arachne-digest Saturday, January 18 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:22:38 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:27:47 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Steve! > 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights ... > as in the UN human rights charta ... There are some things that you perceive as being the MOST *BASIC* human rights that the framers of the US Constitution do not agree with. The UN human rights declarations calls for providing a guaranteed income to everybody. The US Constitution does not. What about the problem of people who are capable of working, but who would rather receive welfare handouts instead of getting a job? They all say that they cannot get a job, but this is a lie. Also the UN human rights declaration provides for the mandatory public education of children. The US Constitution does not. What about the parents who don't want to send their children to public school because they don't agree with what is being taught in the public schools? The US Constitution provides for the people to own weapons to provide for their security. There is nothing in the UN human rights declaration recognizing the right of the people to own weapons. Recently the UN attempted to ban the private possession of small arms from all the world's peoples. The proposed ban would be imposed on all nations and on all cultures. The ban would include even all the types of guns which are designed primarily for hunting and recreational uses. Even in todays's very modern and highly developed world there are still many societies whose survival still depends on hunting-and-gathering. The UN resolution would have sought to repress such societies rather than to recognize their right to continue to carry on with their harmless and peaceable ways of living. Also the UN human rights declarations would require that the children living in such societies should be rounded up and transported to government administrated schools very far from their home environment in order that they may receive the "benefit" of mandatory public education. The UN feels that they should be instructed and indoctrinated in some ideas and laws and customs and religions that their parents want to protect them from. Also the government wants to instruct them in the language which the government thinks should be the correct language for them to speak. When the last original native speaker dies, his language dies with him because there is nobody left who can teach it, thanks to mandatory public education. The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited world languages and cultures and religions. Why should all the world's peoples regard the UN human rights declarations as being so protective of the best interests of humanity? True freedom and responsible democracy arises from respect for human life and from appreciation for human diversity and individuality. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:08:40 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Anarchy and Arachne Hi all (and especially our European members), Some thoughts on fact and fiction, anarchy and order, and (of course) Arachne ... In the field of international relations the current world situation is considered *anarchy*, since the world is made up of a collection of sovereign states (above whom there is no absolute authority). This is the direct consequences of the Treaties of Westphalia, which resulted in the agreed position (of the earthly monarchs) that the physical (geographical) realm was the rightful domain of the various kingdoms and the spiritual (non-physical) realm was the (only) rightful domain of the Pope. Essentially, these were mutual, non-aggression treaties to prevent the Pope from dispatching one kingdom to march on another. It limited (by mutual agreement of the kings) the authority of the church to manage physical affairs internal to the kingdoms. It created the European concept of sovereign states (kingdoms owing allegiance only to God) based on geographical boundaries. Any peasant would have agreed that what was good for the king was not necessarily good for the kings servants. But, the king was always king. So, in due course, the kingdoms weakened and peasants developed privileges and rights. A mercantile class developed (which, in turn, grew stronger and enslaved the lesser classes) and colonialism spread throughout the world - including across the Atlantic to the Americas. A certain amount of the American sentiment is a historical reaction to European history. America's very existence is based upon the rejection of royal privilege and an adherence to the concept of individual rights. And, it seems, most of Europe (and the world) would now agree with those basic principles. Not that the American way is necessarily perfect, but it does have worldwide appeal. Why then, having rejected subjection to self-imposed authorities, should America be so eager to rush to submit itself to a collection of sovereign states which, by any rational and objective examination of facts, has never been capable of achieving what America, separately, has achieved? Why, having established a system of checks and balances to insure the continuances of those hard earned rights, should the American people abandon their historical ways and risk all that they have achieved merely because of the desires of others that America should join their cause? Why is it considered irrational for America to maintain a consistent course which has been historically beneficial, and considered rational to abandon a system that works merely to institute one that is broken? The argument asks that America risk everything, with no assurance of any future benefit - or even any assurance of a future. In the USA, the argument is suspect because it comes from the voice of one who, in different and various ways, also imposes its self-determined rights upon the world. That voice is the collective voice of