arachne-digest Tuesday, January 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:31:23 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi Sam!
13 Jan 2003, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SE> We ought to be able to tolerate Hussein for awhile longer.
See the very long letter to Sam (the other one)
It is no matter of "tolerate".
As long as he doesn't commit crimes, you can't do anything.
You can't punish somebody for nothing.
But I 100% agree that an internationsl organization (standing above Iraq and
the US, should strictly monitor Saddam ... and exactly this is happening)
SE> But please note that even Donald Rumsfeld is saying "War with Iraq is
SE> not inevitable."
we will see, how things evolve:
1) iraqi people solve the problem (another government etc.) (GREAT !!!!!)
2) UN sends troops (good)
3) US alone attacks Iraq with no reason (criminal act)
3) is a criminal act.
Just like Saddams invasion of Kuweit.
SE> I think there will be a solution other than war. Perhaps Hussein will
SE> abdicate because he has no alternative. Something surprising other
SE> than war will happen. That's my guess.
I hope so ... very, very much.
Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international
law.
If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and
breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ...
SE> Sam Ewalt
CU, Ricsi
- --
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse <=-
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:21:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human
rights
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> 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?
GUN OWNERSHIP MANDATORY IN KENNESAW, GEORGIA
Crime Rate Plummets - Why Doesn't The Media Visit Kennesaw?
by Chuck Baldwin
"The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked
the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance
requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to
keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's
population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996
(latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three
murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a
firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982,
crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981,
and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And
it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly
non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per
year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential
burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged,
respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful
possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city
that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media
feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a
major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The
reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of
firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not
the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to
believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more
interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate
decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire
community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents
to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted
them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have
a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family
when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster.
In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no
shot was fired."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:55:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote:
> Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international
> law.
>
> If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and
> breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ...
The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3
conditions only:
1) US attacked. US can counterattack.
2) Congress declares war.
3) US sends troops in accordance with provisions of a treaty.
This American believes we should adhere to our own
Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of
the above conditions exist. When we "liberated" Kuwait from
Saddam, for instance, none of those existed. We even
"invited" Saddam to invade Kuwait by saying, "We do not have
any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special
defense or security commitments to Kuwait." This was
broadcast, and told to Saddam personally by one or our
Ambassadors.
http://tinyurl.com/4egk
- --
Steve Ackman
http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?)
http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:00:32 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: weapons
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:36:14 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> 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"
In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation
between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently
in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after
Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation.
I agree that it is indeed proven that capital punishment is no deterrent
for murder. I am most amazed that the truth should be as it is and
so contrary to what the majority of other Americans believe, but I cannot
argue with the facts. In every country there are a lot of people who do
not want to look at the truth because the truth is so contrary to what
they *want* to believe. In a democratic society, if the majority
believes in a lie or an erroneous concept, the falsehood will become
incorporated and dogmatized into the law and it will be adhered to and
become the official policy of other institutions in government. The
principle drawback to democracy is that it is based on the utterly
false assumption that the majority is always right. This assumption
leads to government by the tyranny of the masses. The best form of
government is government by a highly enlightened and beneficent
dictator who radiates divine bliss. This kind of government cannot be
established anywhere on this planet because there are no highly
enlightened and beneficent people here who radiate divine bliss and who
want to become dictators. You can't influence those kinds of people to
be anybody other than who they want to be and to do anything other than
what they want to do. Nobody can get their way with them because they
would much prefer to submit humbly to death by crucifixion and then
later ascend back into heaven rather than to take any advice from anyone
to do anything other than what they want to do or to be anyone other than
who they want to be. There is no golden crown that is good enough for
them because those kinds of crowns would weigh too heavy on their heads.
They will always most graciously accept a crown of thorns, but only if
the coronation ceremony is conducted by the very lowliest of government
officials and attended by no honors whatsover. Also they don't want
any royal raiments of the finest fabrics. Rather than to think about
what they themselves should wear, they would just prefer to consider the
lillies and how they grow, and remark upon how not even Solomon in all
his glory was ever arrayed as fine as these. For the reasons
explained above, it is very hard to find someone who would be a truly
good dictator.
