arachne-digest Tuesday, January 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 22:16:00 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Guns [was Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and
the human rights
<snip>
>> It's a pretty well documented fact that criminals are
>> deterred by the knowledge that potential victims "might be
>> armed."
> That's kinda what I meant by the citizens acting as an armed police force.
> One of the roles of the police is to deter crime.
> What I was implying is that the cure may be worse than the disease. I don't
> have any stats to back that up, but it seems likely that whilst say
> robberies might be reduced, more guns means more people are going to get
> shot whether by criminal acts, accidents or insanity. How many deaths is it
> worth to prevent how many robberies?
> You quote some interesting examples. Switzerland may be an exception to my
> theory, but other factors may be involved
> John
In Europe very few people are being shot.
Robbers are often armed but use their fire arms seldom. Why should they
if their victems do not fire back? Threading is enough.
Accidents are of course seldom.
Insanity... less than in the USA but overhere there are people too that
fire in a school or something like that.
CU, Bastiaan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:24:25 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:55:16 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
If I am correctly informed: the President has also the right to declare
a war. (2)
History learns that a cry for help from a country that has been attacked
may also result in a war... declared by the Congres? (2)
Examples: Vietnam, Koeweit, ....
CU, Bastiaan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:14:18 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US andthe human
rights
Very interesting!
Maybe the villans moved out off Kennesaw and do their things elsewere?
Bastiaan
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:21:19 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 01:06:36 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel!
> sorry ... very long ... and very OT
Very long, but very to the point (from a European point of view) so I
snipped most and make just some remarks.
> 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.
**************************************************
> 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.
> 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.
But America is not procecuted... did Panama attack 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)
If they find something... they can destroy these weapons without war.
> My problem is that
> 1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries
> 2) America _REFUSES_ International court
> 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> 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)
Very, very strong indications US wants war!
How about Iraqs rights to defend its own teritory?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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 ...
> 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.
"don't understand American values"
This US arrogance isolates the US from the world and causes hate, more
and more.
If US-citizens are captured and brought to The Hague than the US will
free them and invade allie and Nato partner Holland... the US told
us. The US could have judges in the court!
> 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.
***********************************************************
*> 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
BTW: most of the world can not think of any other reasonable motive for
attacking a state that is NOT threatening the US.
> STARTING a war is a crime.
> That is a fact.
> 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.
> SH> Sam Heywood
> CU, Ricsi
Bastiaan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:37:42 +00
From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[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.
Neither do I.
> Anyways ... I see that there is a HUGE cultural difference on how guns are
> viewed.
There is... would we all love the black bears.
> But it is clear that owning guns is no deterrent to crime, as well as the
> capital punishment is (provenly) also no deterrent.
Yes
> Anyways ... I will *very* much enjoy to see this movie "Bowling for Columbine"
Harry Potter is great.
CU, Bastiaan
> CU, Ricsi
> --
> |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
> |~\|(__\| -=> Sleep: fleeting moment before the alarm goes off <=-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:03:05 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi John,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:18:53 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote:
> Ron Clarke wrote:
>> I have found that "re-sizing" the graphic to the exact size specified
>> in the web page will do the trick best. It will give you exactly the
>> right size graphic for ther way you want it shown. PictView will do
>> that nicely (freeware), as will many others.
> But either that's exactly what I did Ron, or I don't understand what you
> mean. After cropping a 1840x.... (med. res.) jpeg obtained from CD down
> to its bare essentials, a 1173x.... (same res.) jpeg results. The later
> resized by PictView to 150x..., when called up as such, gives a terrible
> blotchy result on my 640x480 screen.
No, resize the original first. This will give you a smaller version
of the original, but with the same quality resolution.
If you need to remove some of the outside picture, then crop it after
re-sizing.
Then, and this is also important, write your HTML to display the
picture at its ACTUAL size, i.e. no resizing up or down. This will make
the picture display as is, and will not be affected by differing monitor
resolutions.
