arachne-digest Friday, January 17 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:12:45 +0000
From: "J J Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: weapons
Sorry Roger, I must have had a humour bypass, I don't
find this funny at all.
Make your point using fictional events, not the recent
death of a man who (I hear) was not wearing body armour
but went to the assistance of his colleagues under attack
(who were wearing body armour).
The men being questioned were not handcuffed, in obeyance
of EU human rights legislation. This may seem madness, as
may the majority of British police being unarmed, or British
troops wearing berets instead of helmets in certain conflict
zones. These approaches are used to minimize overall risk
of injury and loss of life. They seem to be based on The
Prisoners' Dilemma in Game Theory where the best outcome is
a win:win situation: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
>From dramatisations we're familiar with the opening gambit of
a police interrogation, where the officer suggests what will
make things "easier for all concerned". There was a 60s/70s
police series on British TV called "Softly, Softly".
Knife attacks are a growing problem in the UK, mainly confined
to certain sections of the community. Self-defence experts
state that a close quarters encounter with an inexperienced
gunman is unlikely to be fatal, whereas a knife can easily kill,
leaving the murderer to silently melt into the shadows.
The recent killing in Manchester was accomplished with a kitchen
knife. People can be killed using many common objects, with
varying degrees of efficiency. I don't think it can be denied
that the appearance or accepted function of an object can alter
the frame of mind of the user, such that the possession of an
over the top design of knife, an aggressively designed sports
car or even a bicycle or skateboard used for stunts can lead to
tragic outcomes.
Best regards,
Jake Young
======= On 2003-01-15 at 14:06:00 Roger Turk wrote: =======
>London, January 14, 2003. A police officer was stabbed to death during a
>raid in connection with the ricin poison investigation. Scotland Yard Chief
>Inspector, Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve, stated that this conclusively proves
>knives are dangerous weapons and kill. Commencing January 1, 2004,
>possession of knives of any kind will be banned from all of England. Anyone
>who can prove that possession of a knife is a necessity will have to obtain
>an annual permit from the Queen.
>
>When asked what happened to the wielder of the knife, Gildersleeve stated
>that he was set free as it was the knife that killed, not the wielder. The
>knife has been taken into custody.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:13:25 -0500
From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Funny characters included in mail message
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 19:40:46 -0500, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
>>> ���-�a
>>> (end of quote, end of message)
>> I don't know how they got there or what they mean. It happens on
>> occasion when I am composing mail replies with the Arachne editor.
>> Maybe one of the gurus know where they come from.
> C0hq!
> These 'funny characters' are being cause by a memory leak while using
> the internal editor.
> So-far... I have had no luck in my attempts to track down
> where in the code it is happening.
So other people have this problem as well?
Sam Ewalt
Croswell, Michigan, USA
- -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:30:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft to reveal source code (fwd)
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:37:00 GMT
Newsgroups: news.bbc.news.technology
Subject: Microsoft to reveal source code
Site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/business/2659857.stm
Archive: n/a
Comments: n/a
Enclosure: n/a ( n/a )
The software giant says it will make its prized source code for the Windows
operating system available to several governments.
- --
Genecast recommends an HTML enabled NNTP client.
See http://www.genecast.com for more information.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:25:47 -0800 (PST)
From: John Vertegaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Graphics Manipulation and OT musings
L.D. Best wrote:
>John,
>First thing I noticed about your large image of the middle picture is
>that it is relatively low quality, very grainy. Did you use a digital
>camera to take it, or did you scan a photograph?
Neither. My drugstore/developer has a service that puts jpegs, (scanned
inverted negatives) on their website for downloading. The pic's come in
three sets of resolutions; averaging 2.5M, 750K, and 150K ea.
I downloaded the med. res. ones, thinking they would suffice. But even
those I can no longer find. I must have erased them when I nearly ran
out of disk space. All I've got left are some copies of an even lower
resolution. In the mean time I got a CD reader, so from now on I'll have
them put on disk instead.
> P.S. I just realized what I was writing about, and I find it
> flabbergasting that this level of technology is now available to anyone
> who can afford a bundled computer system! Ms Josephine Blow now has
> better graphics & storage technology available, on that cheapo system
> she bought, than "Lights & Magic" had for the first version of E.T. !!!
