arachne-digest Tuesday, January 14 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:52:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > > 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. > > If I am correctly informed: the President has also the right to declare > a war. (2) No, he does not... not according to the Constitution. > 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, .... War was not declared against Vietnam or Kuwait. They were both unlawful military actions. - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:20:19 -0500 From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:24:25 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > 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) No. Only Congress can declare war. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt This is the entire US constitution (including all 27 ammendments) [45kb text file] - --- Article 1, section 8 clearly states --- Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. ____________________________________________ > 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, .... Those are some of the examples that Steve was refering to where our constition was NOT followed. The US was not attacked. No declaration of war was ever made by congress. No treaty between the US and those countries been violated. Nor would have the Korean war or the Vietnam war. All 3 of these wars were 100% legal by international law. All 3 of these wars were 100% direct violations of the US constitution. So Steve is correct. If the we had simply followed our own constitution. None of those wars would have happend. - -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:26:23 -0800 From: "Ray Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq Hi Sam, Ricsi; Sam, I was going to rebut your reply to my post, but Ricsi did it for me. Just to recapitulate what we think: The only hope of mankind to rise above international barbarism, is international law. International law prohibits aggression of one nation against another, but allows defense of ones own nation if one is attacked. The 'preemptive strike' excuse for starting a war is Bullshit, and is strictly and explicitly disallowed by international law, because *anyone* can use that excuse any time! Hitler used that excuse for starting WW2. He claimed that he was only attacking Poland, because the Poles were about to start persecuting ethnic Germans inside Poland. No one admits that they are starting a war for unjust reasons; nope, every war that was ever started was in "defense", and was waged with only the purest and most noble of motives ... give me a break. If you really believe in your argument if favor of preemptive war, then you must surely agree that Saddam *should* attack the US directly, since there is little doubt that the US is about to attack him! The USA is, at heart, a very good country, with a noble set of founding values that have inspired freedom loving people for 250 years; but it has never been able to figure out that it can't preach international law unless it practices international law. If W attacks Iraq, he will have made himself a criminal, plain and simple. Ray Andrews, Vancouver, Canada - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:20:07 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The making of news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the USand thehuman rights Bart, You can try "Mrs. Best" I didn't read your entire lecture; I'm certain you feel you have all the facts straight and that I would have benefited had I only persevered. However, I can remember before I had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with "under god" added to it. The Korean Police Action was a real war that real people I knew became involved in; a declared state of war still existed in Korea when I spent time there more than two decades ago, and it exists still. I can remember when the Berlin Wall first went up, remember the "trades" of "spys" made in no-man's-land. I can remember the insane rantings of the McCarthy Pogrom, and I can remember one of the best teachers I ever had being fired from her job in our small school because she was educated, different, and "Probably a Damn Red!" I can remember carrying a gun on my hip in town, a rifle in the scabbard on my saddle ... and I don't mean just in my country hometown. For two weeks at college -- during the big tahdahtodo of Pioneer Days -- I wore a gun on my hip all over campus, not just when I was taking part in quick draw contests or going to special functions. I can remember the Cuban Blockade, and counter-marching against demonstrator because I favored getting the nukes the hell outta range! We picketted the USSR trade office after marching there from the main demonstration -- with police escort making it EASY for us -- because 'the Ruskies' didn't have an embassy or other liason office in town. I remember "The Summer of Love," I remember Vietnam and the spitting, I remember "The Long Hot Summer," and I remember meeting the producer of the TV documentary on Watts named "From The Ashes" ... we had an enjoyable evening of conversation, cocktails, conversation, dinner in a blue ribbon restaurant, conversation, and the drive to take them to their plane taking of from SFO because we still had so much we wanted to share with each other. I have lived in a purely communistic society -- albeit for only 4 weeks, but that was all the time we were cut off from the rest of the world, cut off from the propane deliveries, cut off from going to cut wood, cut off from electricity, cut off from phone service ... and everyone worked together to do what they did best and where they could help, and we were moved into town to an empty apartment -- rent free -- because with two kids in the family it wasn't safe to be 45 minutes hard walk in -40 degree winter weather, towing a sled, from the doctor. I have a lot of life experience. I also have quite a bit of college educational experience, including working toward my Masters (at one time) in Sociology. I've studied everything from comparative political theory to comparative religion [hard to tell apart at time, actually], and quit going to school because it cut back on my everyday opportunities to learn in the real world. If it makes you feel better, just consider me "too old to learn, too closed minded to hear both sides of a debate" ... and remember, somewhere along the way, that communication is two parts and two directions -- both sides of the argument/conversation, both speaking and actively listening. To the rest of you who have been possibly over-exposed to l.d., just tell me to shut up and I'll shut up. <G> l.d. ==== On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:01:19 +0100, Bart Buitinga wrote: > 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. <mega snip> - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 