Sam Heywood
- --
This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser:
http://browser.arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:40:06 -0400
From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human
rights
Sorry Sam,
The lay orders, convents, and the priesthood -- none of then are
communistic in concept or day-to-day operation. The control is
strict, from the top down, and it is dead wrong to equate poverty, or
self-deprivation with communism.
====
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:52:33 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> 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.
- -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:41:47 +1300
From: "skywalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fw: Majordomo results
If the unsubscribe function cannot be fixed in a reasonable amount of time,
which is something that has now long past then it should be completely
scrapped as a list, if it cannot be run in a reasonable manner it should not
be run at all.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 3:58 AM
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: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:26:31 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights
Hi Folks,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:26:07 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 15:00:26 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
> wrote:
>> Anyways ... another big surprise for me:
>> Bush administration handles Korea conflict 100 times better than I would have
>> thought possible.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:26:07 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as
> being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. The Bush administration
> thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly
> even bought off.
Call me a cynic, but could it just be because North Korea does not
have large reserves of very-cheap-to-make oil which could just happen to
fall into the control of the benevolent stewardship of US oil companies,
in the interests of getting Iraq back onto its feet again of course, in
the aftermath of a war of liberation / disarmament / terrorism /
aquisition / etc...
After all (1), the US oil companies didn't support GW in his election by
giving him vast sums of money, did they ? He doesn't owe them anything,
does he ? He didn't spend a long time in the oil industry, did he ?
After all (2), Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, even if they
haven't been found, and when he says there are none, we just know he's
lying, don't we ! And if Korea is actually being seen to re-activate its
nuke program, that isn't the same thing at all, is it ?
And after all (3), the intellect and stability of the North Korean
leader / figure-head / god / father / big-brother / etc... is visible to
all.
I think we are just watching today's version of "The Great Game".
Time to put my stirring spoon away. :)
Regards,
Ron
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
- -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:16:17 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi Steve!
13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about
>> international law.
>>
>> If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while
>> killing and breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ...
S> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3
S> conditions only:
You don't get my point.
I *don't* care about american constitution.
American constitution is irrelevant for non american issues.
Example:
Kuweit hasn't attacked Iraq.
Iraqi congress and constitution say attacking Kuweit is OK.
Iraq attacks Kuweit.
Has the iraq handeled correctly ...
according to Sam H.s argueing SURE ... iraqi congress allowed him.
And as much as Iraqi constitution is irrelevant, when iraqi troups leave iraq,
as much is american constitution irrelevant for non american countries !!
S> This American believes we should adhere to our own
S> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of
S> the above conditions exist.
No problem with that.
The problem arises if amercan conditions say OK, but international law says NO.
For any sane person international law wins.
If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere.
S> Steve Ackman
CU, Ricsi
- --
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Nothing can be created from nothing - Lucretius <=-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:10:50 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: weapons
Hi Folks, Sam,
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:00:32 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote:
> In the US and Switzerland there is a very high positive correlation
> between low violent crime rates and high gun ownership rates. Recently
> in Australia the firearms-related crime rate soared immediately after
> Australia passed some very restrictive anti-gun legislation.
Sorry Sam, this is not true.
This is a deliberate lie, and I really mean LIE, told by the pro-gun
lobby and the Riflemen's Assoc. in America, as represented by some film
actor whose name I forget. Oh yes, Charlton Heston.
There was an immediate outcry here in Oz about that, and this
particular actor was shown to have created his own "facts and figures",
that couldn't even be traced to any real ones that had been manipulated
to suit his own position. They were a total fabrication.
In fact, the reverse is true.
The strict gun control in Australia has actually been well supported
by a majority of us, otherwise the poll-led government would not be
continuing to strengthen the regulations, as they are.
Regards,
Ron
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
- -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:19:50 -0400
From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US andthe human
rights
The death penalty doesn't act as a deterent to killing, except that the
murderer will never murder again.
If everyone were armed there MIGHT be a lot more shootings, but it is
likely that the people with enough brains to deserve to remain in the
gene pool will learn how to use and care for those guns they have. And
if the berserker next door "goes off" he could then be quickly "offed."