I have sometimes found that even this can give a poor result, and I
have used an alternative method to reduce file size without losing
quality - convert the graphic to a GIF, using PictView or Compushow 2000.
This will reduce the colours from 16 million to 256, and greatly reduce
file size. With a good dithering converter, it is hard to spot any loss of
detail.
> Perhaps PictView allows alternate parameters for resizing, but they
> aren't obvious to me.
PictView is highly configurable.
> So the safest is to keep the src at about 640x...
> when spec'd at about 160x.... Correct?
I guess it is a case of suck it and see. Trying a few different
methods should give an idea of what will work. It may vary according to
what you start with.
> The bottom two, spec'd at 150x100 were sourced at about 1200x...., that's
> why the page took so long to load and hence you original criticism. That
> 1200x.... was never enlarged from a smaller res. picture and looks sharp
> enough when viewed as such, and thus brings up another question. Could
> the reason my thumbnails look kind of crappy be, because the step from
> 1200 down to 150 is too great? As you said before, a 640 src viewed at
> 160 looks sharp.
Rather than think of screen resolutions, I work with actual pixel
numbers when re-sizing or writing HTML sizes. That way, you can keep a
closer control and also ensure that a graphic is kept in the same
scaling (width x height).
> I'm limited to use whatever jpegs are supplied by my source and/or
> conversion software. I really have no idea, but it looks to me that
> "invalid SOS parameters" and not "sequential" is the malefactor here.
> Steve's recoding of the jpegs rendered them fine again. But PictView
> doesn't seem to be able to rectify the miscoding of ftcolor's output;
> it reads them fine, without giving the "error" message. That's why I'd
> like to get hold of a different cropping program than ftcolor, so the
> problem doesn't come up in the first place.
Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ? Shareware, wont print, but one of
the best converters I have used. Needs enough RAM, so a 2 MB 386 won't
run at all fast, but it will use disk-swap if RAM is limited.
I can ZIP and email.
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: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:01:19 +0100
From: Bart Buitinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:The making of news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand the human rights
L, (or should I try "D"?)
Going off topic for a brief introduction seems a necessity among a group so
more or less condemned to each other as is our little Arachnian society
with a couple of people and a half (my other mailbox) which just may or may
not have to do anything with politics. Also some light on the difference
between pure communism and just communism is to be shed in order to prevent
misunderstandings, however.
Communism, not unlike liberty, or religion, is mainly a dream. And like the
liberty and the other dream is this dream used to give large masses of
people a target. The means to spread a dream like this have been
centralised through mass media, and have since only been scratched by this
here, the democratic internet. Much more there isn't to it: Those who
control the dream are those who can communicate it. Theoretically, the rest
gets to choose those, and fortunately, they turn out not completly evil,
nor totally innocent, but trying to explain themselves somehow, because a
dream is good merchandise but practise also demands some sacrifices. Yet
all dream the dream and everything is done for it.
Calling all the rest socialism, is a bit of a definition problem. Not only
won't "all the rest" accept socialism as a label, also has the word
socialism been claimed, given and thrown around to often to put it to use
describing "all the rest". In fact, I don't think another word for "rest"
is needed. After skipping prejudice from labels, they can be put to their
proper use to communicate a certain more or less defined group of people.
In terms of language, I'd say it's time to stop handing out words like
they're some disposable utility. I'm not sure of English in this regard,
but in Dutch it's becoming a habit for to invent new (or use foreign)
words to describe a (mostly traditionally impopular) group of people after
an even more impopular group added the previous word to their list of
insults. A good example is the use of the word "foreigner" in politics.
After replacing it with "migrants" in the 1970's (which is of course even
worse, because it could give the impression that migrating is a habit for
this group), someone came up with "allochtoon", having the advance that it
had no connotation whatsoever, and allows the use of its opposite
"autochtoon" for the indiginous majority (I think these words are greek
based, but I don't know if they're making sense in english). These in
official communication, are in fact culturally based definitions. One is
"allochtoon" until the "autochtoon" can't tell him apart any more in terms
of language, public behaviour, and of course appearance. The difference
this makes for colored people is obvious, and of course these words are
also just too official for private use. The other disadvantage of this
language excersise is that it's too obvious that there's something hidden.
