns in the home or in the homes of your neighbors leads to this sort of unthinking and irresponsible use. I'd rather take my chances with a rational criminal than a loaded neighbor who wants to settle a score or whatever. People are nuts! I'm not talking about psychopathic criminals either, but the quiet guy next door who forgot to lock up his legal pistol when he went on vacation and it got stolen by the kid who fed the cat who took it home, showing off and somebody else picked it up and shot that kid who made faces at him on the bus. Stuff like that. Accidents, crimes of passion and stupidity. There's nothing rational about it. More guns will equal more shootings. Maybe they can handle their weapons safely in Switzerland but here in the USA we're not doing so hot. Anybody want to deny that obvious fact? Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:31:27 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:22:39 -0000, Matt, Nic and Wilf wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "skywalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:55 PM >> unsubscribe arachne > Not a hope. There's no way out. I recognise all this from Dante's > Inferno... You can't "unsubscribe" by sending messages to the list. You have to send the request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep tyring that. Someday Michael Polak will fix the list server. If your request doesn't work then send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep trying. That's all you can do. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:07:02 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:55:47 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries > something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally > justified. I have to say I agree with this. We lived with the Russians all during the Cold War. We ought to be able to tolerate Hussein for awhile longer. But please note that even Donald Rumsfeld is saying "War with Iraq is not inevitable." I think there will be a solution other than war. Perhaps Hussein will abdicate because he has no alternative. Something surprising other than war will happen. That's my guess. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:52:33 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human rights On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:06:28 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Bart, > Before you accuse others of applying labels to you, and particularly > before you apply your own labels, it would help if you knew what they > meant. > The only purely communist society to have survived was started here in > the USA. Communism has little to do with politics and everything to do Don't forget the Benedictines and other religious orders who take vows of poverty. Also the Buddhist Theravada Sangha dating back to around 550 BCE and still existing in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:58:01 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Fw: Majordomo results On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:49:33 +1300, "skywalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought somebody said this problem was finally fixed? Just a rumour somebody posted. Not yet. It might be awhile. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:56 PM > Subject: Majordomo results >> -- >> >>>> unsubscribe arachne >> >>> Sorry, an error has occurred while processing your request >> >>> The caretaker of Majordomo ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) has been > notified >> >>> of the problem. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 09:21:38 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human rights On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:42:30 +0100, Bart Buitinga wrote: > How much difference one man can make in American politics has been > wonderfully demonstrated by gov Ryan, who is first to break the myth that > the American justice system would be infallible. I sure hope this will > reach Tx, too. And before a next war starts, because quite similar to the > undeserved faith of many Americans in the deterrant effect of capital > punishment, their call for the "war on terrorism" is of the same category, > ill-based categorical measures with doubtful effect and a high level of > cruelty. The criminal justice system makes frequent mistakes. Poor people are often poorly defended by their court appointed lawyers. Gov Ryan in Illinois who was elected as a supporter of capital punishment was led to make a careful review of all the cases of prisoners on death row in his state by the fact that DNA evidence had conclusively proved that several persons awaiting execution were innocent. In fact, such a high percentage were proved innocent that it became deeply troubling. How could so many innocent persons have been convicted and sentanced to death? A careful and systematic review of capital cases led to the conclusion that almost all defandants were poor and that the cases against them relied heavily on the testimony of informers or on "confessions" made under duress that were later retracted. Surely some of the convicted were in fact guilty as charged, but which ones? Also deeply troubling is the fact that defendants who can afford to hire their own lawyers are almost never sentanced to death. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:20:30 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:39:25 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Eg. america wants war, but doesn't share information about the iraqi nuclear > program. > W often said that he has important information about it, but the UN nuclear > organization (here in vienna :) has still not received it. I do not think that even George Bush wants war, although it must seem that he does want war and that must be frightening. Bush wants peace and wants America not to be threatened by rogue states with atom bombs and chemical and biological weapons. My understanding is that so far the UN inspectors have not found any evidence of biological, chemical or atomic weapons in Iraq and Iraq has been cooperating fully with the inspectors. So perhaps war will be avoided. Yes, more international cooperation is certainly needed and expected. And the United States certainly