> Technology is running so fast ... I hope we can find valid and valuable
> uses for it once in awhile.
I'm sure we are. Speaking for myself, my life has been enriched
tremendously in the last decade, and almost without cost to me.
Or better said it happened thanks to the thousands, if not millions, of
hours that computer hobbyists put in, to provide "free" software and
infrastructure. And it's all there for any of us to tap into.
My hobby is heterodox economics, and this new medium has enabled me to
communicate, on equal footing, with some of the foremost minds in the
field. The fact that the truly eminent are interested to talk to lay
people, because they are aware of their own theories' incompleteness, is
something I couldn't even have dreamt of before the internet and its
discussion groups.
Take care,
John V
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:23:20 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Valuable Uses for Technology
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 16:42:17 -0400 "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
( from - Re: Graphics manipulation [was Re: Quicker loading pages)
>
> Technology is running so fast ... I hope we can find valid and
> valuable uses for it once in awhile.
> ====
I run some 16 color maps on an Arachne page - it makes a great
state-of-the-art geography learning lab. In fact, Arachne is pretty handy
with just about any subject.
In a remote village without even a single paper map, this is space-age
technology. Nobody is too concerned that the computer is a 486 running
DOS.
Of course, the UN wasn't so happy when the Kosovars created a map of "The
Republic of Kosova". Not that I was really interested in their opinion,
anyway.
See what 'freedom of speech' does for you.
Bob
- -
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:33:05 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: On Topic -- failure to load page [was Re: OT: weapons
Hi Folks, L.D.,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:41 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> Ron,
> The problem is probably linked to the fact that there are a whole bunch
> of big graphics files on that page. That could totally eat up cache
> space etc with Arachne.
That was my guess, too much graphic while still online.
> If 1.71 does lock up on the page, even using the tilde approach I more
> or less outlined above, then get back here to so advise ... because that
> would be a bug that needs fixing or a "fixed bug" that needs unfixing.
> <EWG>
Nope. After I "leeched" the whole website, I was able to see it all
(off-line) from my hard disk. That is, after I had also changed the
background colour which was "darkgrey" and interpreted by Arachne as
black.
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:54:08 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Funny characters included in mail message
Hi Folks,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:36:11 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:47 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> to Sam Ewalt: I noticed one line with weird characters in one of your
> messages
>> in this thread and am curious how those weird characters got there. Here is
>> the excerpt, quoted without adding any line-prefix character:
>> ���-�a
>> (end of quote, end of message)
> I don't know how they got there or what they mean. It happens on
> occasion when I am composing mail replies with the Arachne editor.
It happens to me as well, sometimes, with A171dev.
> Maybe one of the gurus know where they come from.
They always seem to be ASCII characters, above and below the normal
writing characters i.e. below ASCII 20 and above ASCII 128. This is the
area of binary characters I guess, maybe left-overs from incomplete
hard-disk deletions accidentally caught up in disk-writes.
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 07:52:35 +0000
From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quicker loading pages
Hi John,
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:15:04 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote:
> Hi again Ron,
> I hope I'm letting you know in time, that it's no longer necessary to try
> to find the best manual size reduction method.
> I just tried out EasyThumb. Unfortunately it requires Windoze, but its
> results are great. It's freeware from Fooke's Software in Switserland.
> Thanks again for everyone's help.
OK. :)
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 19:59:21 -0500
From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Subscribe
- --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Roger,
To subscribe to this list....
Send an 'empty message' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(no subject needed, no message body needed)
When you receive the confirmation eMail.
Simply click 'reply' making sure that the reply is going back to
the address shown in the 'reply-to' line.
(that line will contain the confirmation code)
By simply replying-back to the message... you will not have to
sign-up for a yahoo user id.
That's all there is to it.
You will then start getting each individual message sent to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you would prefer to get a 'daily digest' of all messages instead
of each individal one.
Just let me know and I'll change the settings on your subscription.
- --
Glenn
http://arachne.cz/
http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/
http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm
http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:11:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fw: arachne list cancelled
My vote is to keep this as a Majordomo list. I don't
understand why the unsubscribe problem can't be fixed.