Cultural integration of autochtonen was a key item in last years election
campaign. I was really reliefed to see the resulting three-party right wing
government coalition fall as a result of foreseeable internal conflicts. In
the 87 days this government lasted, such drastic solutions were choosen
that a variety of more specialised official slang like "asylum seeker" can
be heard in public, and with the official consequence of being subject to a
load of limitations. Next opportunity for the autochtonen to change this
will be next weeks election, so I hope you understand I'm a bit busy at
this time.
Anyway, "LD", I'm not going to try to list what's best for anyone because
it's all mainly about effectively preventing things that should happen to
no one (not referring to lost mailboxes). For communications that means
I'll just be as direct as I can, so even the worst GW would understand that
I don't mean to say that American citizens are internationally recognised
by their ignorance, arrogance, and then dollars.
Bart Buitinga
At 17:06 12-1-03 -0400, you 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
>with ownership and responsibility -- all property, all assets except the
>minimal personal stuff like underwear or photos of your girl, is held in
>COMMON with all other members of the group. The group determines what
>is best for the survival of the group. No nation can be communistic
>because size alone prevents it; what have been incorrectly reffered to
>over the decades as "communistic governments" are by default not
>communist because having a government negates the power & rights of the
>"common man."
>
>Socialism is everywhere around us. Socialism is where the "state" makes
>the decisions and accepts the responsibilities of caring for all persons
>in, and aspects of, the state. Universal health care is socialistic.
>Creating jobs to make the innept, or otherwise unemployable, "self-
>sustaining" is socialistic. "To Protect The Children" is socialistic.
>"We are here to help" -- and allowing idiotic things like rebuilding the
>same family home four times in ten years on the proceeds of government
>financed "insurance," despite the fact the home is being built each time
>on the same proven flood plain, is socialistic [and stupid]. Any
>government which believes it can possibly know what is best for each
>citizen/resident of the country, and for the country itself, at all
>times under all circumstances is also socialistic and ALSO STUPID!! [Are
>you listening, GW??]
>
>What we all should consider doing is dumping labels and simply declaring
>what we believe in enough to fight for it. If we don't believe in
>anything that strongly, we should find a hole and someone to "protect"
>us and stay out of the way.
>
>IMNSHO
>
>====
>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.
>> You may call me a communist if you like (although I prefer "socialist"),
>> but surely this last day decision in Illinois is just a first step back
>> from the point where civilisation ends and vengeance takes over mass
>> sentiments, leaving America itself in the role of murderous oppressor of
>> those going any other than the American way. (Don't get me wrong, just
>> picture the USA as a Microsoft amongst nations, and then try independence
>> for an attitude. Even the North Coreans start making sense if you do.)
>
>> B
>-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 19:56:26 -0500
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> 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
For a European mind which understands anything about the need to
safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies")
there is another possibility. The possibility that is most likely
correct is that Bush has the proof, but in order to present the proof
to the public as credible, he would have to cite his secret sources.
If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its
oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq.
> Both are inherently bad.
> SH> North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft
> US aircrafts are not flying over N Korean terretory.
Because US would have no grounds for asserting a right to fly over
N. Korean territory. The US does have the right to fly over the
Iraqi No-Fly Zones because Sadam conceded that right to coalition
forces in the treaty he signed with them after his defeat in the 1st
Gulf War, ca. 1992.
> <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.
It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Just because someone
is in the military and has been issued a weapon does not mean that he
has been given the right to kill anybody he wants. You know that. If
a servicemeber while on duty were to be accused of llegally killing
someone, then he would be prosecuted under the UCMJ, and not by some
international court. Wouldn't you rather see Austrian soldiers tried
under their own military justice system rather than by an international
court?
> 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 ...
The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a
fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ.
The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the
President.
> 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)
Iraq is clearly acting as a belicose threat against the US, although
Sadam persists in denying it. Why do they keep shooting at US aircraft
in the No-Fly Zones?