The message would spread without need of the media: Use your gun
against others, and they'll theirs against you -- and "they" always will
outnumber, and "out gun" you.
Shootings going up does not equate to killing going up. Having an armed
populus does equate to killings and other crimes of violence going down.
How many kids, even brain-dead adolescent males, would plot attacking
their school and shooting other kids IF they knew every other student at
the school was armed, trained, and willing to shoot back to stop them??
Columbine wouldn't have happened if even one out of ten students carried
a gun; it wouldn't have happened if the teachers were armed.
A few years back, an idiot out to commit suicide drove his truck into a
Denny's in the town where my daughter was then living -- a restaurant
where she & I had eaten together. The cretin then started taking pot
shots at the patrons, and managed to kill quite a few. One woman who
had been trapped inside echoed the sentiments of a number of others
caught in that episode: If I'd had my gun with me, he wouldn't have
shot more than one person.
Intead of registering guns, I'd like to see it be mandatory to
successfully complete a course on "care and feeding of your firearm."
Not only would the potential owner have to safely fire the precisely
same type of weapon, but also would have to prove s/he could properly
breakdown, clean, reassemble, and store [if there were children under
age 13, or older children who had not taken formal firearms training]
the gun they want to purchase.
With ownership of *anything* comes responsibility. You are responsible
for what your car does, even if you've allowed someone else to drive it.
You are responsible for your cat, dog, horse, kine or cattle ... You
should be responsible for your children, but the system too often
doesn't offer help in keeping kids both civilized and in a caring home;
too often the only way a child can get necessary help is to be removed
from the home [another on-going story which could fill volumes].
If the stupid or crazy manage to get themselves killed, that's simply
speeding up the Darwinian process. And it is amazing how much smarter
some people can become when they learn that, although I cannot yet "pack
a gun," I have at least one I'm not afraid to use in self-defense or in
the defense of the lives of others. Just finding out that there were a
couple of people like me in the neighborhood made the Clan change its
mind about having a hate rally in the park a block from here.
Being afraid to be out after dark isn't civilized. Being fearful of a
"home invasion" crime isn't civilized. Having to worry about
car-jackings or hostage takings isn't civilized. And only "the bad
guys" having guns isn't civilized. Regardless of how "illegal" it might
be to own a gun, guns are pretty damn easy to make ... and even Hitler
at his worst never quite managed to gather up all the guns in the
countries he "conquered."
My final example of "why gun ownership is truely sane" centers around
Kosovo & Bosnia [pardon any misspellings]. The cost of a single cruise
missle -- which were used to excess and did little good -- would have
armed every household. How many "hunter killer squads" would have
walked into those villages knowing that every adult in town was armed
and had plenty of ammo? How many mass graves would not have been dug if
the "common wo/man" was able to shoot back? Our USA participation in
the UN "peace keeping" mission to that area could have saved millions of
dollars and tens of thousands of lives -- if the low tech approach of
arming people to protect themselves had been taken.
I'm tired of talking. But being a sane gun owner, I always try to
negotiate and educate first ... using deadly force only as a last
resort.
====
- -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:21:34 +1000 (E. Australia Standard Time)
From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Headers: "From Ronald Bleckendorf"
- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OYHI1VA4000000000
Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative;
boundary="------------Boundary-00=_YN8OTSM1VA4000000000"
- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OTSM1VA4000000000
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought I had set it so the messages are all sen=
t
to Michael. I'm just desperate to get off the list. I believe it is worki=
ng
now the way I intended it to, and all messages will be sent to Michael.