would welcome it, at the UN and with NATO and the other treaty orgainizations. I do think that George Bush is more sophisticated than he appears to be. Certainly others in his administration are capable of a broad perspective. And the American President is certainly not free to do whatever he wants. Congress, the courts and public opinion all act as a moderating influence--but maybe these forces ae not so apparent overseas. Absent a real perceived threat Americans will not tolerate for long the erosion of civil liberties. There is great resistance in the Federal Appeals Court to treating American citizens as "combatants without rights". Bush and the Justice department will obey the courts even if they do not agree with them. On the whole I am hopeful that democracy and rule of law will prevail and expand. The alternative is tribal belligerance and continued small scale fighting of a viscious and persistent nature. But already the kind of full scale, global war that engulfed Europe and Asia twice in the last century is unthinkable today. China just wants to do business. Russia, Germany, England, France, Japan and the United States are all allies, co-operative and friendly. Who could have imagined that sixty years ago? > America has to stop to do "its thing" and take an even stronger part in > multilateral organizations. > SE> I'm not saying that America should invade anyone. But, we do > SE> have legitimate concerns that the world expects us to do something > SE> about because nobody else can. > I agree that this is the case. > But IMO it is more desirable to have an international "army" under a > multilateral command (with a very strong american aspect) > More desireable for both sides at the end. > SE> America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get > SE> smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global > SE> strength imposes on us. > I wholeheartedly agree ... > But the rest of the world has to change, too. > We have to think more globally, and we have to emancipate ourself. > SE> Sam Ewalt > CU, Ricsi > PS: apropos Korea (I know ... but I mix up which one is south and which one is > west :) > -- > |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) > |~\|(__\| -=> Money makes the world go around <=- Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:16:36 -0300 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fw: Secession history Hi all , This list is in my USEX life (user experience field) firt time I am against my will ! I have blocked some senders :) but not all.........as Bob tells below resembling secession history .... otherwise I will lack some interesting information not seriously available at other forums. Just an example....I was looking around about PHP vs. ASP and I only got insults, vulgarities and lack of the recent internet history....mostly words of entushiasm (or emotional based flames) with teen's vocabulary style rather than precise knowledge. So if people here is not putting modem specs....or anything can be got elsewhere........ ...we'll all actually appreciate what this list can contribute to our daily needed dose of creativity ..... so beyond the news headlines....we can cope with obvious troubles of not being able to Unsubscribe at all ! :( Elliot - ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:57 AM Subject: Possessing Guns (was Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human rights) > > Hi All, ........ > It's like a prophecy ...what comes next is guaranteed (which is probably > why DMCA and TPCA were raised by some as an important issue). > > And Arachne was reportedly made for a similar reason, so that the "right > of the people to the free access of information and communication" could > not be infringed upon by the government or corporate powers. > > The right to peacefully assemble (by email) and freely share ideas - made > possible because of a disgruntled hacker from Czech Republic. > > Michael Polak - American patriot. (In spirit, if not in fact). > > (Maybe that's why people cannot unsubscribe from the list - secession > would break up the union). > > > Butyl Bob, the organic radical ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea Hi Samuel! sorry ... very long ... and very OT But it contains very important views at the end. About how America wants american law everywhere, and about the RIGHT OF AMERICA TO DO WHAT IT WANTS, to kill people etc. 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: SH> Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to SH> each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a SH> successful suicide bombing mission. SH> I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. Exactly this is the problem ... Bush works exactly the same way ... and the propaganda is GREAT. Eg. he says that he has proof of Iraq having atomic weapons again. But he refuses to a) show the proofs to his allies b) refuses to give them to the UN insepctors. For a european mind there are 2 possibilities: 1) US doesn't have any proof, but wants Iraqi oil 2) US has indeed prove, but wants US-Iraq war instead of a UN-Iraq mission Both are inherently bad. SH> North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft US aircrafts are not flying over N Korean terretory. <very idiotic example from me> What would bush do if austrian airplanes <haha> fly over texas to protect the people sentenced to death from execution. OK a very bad, extremely far fetched and absolutely incorrect example ... Anyways here is what I think: 1) Saddam is a highly insane person, which is very dangerous 2) Saddam has no problem with mass murdering 3) Saddams goal is to get atomic and biological weapons (especially biological ...) but: 1) nobody can take actions against not yet commited crimes 2) the US has no right to take any actions against any country, which the other countries government did not directly attack america or an american ally. THESE 2 POINTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE ... and I don't think that US understands them. They mean: If america (country) attacks another country, without before being attacked by the official military of the other country, than america is the AGGRESSOR ! America is than guilty of breaking international law. If the UN (stands above any single country) thinks (eg CIA shows proofs) that Saddam is going to build atomic/biological weapons (which is IMO 95% likely) than they send Inspectors. 