I have been on other Majordomo lists for years that
were maintained by people a lot less knowlegeable than
Michael, and there have never been any problems. Why
can't Michael (or a trusted volunteer) just manually
delete the addresses of the people who have been
trying to get off the list until the unsubscribe
function can be fixed? I mean, how much time could
that take?
Binky
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:09:36 +0200 (EET)
From: Cristian Burneci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fw: arachne list cancelled
Sendmail has very ugly config files and it is hard enough to configure
it without any help from an automatic configuration tool. In addition to
that, there are this Majordomo config troubles
I wonder if time has come for Michael to try and switch to qmail and its
companion ezmlm (for mailing lists). Both ISPs I use are employing qmail.
It also took me less than two hours to compile and figure out how to
install qmail and to instruct it to masquerade my e-mail address (as you
can see in this e-mail's header). Qmail is more stable and versatile than
sendmail and it is modular (this is why it doesn't require one huge and
cryptic config file, but a bunch of much smaller and simpler ones).
The biggest trouble with Qmail is setting it up to deliver mail to any
domain. (needs some additional software; by default qmail has a very
weird policy to prevent relaying), but it can be done.
C.B.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Binky wrote:
> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 01:11:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: Binky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fw: arachne list cancelled
>
> My vote is to keep this as a Majordomo list. I don't
> understand why the unsubscribe problem can't be fixed.
> I have been on other Majordomo lists for years that
> were maintained by people a lot less knowlegeable than
> Michael, and there have never been any problems. Why
> can't Michael (or a trusted volunteer) just manually
> delete the addresses of the people who have been
> trying to get off the list until the unsubscribe
> function can be fixed? I mean, how much time could
> that take?
>
> Binky
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:27:47 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi Steve!
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.
S> My point is that if we followed our own Constitution,
S> there wouldn't be any violation of international law;
*IF*
S> therefore I need not concern myself with international law
S> because we would never break it.
but what if US did not follow its own constitution (trying to kill Fidel
Castro, supporting Saddam Hussein, Taliban, Al qaida, ...)
Or what id us follows its constitution, but STILL breaks international law ?
>> 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.
S> Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under
S> German law because German law was enacted to allow it.
So Hitler did not break any laws, because He changed his constitution ??
Strange ... IMHO he *DID* break law.
And if America attacks (without UN mandate, or without being actively
attacked) it will as well.
S> If the German people had risen up against such an outrage,
S> there would never have been a need for international tribunals.
To be honest I don't see any American outrage against Bush ...
it's the exact opposit ... this idiot has never been that popular !
>> 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.
S> That won't happen.
Says who ??
I bet that we will see *VERY* soon !!
S> In order for us to violate international law, we must first violate our
S> own Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is already far
S> more restrictive than International Law.
US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights ...
as in the UN human rights charta ...
But anyways ... we will see very soon, and I very much hope that you are right.
S> For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would never have
S> gone to fight in Korea.
First you say that this will never happen, than you give an example when it
happened ?????????
How does this go together ??
S> My point is that international law, as it pertains to who
S> can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and subjective.
no problem with that.
If american law does not allow it, do not do it.
If international law does not allow it, do not do it.
Nobody will ever get problems by *NOT* starting a war.
The problem is that Bush does shi*s on international law.
>> For any sane person international law wins.
>> If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere.
S> No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution,
S> there would never be any reason to invoke international law.
As your example above shows this is not the case, so international law is VERY
important.
S> When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when
S> we were not attacked
Here you have to differentiate:
1) international law ... Kuweit has been attacked.
It is OK to help a country which has beent attacked.
2) us law
But the US wanted the war soooooo much, because if there were no war, Saddam
would have controoled 15% (?? have read the numbers, but have forgotten the
exact one) of the oil in the world.
And America needs oil to make $$$
S> If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm would never have
S> happened.
Another example of not following your own const. ... above you said that this
will never happen !
S> If we followed our own Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in
S> weapons each year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam.
Exactly what I mean ...
This is what I mean that there are other ways in the "war" against terror.
(war is a very bad word here ... it is a fight against international terrorism)
S> If we followed our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on
S> that subject... but I do understand your point.
S> I just think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping
S> American politicians' feet to the fire.
No problems with that.
But still we have to deal with situations where america illegally attacks
another backyard.