> 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.
If someone pulls the pin on a grenade and makes gestures and threatening
remarks as though he intends throw it at you, then it is perfectly legal
to shoot him *before* waiting for him to throw his grenade at you. Also,
if someone is threatening you by pointing a gun at you, it is legal for
you to shoot at him *before* he shoots at you, even if it is later
determined by invesigators that the perpetrator was only bluffing and his
gun wasn't even loaded.
> 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.
The US does not need to have a UN mandate to attack a country, even if
some world court thinks it is illegal. The participants in the attack
will not have to face the world court.
> 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.
Iraq cannot bring the US to the International Court. The only people who
go to the International Court are those who fought for the losing side.
> 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 ...
A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. Such an
argument is no more absurd than an argument which holds that we need to
fight for peace.
> 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.
The US is not a party to any international accords which recognize this,
except perhaps in areas of white-collar crimes such as patent and
copyright infringements and banking and securities frauds. The US passed
the Amrican Servicemember's Protection Act to advise to the world that we
do not recognize the International Court as having any authority for
trying American servicemembers accused of war crimes. We don't need the
International Court for this because we have our own UCMJ to prosecute
such accusations
> American court has NOTHING to do with it !!
American courts have EVERYTHING 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.
When international laws conflict with American values, american
values will take precedence as far as Americans are concerned.
Americans will not tolerate any domination by World Government.
> Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED.
By whom? by some international court, or by a military court-martial
proceeding as prescribed in the UCMJ?
> This is a very vital point to me ...
> Anything else is AMERICAN WORLD DICTATORSHIP.
The US does not have a history of wanting to hold onto for very
long any territories it has conquered in the last 155 years or so.
> 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 !!!!
There is nothing in the US Constitution which binds the US to
international law. There are some military field manuals
which say that international law shall be respected. The military
field manuals reflect standard training and official military
doctrine and policies. They must be observed and followed. Failure
to adhere to the book is prosecutable as an offense under the UCMJ,
but not under the International Court.
> 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 ...
America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable to
the great majority of Americans.
> 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.
You are sooo paranoid. No US court would say this 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.
True, but the question of who starts it is arguable. In a case
like this nobody should care and it doesn't matter because it is
very well known that both sides have been at each others throats
for much longer than a decade. There never was an intervening
period of relative harmony and agreement. Also there never was
a very long period in which Sadam tolerated the presece of the UN
weapons inspectors during the couple of years immediately following
the 1st Persian Gulf War. Surely he is probably hiding something.
> 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.
Sure. For that reason the US would attempt to install in power
an Iraqi leader who, unlike Sadam, is popular with his own people.
> 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 ??
No, YOU cannot legally do that. However, it would be a perfectly legal
thing for a hypothetical enemy soldier to do if he were able to sneak in
undetected while wearing the enemy uniform and while bearing arms openly.
In such a hypothetical case the enemy soldier would be a legal combatant
attacking a legitimate military target and conducting a military operation
in accordance with the internationally recognized rules of engagement. So
that would be OK in the sense that it is not at all a criminal offense.
If the hypothetical enemy soldier gets caught on US soil while in civilian
clothes, then he is a suspected spy and he can legally face execution
immediately after a brief hearing and found to be a spy by a military
tribunal. It is not a crime for enemy soldiers to be spies. They can be
executed for spying only as a measure to strongly discourage spying, but
their spying is not a crime. If the US were to take the position that
spying by enemy soldiers is a crime, then we would have to acknowledge even
our own spies as criminals too in order to be logically consistent.
> 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.
I did not say that. US policy is to respect the local culture and their
laws and religious taboos, etc. There are many military manuals on civil
affairs about how to get along with and conduct liaison activities with
the civilan governments in territories formerly held by enemy forces
which the US must temporarily occupy during the course of a war.
> International law, is for _inter_ nations ... so if more than one nation is in
> it.
Sam Heywood
- --
This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser:
http://browser.arachne.cz/
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #2021
******************************