2 possibilities: 1) Iraq doesn't let them in, than UN (2. letter is an N not an S) can take measires ... like sending troops (66% america, 80% american .... the only importance is that the actions are controlled by the UN ... and not by the US) 2) they can do their work again if they find somethinh U_N_ takes measures, if not, than we have to leave saddam in peace (also we would sleep better if he weren't in power ... there is no international right which we can use) My problem is that 1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries 2) America _REFUSES_ International court for point 1) see http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13763/1.html for point 2) http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12716/1.html Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a *HUGE* problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill anybody, and that International court can't react. Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... This is in my eyes a much, much, much more serious problem, than Iraq, Isreal, North Korea, etc. And this is why 75% of Europeans think that the US is the biggest threat to peace in 2003 (according to times survey I posted recently) SH> and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea. I'm not sure that Iraq supports them ... but IMO it can very, very possibly be so. SH> There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel SH> some time in the near future. There are strong indications that US is planning to start war with Iraq. (without Iraq commiting any crime against the US) SH> It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy SH> continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so SH> that he can plan his attack according to his own time table. And it is *ILLEGAL* to attack a country which hasn't done anything. But it is *VITAL* that an organization standing *ABOVE ANY SINGLE COUNTRY* monitors the weapon production and takes countermeasures. SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely ILLEGAL. It starts a WAR, and *IT* is the aggressor. If than iraq brings the US to the International court, than it has to speak them guilty. SH> then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would SH> happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we SH> should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by SH> simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost. There are no arguments for starting a war ... And you forget THAT UN INSPECTORS *ARE* *CURRENTLY* in the Iraq, to look if american unproofen accusations are true. SH> There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any SH> US leaders except in US courts. THIS IS WHAT THE US WANTS YOU TO THINK BUT IT IS TERRIBLY WRONG !!!!! SOrry for shouting ... example: Austrian chancelor says: "Bush I don't like you, and I want your oil anyways" and than attacks the US. So now only austrian court can speak justice ?? NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For intra american (only americans affected, on american terretory) crimes, american courts are to be used. FOR INTER COUNTRY (crimes between 2 countries) the internetional court is to be used. American court has NOTHING to do with it !! SH> The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our SH> accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European SH> prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. There are no american values. There are international laws. Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED. This is a very vital point to me ... Anything else is AMERICAN WORLD DICTATORSHIP. SH> Americans want to do their own thing. I don't care ... america is bound to international law, just like any other country. America is not better or worse like any other country !!!! SH> We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us. No problem. As long as america STAYS ON *ITS* terretory, nobody will intervene. But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but a WORLD ISSUE ... If W says I don't like Ricsi ... let's kill him. And they send a drone or squad that kills me here in Austria. Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says it is OK, doesn't mean it is OK. And my relatives HAVE ALL RIGHT to go to the international court, and ask for right. If we disagree here, than there is no use speaking on. This is the most basic thing. SH> I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are SH> not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and SH> occupying their territory and to steal their oil. See above ... the intentions ARE NOT IMPORTANT STARTING a war is a crime. That is a fact. SH> US intentions are only to disarm Sadam no ... these are the intentions of the UN Inspecors. Yeah ... right those ones where Bush says that they don't get the information where the alleged weapons are kept. SH> replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are SH> more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people. Are you joking ?? THE US HAS NO POWER over the iraqi leader. If he attacks america, than america can defend itself. If america has information, than they can give it to the UN to act on it. And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ... only iraqi people can do so. SH> Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem SH> with that? see above. Sorry Sam ... What you wrote is: If I don't like Bush, and I think that he is bad for the american people, I can invade America, assasinate Bush, and that would be a legal thing ?? And on top of that nobody can do anything to me, because Austrian court says it is OK, after the austrian government passed the "KILL THE US PRESIDENT ACT" ?? Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the whole world. And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. American law is for america. International law, is for _inter_ nations ... so if more than one nation is in it. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> All reality is aspect dependent <=- ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2019 ******************************