Hopefully this will get some results. Again, please accept my appologies.=
=0D
=0D
- -------Original Message-------=0D
=0D
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=0D
Date: Monday, 13 January 2003 11:55:53 AM=0D
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=0D
Subject: Re: Headers: "From Ronald Bleckendorf"=0D
=0D
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:59:54 -0500, Roger Turk wrote:=0D
=0D
> Has anyone else noticed that virtually all of the headers indicate that
they=0D
> are from "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, even when the
message=0D
> is signed by Glenn, Bastiaan, and others?=0D
=0D
Somehow... Ronald resent every message right back to the list.=0D
=0D
=0D
- -- =0D
Glenn=0D
http://arachne.cz/=0D
http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/=0D
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm=0D
http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/=0D
=2E
- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OTSM1VA4000000000
Content-Type: Text/HTML;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-885=
9-1"><html>
<head>
<meta name=3D"GENERATOR" content=3D"IncrediMail 1.0">=0D
<!--IncrdiXMLRemarkStart>
<IncrdiX-Info>
<X-FID>FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000</X-FID>
<X-FVER></X-FVER>
<X-CNT>;</X-CNT>
</IncrdiX-Info>
<IncrdiXMLRemarkEnd-->
=0A</head>
<BODY background=3D"" bgColor=3D#ffffff style=3D"BACKGROUND-POSITION: 0px=
0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN: 1px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" scroll=3Dyes ORGY=
POS=3D"0" X-FVER=3D"2.0">
<TABLE border=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 id=3DINCREDIMAINTABLE w=
idth=3D"95%">
<TR>
<TD id=3DINCREDITEXTREGION width=3D"100%" style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 7px; PA=
DDING-LEFT: 7px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"=20
>
<DIV>I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought I had set it so the messages =
are all=20
sent to Michael. I'm just desperate to get off the list. I believe =
it is=20
working now the way I intended it to, and all messages will be sent=
to=20
Michael. Hopefully this will get some results. Again, please accept=
my=20
appologies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=3DIncrediOriginalMessage><I>-------Original Message-------<=
/I></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV id=3Dreceivestrings>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>From:</B></I> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>Date:</B></I> Monday=
, 13=20
January 2003 11:55:53 AM</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>To:</B></I> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 11pt" <i><B>Subject:</B></I> Re:=
Headers:=20
"From Ronald Bleckendorf"</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:59:54 -0500, Roger Turk=20
wrote:<BR><BR>> Has anyone else noticed that virtually all of th=
e=20
headers indicate that they<BR>> are from "Ronald Bleckendorf" &l=
t;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>>=
, even=20
when the message<BR>> is signed by Glenn, Bastiaan, and=20
others?<BR><BR>Somehow... Ronald resent every message right back to=
the=20
list.<BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Glenn<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://arachne.cz/";>http://arachne.cz/</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/";>http://www.delorie.c=
om/listserv/mime/</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm";>http://=
www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm</A><BR><A=20
href=3D"http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/";>http://www.thisp=
agecannotbedisplayed.com/</A><BR>.</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD id=3DINCREDIFOOTER width=3D"100%">
=09<TABLE cellPadding=3D0 cellSpacing=3D0 width=3D"100%">
=09<TR>
=09<TD width=3D"100%"></TD>
=09<TD align=3Dmiddle id=3DINCREDISOUND vAlign=3Dbottom></TD>
=09<TD align=3Dmiddle id=3DINCREDIANIM vAlign=3Dbottom></TD>
=09</TR>
=09</TABLE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE><SPAN=20
id=3DIncrediStamp><SPAN dir=3Dltr><FONT face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-se=
rif"=20
size=3D2>____________________________________________________<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=3D309&lang=3D9";><I=
MG alt=3D""=20
hspace=3D0 src=3D"cid:569F5A69-2780-11D7-9B8F-00C026240EE8"; align=3Dbasel=
ine=20
border=3D0></A> <I>IncrediMail</I> - <B>Email has finally evolved</=
B> -=20
</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=3D309&la=
ng=3D9"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D3><B><U>Click=20
Here</U></B></FONT></A></SPAN></SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</html>
- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OTSM1VA4000000000--
- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OYHI1VA4000000000
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <569F5A69-2780-11D7-9B8F-00C026240EE8>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- --------------Boundary-00=_YN8OYHI1VA4000000000--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:23:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote:
> 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> S> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3
> S> conditions only:
> You don't get my point.
> I *don't* care about american constitution.
> American constitution is irrelevant for non american issues.
My point is that if we followed our own Constitution,
there wouldn't be any violation of international law;
therefore I need not concern myself with international law
because we would never break it.