02:01:13 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea IF... the US followed their own Constitution... You made it very clear the US don't follow their Constitution and consequently don't follow international law either. Should this assure the rest of the planet? Bastiaan On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:23:53 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 01:41:37 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: weapons On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:10:50 +0000, Ron Clarke wrote: > 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. Two LIES... there is NO low violent crime rate in the US. The best filled prisons on this planet can be found in the US and the casualty rate due to fire arms is very high. CU, Bastiaan > 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: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:58:07 +0100 From: flox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [ot?]could somebody test my page? Hi! I updated my web page ( http://www.drdos.org ) and would need somebody, who tests it with Arachne/DOS, because i have no internet connection and so i cannot try if the counter (textcounter.org) is supporting DOS and Arachne now. I would also like to hear about display-problems of the page. Thanks to everybody who could help me (you could give me feedback at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). Thank you, flox - -- Florian Xaver http://www.drdos.org http://www.flox.at.tf/ ICQ#:59264800 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:17:08 -0000 From: "John Sparks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US andthe human rights - ----- Original Message ----- From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US andthe human rights <snip> > 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. <snip> Of course if guns were not widely available.........(but I repeat myself) Generally the examples you give are persuasive as are pro-gun statistics others have mentioned. However some facts (no doubt quoted in good faith) have been challenged. It is surprising that there isn't a body of independent academic research which might become widely accepted as a basis for political debate. > I always try to negotiate and educate first ... using deadly force only as a last > resort. My starting point in this debate was anti gun and a belief that the US gun lobby was a load of red necks and commercial interests. At least you and others have persuaded me that there appear to be some legitimate arguments for guns in some circumstances. John - --- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:07:36 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "just tell me" On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > To the rest of you who have been possibly over-exposed to l.d., > just tell me to shut up and I'll shut up. <G> > No problem, Mrs. Best. If we don't like the dialog, we'll unsubscribe. (That's a joke to add a bit of humor to a sad situation.) We are debating, among other things, the theory and practices of communism. Yet, after having obtained freedom to choose, our Czech brother has imprisoned a few dissenters inside the world of Arachne. Come on, Michael. The freedom to obtain information mandates the right to reject it. Like Moses said to Pharaoh, "LET THE PEOPLE GO". Bob ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:41:08 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: (unsubscribe quote in ... ) - Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > > If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while > killing and breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... > > CU, Ricsi > Ricsi, Were you saying that you would UNSUBSCRIBE from the Arachne list? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Welcome to Hotel California - You can check out, but you can NEVER leave. CU, 2 Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 10:22:23 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Perspectives [ original thread - Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and the human rights ] - - On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 Bart Buitinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dear friend, > > Are you suggesting this 18th century > constitutional reasoning is tricking > you to believe that the US population > would stand a chance against the US > army if ever...??? Sorry to say but I > think you're tragically wrong there. There is a huge difference between (1) winning a war with overwhelming military might and (2) occupying the land. Consider the history of Afghanistan, for example. An occupying force cannot maintain a presence over time when the local people are opposed to the presence. The native population must either be assimilated, displaced, or eliminated. <snip> > What will help are a good social system to > improve the position of the poor, equal chances > in education for their children and another > president because this one would be your > dictator if only he had the guts to disobey his > father. This may all sound a little hostile, which > is not intended. I just hope to make very sure > the Americans get to read what's really happening. <more snips> A system that provides opportunities for the underdogs will always do better at promoting peace and understanding than will a system that maintains injustice and power at the expense of poor and powerless. Information and obtainable education is power to the little people. Simply put, complete poverty is the lack of opportunity. In view of history, Bart, I submit that in the last century capitalism - with all it's problems and potential flaws - has done a much better job at providing opportunities for people than has either communism or socialism. The theory of equally shared wealth has some appeal, but it lacks evidence of practicality. Over the long term, with very few exceptions, the shared wealth communities have all disintegrated. The poor are motivated to join to obtain more wealth, but leave once they reach the point of giving more than they receive. I once heard this argument between a communist activist and a christian missionary. The communist said, "You should be one of us. You care for the poor and oppose injustice just like a communist." The missionary answered, "There is one major difference in our actions. You say 'What YOU have is MINE' and I say 'What I have is YOURS." It is the GIVING, and not the TAKING, which is the source of strength that fosters cooperation and peace. I think the same reasoning applied to military force. A nation can offer help and be warmly welcomed as friends, or it can project its force where it is not welcomed and be rejected and despised. Same force - different outcome. Applied to Arachne, I choose to use the program to offer some help to the underdogs who want