Europe, echoed through the halls of the various European institutions and the United Nations. It is not that there are no merits in any of the European positions or perspectives. America's major objection is that Europe announces that America must adhere to universal standards, yet Europe simultaneously maintains the status of sovereign states. The two positions are contradictory. Absolute authority in any area (e.g., the International Court) contradicts the sovereign status of states. The American consensus is that each issue should be examined on its own relative merits. Given the current situation of global anarchy, the rational approach is for each sovereign state to make choices based upon what is most beneficial to the individual state. It is irrational and selfish for others to demand differently, while simultaneously maintaining their own sovereignty. There is an inherent contradiction in the system, for what is *good* for one state may be *bad* for another. Yet there exists no mechanism (within the current order) to solve this dilemma, except perhaps by fostering goodwill and understanding between the two states (or, more precisely, the PEOPLES of the two states). When it works, it's a thing of beauty and unity. When it fails, chaos reigns. That is why the system is called *anarchy*. What is MOST helpful to all is exchanging the facts upon which each sovereign group has based its decisions, and allowing the critical and honest examination of such facts. I've observed this happening in the Arachne list concerning gun control, and (I think) it has led to better understanding between those of us from differing schools of thought. Perhaps we might find Arachne helpful for even greater dialog. Arachne, as a tool, is very useful for providing people with a means to develop and present their *facts* to others. So far, most of our dialog has been *text only*. But pictures are worth a thousand words. I, for one, would welcome some solid facts on global domination, the lust for oil and the quest for war, the relative threats of Iraq and Korea, etc. And pictures would be welcomed. (Video, launched from Arachne with the Quick View player, would be even better). However, consider that ... A factual statement, devoid of opinion, is a powerful argument. An expressed opinion, devoid of facts, pollutes the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and weakens the ozone layer - a concern that, I have been told, we should all take more seriously. Trying to find understanding in a world of chaos ... Bob ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:44:51 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > >>> 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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. Hi Ricsi, My favorite quotation from the Vietnam War era (er, um, Vietnam Police Action) was something to the effect of ... "We had to destroy the village to save it". I can't remember if that was real or from a movie, but it seemed to capture the spirit of the moment. In some ways, it still does. (But, there are two sides to every coin. I'm still trying to figure out the state of the world.) Bob ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: Iraq vs. N Korea Hi Samuel! 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights >> ... as in the UN human rights charta ... SH> There are some things that you perceive as being the MOST *BASIC* SH> human rights that the framers of the US Constitution do not agree SH> with. No problem with that. This is the problem of the americans. MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide affairs. THIS is not possible. [Cultureal differences] Some minor points ... I did not mean to include the charta word by word. It would be enough to include the most vital things. Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. (guaranteed minimal income) The minimal income is so minimal that it is just enough to survive. IMO american social/health system is total crap. But again this is MO, and I don't care, because I'm not affected ... this is america's problem (eductation) There is no "don't agree". There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can intervene. For me this is the best system available. And it saves the children from misguided parents. In America it is possible that children grow up with the thought that black/white/purple whatever people are inferior. In Europe the child would at least hear something different in school. Everything has pros and cons. SH> The US Constitution provides for the people to own weapons to provide SH> for their security. There is nothing in the UN human rights SH> declaration recognizing the right of the people to own weapons. Naturally not - THANX GOD !!!!!! For me this is no basic human right. (and for most of the world) Naturally if a nation is still wants such achaic things they can additionally include it. SH> The UN feels that they should be instructed and indoctrinated in some SH> ideas and laws and customs and religions that their parents want to SH> protect them from. First ... religion is not part of education. Everybody is entitled to additionally and freely take religious education. And yes. The UN and me think that there is basic knowledge that every human being should know. This is not indoctrination. Indoctrination is what is done on CNN and Fox-news. When I first saw that I thought it was a joke. BIG american falgs blowing in the wind, taking away 25% of the screen. For example a german family left germany, because the children were taught that there is evolution, and that the world was not created in 6 (7) days. For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a diversity of oppinions. SH> When the last original native speaker dies, his language dies with him SH> because there is nobody left who can teach it, thanks to mandatory SH> public education. NO !!! Exactly the opposit is true. There are many courses for the people where they can learn their native tongue. There are classes with 2 teachers, one speaking the native tongue, and who supports the pupils. SH> The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited world SH> languages and cultures and religions. What is the UN. It is an organization formed by the world governments. So, no you couldn't be more wrong. Because the world's governments can never form a world government. SH> True freedom and responsible democracy arises from respect for human SH> life and from appreciation for human diversity and individuality. I 100% agree. And exactly this is the basic notion of the human rights. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Work 8 hours,sleep 8 hours; but not the same 8 hours <=- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:13:20 From: Alejandro Lieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: New menu dialer for DOS I have uploaded an early release of DIAL_IP.BAT The idea is that you modify this batch file to suit your needs. You dial once, and can run several programs (protocols) without need of redialing. It runs with Arachne, Lynx, PMail, POPMAIL, Minuet, UKA_PPP, Bobcat, several FTPs, Conex telnet, etc. You configure each program in different directories. If you use ARACHNE, modify ARACHNE.CFG as: [profile] Connection READY Hangup NUL [tcp/ip] IP_Address WATTCP TCPconfig TCP.CFG This program runs in any 80286/80386 with a VGA color display. Dounload DIAL_IP from: www.limasa.com.ar/dial_ip.zip Free good Sans Serif fonts for MS-DOS at: www.limasa.com.ar/novafont.zip Configurable dialing menu for several DOS internet programs at: www.limasa.com.ar/dial_ip.zip - ---------------------- Ing. Alejandro Lieber Rosario Argentina lima[at]citynet.net.ar - ---------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:45:48 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Can someone contact Charon ?? Really would like to get confirmation that the firey rings of Hades have frozen over ... Billy Gates announced yesterday that Microsoft will declare it's first dividends in the history of the corporation!!!! He must have been reading what I, and other in the gno, have been saying about stock maniuplation being the primary source of his wealth [the man defines "filthy rich"]. - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:57:23 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: OT: Granny Oakley ARMY, MARINES VYING FOR 84-YEAR-OLD GRANDMOTHER (Liberally modified from AP news article, January 16, 2003) It is rumored that both the army and marines are investigating whether they can hire an 84-year-old Arkansas grandmother to teach marksmanship. The woman, who prefers to be known as, "Granny Oakley," was recently arrested for shooting her son-in-law in an apparent land dispute. She shot and killed her son-in-law with one shot from an open sight .22 caliber rifle at a distance of 220 yards. Army and marine sources, who do not wish to be identified, privately state, "We could use a grandmother like that!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:48:33 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:35:46 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: > 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. Modern land mines such as those deployed by the US are equipped with a time worm which causes them to auto-deactivate after a pre-determined time. They will not remain active long after the conflict is over. The land mines that are causing all the problems are those which are cheaply produced in other countries and not provided with the time-worm feature. US regulations require that mine fields be very accurately plotted and mapped so the recovery and explosive ordnance disposal operations may be conducted without danger. Mine fields save lives in that their emplacement requires fewer defenders to deny passage of an aggressor. Machine guns deployed for defensive use are said to save lives for the same reason. Here is a fact that is shocking but true, and stranger than fiction: Machine guns were invented and developed by medical doctors for the purpose of saving lives. A narrator on the History Channel, Arthur Kent, backs up that seemingly false assertion as being true. Mr. Kent agrees that despite the lofty and noble purpose for the invention of machine guns, the overall result might have been a great increase in battlefield deaths. Battles fought in very ancient times more than several hudred years before the invention of gunpowder resulted in many more casualties than any battlefield statistics you can cite from modern warfare. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:08:07 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:54:17 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > 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. The UN weapons inspectors have the need to know, but do they have the clearance? Both the need to know AND the clearance is required. Even if the inspectors had the clearance they might not get provided with the information they need because of fear of possible compromise which could result from theft of documents or kidnapping and torture, etc. > 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. There cannot be a "reason" by which the US could justify outright robbing. >>> 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. The US law will not allow a US servicemember to get dragged into an international court. The US law protects them from that. It is for American courts to determine whether US servicemembers are following the UCMJ. International courts do not have the authority to make rulings on such matters. Even if they were to be so high-handed as to assert such authority, their rulings would not count because they could not enforce them. > 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. There is a current executive order prohibiting the assassination of political leaders. Anyone violating this order will be punished