> Example:
> Kuweit hasn't attacked Iraq.
> Iraqi congress and constitution say attacking Kuweit is OK.
> Iraq attacks Kuweit.
>
> Has the iraq handeled correctly ...
> according to Sam H.s argueing SURE ... iraqi congress allowed him.
Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under
German law because German law was enacted to allow it.
If the German people had risen up against such an outrage,
there would never have been a need for international
tribunals.
> S> This American believes we should adhere to our own
> S> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of
> S> the above conditions exist.
> No problem with that.
> The problem arises if amercan conditions say OK, but international law says NO.
That won't happen. In order for us to violate
international law, we must first violate our own
Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is
already far more restrictive than International Law.
For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would
never have gone to fight in Korea. There was no lawful
justification for us to do so. It was only through the
loophole of "doing what the UN wanted" that enabled us to
fight where 1) we had not been attacked, 2) we had no
treaty, and 3) there was no declaration of war.
My point is that international law, as it pertains to who
can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and
subjective.
> For any sane person international law wins.
> If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere.
No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution,
there would never be any reason to invoke international law.
When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when
we were not attacked, had no declaration of war, and had no
treaty. If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm
would never have happened. If we followed our own
Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in weapons each
year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam. If we followed
our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on
that subject... but I do understand your point. I just
think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping
American politicians' feet to the fire. I think my efforts
should be focused on my own backyard, and let Kuwait
concentrate on its own backyard, and let Israel deal with
its own backyard. If everyone worked on creating sanity in
his own government, there'd be no need for international
law.
It is axiomatic that each individual's efforts have the
most effect the closer to home he exerts those efforts.
- --
Steve Ackman
http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?)
http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:20:32 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fw: Majordomo results
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:41:47 +1300, "skywalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the unsubscribe function cannot be fixed in a reasonable amount of time,
> which is something that has now long past then it should be completely
> scrapped as a list, if it cannot be run in a reasonable manner it should not
> be run at all.
Quite correct.
However, I am sorry to say that it does no good at-all for us
to voice this opinion here on the list. :(((
IMO, this is the only address to which such messages can be sent where
they will have any chance at-all of being read by the one person who
can actually do anything about it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael,
Please, please, please......
Fix the unsub function of your Majordomo installation.
- --
Glenn
http://arachne.cz/
http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:12:02 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Headers: "From Ronald Bleckendorf"
Yes, it took a while... but the delete key was at hand.
Bastiaan
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:59:54 -0500, Roger Turk wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that virtually all of the headers indicate that they
> are from "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, even when the message
> is signed by Glenn, Bastiaan, and others?
> Roger Turk
> Tucson, Arizona
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:52:01 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human
rights
No guns would probably not reduce crime... but will sure reduce the
number of casualties dramaticaly!
Bastiaan
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:30:10 -0000, John Sparks wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 8:49 PM
> 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.
>> > I grew up in suburban UK and almost no-one had a gun. I never saw anyone
>> > carrying a gun (other than children's toys) and only knew 2 people who
> owned
>> > guns (one an air pistol and one a revolver with no ammunition)
> Exceptions
>> > were the military and fairgrounds and the like. 30 years ago in my
>> > environment people did not get shot, none. No guns = no shootings
> period.
>> > Unfortunately that is no longer true, especially in some areas. But I
> still
>> > believe that no guns is a desirable state of affairs.
>> Why does there seem to be simply the consentration upon "no guns" as
>> being the answer to preventing crime ?
>> Why not.....
>> no knives.... no clubs.... no swords.... no weapons of any kind ???
>> Is that not exactly what every dictator through-out history has done ???
>> (remove every weapon they could from the hands of the civilians)
>> Did removeing weapons from the civilians prevent crime ?
>> Or did it simply make it easier for that dictator to
>> maintain controll over the civilian population ?
> As a debating point why not turn the argument round. Give everyone their own
> personal H-Bomb. Now that *would* be a deterrent against crime and dictators
> ;-) Of course you'd need to find some way to survive your own blast, darn
> there's always a snag.
> John
>> --
>> Glenn
>> http://arachne.cz/
>> http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
>> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
>> http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #2020
******************************