We will see what happens ... maybe everything will go right ...
S> If everyone worked on creating sanity in his own government, there'd be
S> no need for international law.
And if nobody would steal, we wouldn't need fences.
But this is simply not the case.
S> Steve Ackman
CU, Ricsi
- --
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> The world's a stage, but most of us are stage hands <=-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:35:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fw: Majordomo results
from "skywalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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.
Remember when the list went down for about 40 days last summer (?), when
Michael was away? It seems overdue for something like that to happen again.
I also remember shorter downtimes.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:35:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: actiontec modems
from "Vasily Zatsepin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> somehow :) I've lost traces of Ralf Brown's PCI program. Can you help me
> with the link, please?
Latest link I find is in the PCICFG.TXT file, and maybe some other Arachne users
might also be interested:
<<UPDATES>> The newest version of the PCICFG.DAT file (as well as the
full distribution archive) is always available at
http://www.pobox.com/~ralf/files.html#RBpci
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:35:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
I heard on National Public Radio about the USA planning to use land mines in
their military campaign in Iraq, contrary to the wishes of most of the rest of
the world who wanted to ban land mines. The USA also planned to use cluster
bombs. If there were land mines hidden under the White House lawn, then I bet
the US President would join the clamor to ban land mines. Lesson is that only
American lives and limbs count, other people are somehow a lesser breed, less
than fully human. I can see why 75% of Europeans view the USA as a greater
threat to world peace than Iraq or North Korea.
I remember from my days in Atlanta GA, 1985-1989, hearing about the mandatory
gun law in Kennesaw, which is in Cobb County to the northwest of Atlanta.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:16:49 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi Sam!
14 Jan 2003, "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about
>> international law.
SE> As an American I am deeply troubled by George W Bush's seeming
SE> intention to force Saddam Hussein out of power by unilateral
SE> military action.
SE> Absent clear notice from the UN inspectors that Iraq currently
SE> has or is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction I do not
SE> think the United States has the legal, moral or ethical right to
SE> invade another country that has not taken overt military action
SE> against us.
Thanx very much for your oppinion.
I have exactly the same oppinion.
SE> I do believe that during the Gulf War the United States would have
SE> been justified in capturing the Iraqi army and in ousting Hussein
SE> at that time.
Yes ... I think so too ...
SE> Sam Ewalt
CU, Ricsi
- --
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> If we left the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy <=-
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:54:17 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi Samuel!
13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
SH> For a European mind which understands anything about the need to
SH> safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies")
SH> there is another possibility.
NO
see below why.
SH> The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the
SH> proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he
SH> would have to cite his secret sources.
I haven't said that he should present it to the public.
But to the UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dammed, this is a big difference !!
It is their job to find the weapons, and destroy them.
Bush says that he knows where they are, but he doesn't say, because he wants to
attack the Iraq and take the oil.
SH> If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its
SH> oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran.
SH> Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq.
no ... much more is simply wrong.
But US still doesn't dare to rob without a "reason".
And Iraq and Saddam are in the eyes of Bush good reasons.
>> 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.
SH> It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject
SH> to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them.
THIS is the question.
As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court.
SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon
SH> does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he
SH> wants.
Sure not ...
but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this weapon.
This is a murder, and has to be punished.
And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him (breaking
law and UCMJ) to kill the person ??
SH> You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be
SH> accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under
SH> the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather
SH> see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system
SH> rather than by an international court?
SURE ...
this is clear.
And this will be the case.
Principle of subsidiarity.
But what if Bush illegally starts war ??
Will he than be punished by american lawy ??
>> 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 ...
SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a
SH> fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ.
This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared.
It is exactly the other way round.
We need international law to be fair, because America has shown often that it
is incapable of being fair.
SH> The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the
SH> President.
I DO NOT CARE.
Really, believe me I couldn't care less.
International law is signed into law by the whole world (nearly).
So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america illegally
hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!!
SH> Also, if someone is threatening you by pointing a gun at you, it is
SH> legal for you to shoot at him *before* he shoots at you
But this is not the case.
The case is as following:
Iraq may has mass destruction weapons.
UN sent inspectors to find and destroy them.
US says they know where they are.