accordingly. > And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him (breaking > law and UCMJ) to kill the person ?? It is an unlawful order. The person receiving the order has the duty to disobey it. If he obeys an unlawful order he will be subject to prosecution and punishment under the UCMJ. > 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 ?? Yes. >>> 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. Well, you have said yourself that Austrian soldiers should be tried in their own military courts for alleged violations of their military laws, and I agree with that. What is wrong with my thinking that US soldiers should be tried in their military courts for alleged violations of their military laws? > 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. Has Austria always been 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). Those who have not ratified it have no moral or ethical obligation to follow it. Member nations of the UN have the right to pick and choose which international understandings they want to support. If I go to a billiard parlor and find a group of players who don't want to play by my rules, then I can play with the folks at another table who agree to play by my rules. The UN is like a billiard parlor where all the players can pick and choose which set of rules they want to abide by. They will agree to play only with fellow players who subscribe to the same rules. If some players want to play with each other but they don't agree on rules, then they will simply negotiate some new rules to be observed by their group only. As long as none of the players tries to force his rules on anybody else, then everybody at the billiard parlor will get along. > So you think that US Congress will protect Iraqi people from america illegally > hitting them ?? DREAM ON !!!!!!!!! Hitting an illegal target is prohibited by US law. > 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. No, the US, for security-related reasons (see above), just wants Hans Blix to find them himself. > 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. Not "alibi". "Excuse" or "justifiction" is the word you should use here. > THIS is the current situation. This is not the current situation. The current situation has evolved from a very long history of warmongering behaviors on the part of the perpetrator. >>> 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 was no UN in WW2, but there were ethical notions which most of the world expected civilized nations to abide by. >>> 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. Who starts a war is just a matter of opinion in many cases. Most cases aren't so simple and cut-and-dried. > 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 ? No. This is not OK. The US and its allies put the Nazi leaders on trial, found most all of them guilty, and hanged them. > 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 ?? No. Austrian law will be applied if the crime is committed in Austria and if it appears to be an ordinary case of manslaughter or murder. If the suspect is caught in the US he will be extradited to Austria to face charges there in one of their courts. >>> 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. This is not a problem. No state or nation should be bound to comply with any code of laws it does not choose to subscribe to. This is the principle of the "consent of the governed". > There is also nothing there that binds them to human rights. > THER SHOULD BE. Why? The UN concept of human rights differs in some areas to the US philosophy on that subject. > 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. Unless a nation gives its permission to be prosecuted by the international community, there will be no such prosecutions except against those nations that lose wars. I know that is not fair, but that is the reality. >>> 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. No it was not OK. They did wrong and they lost. Even if they hadn't lost they would eventually have suffered the same downfall of all other dictatorships. >>> 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 !!!!!! The US has been setting up governments in trouble spots all over the world for well over a century. When the situation stabilizes the people will choose their own leaders and without any US influence or intervention over the election. In the case of a US colony or an overseas possession the US will give the people independence if that is what the people want. >>> 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) See above. I described the case as a "hypothetical" scenario involving nations at war. >>> 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. I said, and as you have quoted me below, US policy is to respect the local culture and their laws and religious taboos. > 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. If the US invades and occupies a country which prohibits consumption of alcoholic beverages the US will not set up bars to sell beer and liquor to our soldiers during their off-duty hours. Nor will the US allow servicemembers to proselitize for their religion in a country which prohibits it. Also the US will not allow their servicemen to be seen holding hands with their girlfriends in a country which prohibits public display of even the mildest forms of physical affection. All of these things are legal in the US, but US policy for behavior in other countries is to respect the local laws and religious taboos. > 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. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:15:32 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Anarchy and Arachne These thoughts are a work of art... thank you Bob. A work of art should not be disturbed, so I do not make comments into this work. Yes, our discussions on the Arachne list did give some insight in the American view on the discussed matters, especialy the firearms question. It is even clear why America does not want any "world government" it has to obey. However it would be great (and right) if America listens to the "world".. how they feel, fear and concern about a war in Iraq. Regards, Bastiaan On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:08:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all (and especially our European members), > Some thoughts on fact and fiction, anarchy and order, and (of course) > Arachne ... > In the field of international relations the current world situation is > considered *anarchy*, since the world is made up of a collection of > sovereign states (above whom there is no absolute authority). > This is the direct consequences of the Treaties of Westphalia, which > resulted in the agreed position (of the earthly monarchs) that the > physical (geographical) realm was the rightful domain of the various > kingdoms and the spiritual (non-physical) realm was the (only) rightful > domain of the Pope. > Essentially, these were mutual, non-aggression treaties to prevent the > Pope from dispatching one kingdom to march on another. It limited (by > mutual agreement of the kings) the authority of the church to manage > physical affairs internal to the kingdoms. It created the European > concept of sovereign states (kingdoms owing allegiance only to God) based > on geographical boundaries. > Any peasant would have agreed that what was good for the king was not > necessarily good for the kings servants. But, the king was always king. > So, in due course, the kingdoms weakened and peasants developed > privileges and rights. A mercantile class developed (which, in turn, grew > stronger and enslaved the lesser classes) and colonialism spread > throughout the world - including across the Atlantic to the Americas. > A certain amount of the American sentiment is a historical reaction to > European history. America's very existence is based upon the rejection of > royal privilege and an adherence to the concept of individual rights. > And, it seems, most of Europe (and the world) would now agree with those > basic principles. > Not that the American way is necessarily perfect, but it does have > worldwide appeal. > Why then, having rejected subjection to self-imposed authorities, should > America be so eager to rush to submit itself to a collection of sovereign > states which, by any rational and objective examination of facts, has > never been capable of achieving what America, separately, has achieved? > Why, having established a system of checks and balances to insure the > continuances of those hard earned rights, should the American people > abandon their historical ways and risk all that they have achieved merely > because of the desires of others that America should join their cause? > Why is it considered irrational for America to maintain a consistent > course which has been historically beneficial, and considered rational to > abandon a system that works merely to institute one that is broken? > The argument asks that America risk everything, with no assurance of any > future benefit - or even any assurance of a future. > In the USA, the argument is suspect because it comes from the voice of > one who, in different and various ways, also imposes its self-determined > rights upon the world. That voice is the collective voice of Europe, > echoed through the halls of the various European institutions and the > United Nations. > It is not that there are no merits in any of the European positions or > perspectives. America's major objection is that Europe announces that > America must adhere to universal standards, yet Europe simultaneously > maintains the status of sovereign states. The two positions are > contradictory. Absolute authority in any area (e.g., the International > Court) contradicts the sovereign status of states. > The American consensus is that each issue should be examined on its own > relative merits. Given the current situation of global anarchy, the > rational approach is for each sovereign state to make choices based upon > what is most beneficial to the individual state. It is irrational and > selfish for others to demand differently, while simultaneously > maintaining their own sovereignty. > There is an inherent contradiction in the system, for what is *good* for > one state may be *bad* for another. Yet there exists no mechanism (within > the current order) to solve this dilemma, except perhaps by fostering > goodwill and understanding between the two states (or, more precisely, > the PEOPLES of the two states). When it works, it's a thing of beauty and > unity. When it fails, chaos reigns. That is why the system is called > *anarchy*. > What is MOST helpful to all is exchanging the facts upon which each > sovereign group has based its decisions, and allowing the critical and > honest examination of such facts. I've observed this happening in the > Arachne list concerning gun control, and (I think) it has led to better > understanding between those of us from differing schools of thought. > Perhaps we might find Arachne helpful for even greater dialog. Arachne, > as a tool, is very useful for providing people with a means to develop > and present their *facts* to others. So far, most of our dialog has been > *text only*. But pictures are worth a thousand words. I, for one, would > welcome some solid facts on global domination, the lust for oil and the > quest for war, the relative threats of Iraq and Korea, etc. And pictures > would be welcomed. (Video, launched from Arachne with the Quick View > player, would be even better). > However, consider that ... > A factual statement, devoid of opinion, is a powerful argument. An > expressed opinion, devoid of facts, pollutes the atmosphere with carbon > dioxide and weakens the ozone layer - a concern that, I have been told, > we should all take more seriously. > Trying to find understanding in a world of chaos ... > Bob > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2026 ******************************