opportunities for information. They choose where the road will take them. If I were to dictate the process and the application, I would choose Win-doze as a model. I added the last paragraph to make a suggested point. We can spend a lot of time and bandwidth arguing political perspectives and accomplish little, if anything. Or, we can take what we have (as a group, our knowledge of Arachne tricks) and offer it to somebody somewhere for the purpose of giving them opportunities for information and knowledge. You (Bart, a communist) might perhaps want to consider joining me (Bob, a christian) in some wild adventure to share with some poor villagers the advantages of digital technology and information. That's where the rubber meets the road - in the application of the principle. I sometimes quote a bible verse that says, "Faith, without works, is dead". (James chapter 2, verse 17) I care very little that your beliefs differ from mine. I think it is your freedom to choose what you want. It does bother me somewhat that few people (from all sectors) practice little of what they profess. Perhaps you, Bart, might be the guy to write the code I need for the HTML-DGI-DBMS scheme. Wouldn't that be a blast, a communist and a christian cooperating to fight against poverty and injustice and to work together for world peace. But, whatever you're doing, do it well. And, if it involves Arachne, then share your knowledge with the rest of us so that we, too, can benefit. As a communist, it's your duty. <grin> Butyl Bob (the organic radical) - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:10:16 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Perspectives on National Laws On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 02:01:13 +00 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IF... the US followed their own Constitution... > You made it very clear the US don't follow their Constitution and > consequently don't follow international law either. > > Should this assure the rest of the planet? > > Bastiaan > Hi Bastiaan (and others), To add some balance ... I recall a story in the Netherlands (from the late 1980s, I believe) of an American (US Air Force) serviceman who murdered his Turkish wife. After beating her to death, he cut her into little pieces and spread the pieces throughout the countryside. He was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment by a Dutch court. The American and Turkish governments (and many citizens) were outraged, because they felt the crime deserved the death penalty (which is prohibited by NL and EU laws). Not to debate the relative pro-and-con issues of a death penalty, but I will point out that many other governments (including all the Arab world) sided with the USA on this issue. So this was not a USA-vs-The-World issue, but an issue of different perspectives. Without a universal standard of 'right and wrong', every issue will boil down to how the majority of the local people view each particular issue and what they believe is 'right and wrong'. Pertaining to internal issues, that has been the universally accepted right of sovereign states since the Treaties of Westphalia. Might I point out that those sovereign rights were - until the most recent decades - applied exclusively by western European states as interpreted by western European states. (The UN is based upon, and exists because of, the principles of the Treaties of Westphalia.) I am speaking, of course, of colonialism - motivated and empowered by the economic schemes of the powerful against the weak. In this race for domination, the NLs played a prominent role. My friends in Indonesia are still testifying to that fact. None of this means that any one position has more virtue than another. We all have different histories, from which different perspectives developed. I suggest that it is most helpful and most progressive to understand those differing perspectives and work together, as friends, toward some common goals. The alternatives are condemnation and conflict, each seeking to impose its values on the other. It is unrealistic for Europeans to impose internal European values on the USA, as our different histories have led us to different (current) positions. What is most productive is to identify some positions of common ground upon which to stand, and then to work from there to offer (not impose) to others an opportunity to join us (if they are so inclined), as friends, to work together for the common good. I suggest that would "assure the rest of the planet" better than force (military, economic, or any other). Maybe that might also be a position toward which the Arachne list might move. Since we all value the freedom of information (and free access to information), then perhaps we might help each other to identify progressive ways to share information (and the freedom of information) among those who lack such an opportunity. However much we may debate various issues, the majority of the world's population have no opportunity to read what you and I write. I would suggest that this is a bigger problem than gun ownership. If I (the christian humanitarian) can agree with some issues suggested by Bart (the communist activist), then perhaps there is hope for all of us. Peace (???), Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500 From: "david gunnells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: weapons Hello Ron, Maybe you'd be interested in these: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ specifically, this page: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html cheers, david - -- "If a man would move the world, he must first move himself." -- Socrates Ron Clarke 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 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:30:52 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:31:23 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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 ... As an American I am deeply troubled by George W Bush's seeming intention to force Saddam Hussein out of power by unilateral military action. Absent clear notice from the UN inspectors that Iraq currently has or is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction I do not think the United States has the legal, moral or ethical right to invade another country that has not taken overt military action against us. It's not enough that it might have weapons that it might use against us. I think the United Staes should act together with the United Nations to resolve this issue. I do believe that during the Gulf War the United States would have been justified in capturing the Iraqi army and in ousting Hussein at that time. I fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan and believe it was necessary, legal, moral and the right thing to do. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2022 ******************************