Hans Blix (boss of the insepctors) said that this information would
tremendously help.
US does *NOT* say where they are, because they *WANT* to shoot.
Somebody points a gun at you, police comes and wants to take away the gun from
tha attacker, but you don't tell the police where the gun is, because you want
to shoot the attacker, and take his pointing the gun at you as an alibi.
THIS is the current situation.
>> SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first
>> If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely
>> ILLEGAL.
SH> The US does not need to have a UN mandate to attack a country, even if
SH> some world court thinks it is illegal. The participants in the attack
SH> will not have to face the world court.
EXACTLY THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
THE SHOUTING IS ABSOLUTELY INTENTIONAL BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER EVER READ SUCH A
BIG PILE OF SHIT IN MY WHOLE LIVE!!!
You are right the US does not need the mandate to start a war.
It does only need it to start the war legally.
If US doesn't have the mandate than it is an agressor, like Germany was to
Poland in WW2.
>> There are no arguments for starting a war ...
SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument.
A war can't prevent the starting of a war.
Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one.
QED.
PS: the ones who can prevent the war are the UN weapon inspectors.
>> American court has NOTHING to do with it !!
SH> American courts have EVERYTHING to do with it.
nothing
Hitler lets kill millions of jews.
German court says OK ... so for you this is OK ???
Or what ?
SH> When international laws conflict with American values, american
SH> values will take precedence as far as Americans are concerned.
as long as an american kills an american, yes
but otherwise NO !!!!!!!!!!!
SH> Americans will not tolerate any domination by World Government.
It is the other way round.
THE WORLD WILL NOT TOLERATE US DOMINATION.
If America kills austrians, than American law is to be applied ??
WHY ??
>> Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED.
SH> By whom?
by the world.
SH> by some international court, or by a military court-martial
SH> proceeding as prescribed in the UCMJ?
depending.
If it is inter american, than by some american court, ucmj whatever.
otherwise by the international comunity.
>> SH> Americans want to do their own thing.
>> I don't care ...
>> america is bound to international law, just like any other country.
>> America is not better or worse like any other country !!!!
SH> There is nothing in the US Constitution which binds the US to
SH> international law.
And exactly this is the problem.
There is also nothing there that binds them to human rights.
THER SHOULD BE.
SH> There are some military field manuals which say that international law
SH> shall be respected.
Another problem.
It has to be respected.
SH> The military field manuals reflect standard training and official
SH> military doctrine and policies. They must be observed and followed.
SH> Failure to adhere to the book is prosecutable as an offense under the
SH> UCMJ, but not under the International Court.
The international law describes also policies, not following them will lead to
prosecution of the international comunity.
>> But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but
>> a WORLD ISSUE ...
SH> America doesn't go to war without reasons that are justifiable to
SH> the great majority of Americans.
I DON NOT CARE ANYTHING ABOUT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS.
Hitler asked "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg". And Germans said YES
Do you want the total war.
Germans said yes.
So the majority of germans agreed, so it was OK to start WW2.
>> Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says
>> it is OK, doesn't mean it is OK.
SH> You are sooo paranoid. No US court would say this is OK.
As long as this is so, there is no to fight International law.
But America does ...
>> And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ...
>> only iraqi people can do so.
SH> Sure. For that reason the US would attempt to install in power
SH> an Iraqi leader who, unlike Sadam, is popular with his own people.
America has no right to install anything outside america !!!!!!
>> 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 ??
SH> No, YOU cannot legally do that.
exactly.
Same applies to America.
SH> However, it would be a perfectly legal thing for a hypothetical enemy
SH> soldier to do if he were able to sneak in undetected while wearing the
SH> enemy uniform and while bearing arms openly.
No it were as illegal.
Why should it be legal ?
(if they were in war, than sure it were legal, but they aren't)
>> 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> I did not say that.
You did, and you did it again.
If america attacks X, than american law is to be applied.
This means nevermind what/where america does crimes, America is the one to
judge.
SH> US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious
SH> taboos, etc.
Again I couldn't care less about american policy.
American policy has nothing to do with it.
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
PS: How
http://heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13972/1.html
- --
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> 1st Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr... <=-
------------------------------
End of arachne-digest V1 #2025
******************************
