arachne-digest Wednesday, February 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2057
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 18:32:40 -0500 From: "Glenn McCorkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:40:59 +0100, Michal H. Tyc wrote: > Hi, > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:51:50 +0000, Neo Sze Wee wrote: >> Where to get ghostscript for pure dos, not dos/win32? > The Ghostscript executables for DOS (compiled with Watcom C, 386+) > can be found at ftp://ftp.gust.org.pl/TeX/GUST/contrib/PS-supp/ > (several versions from 5.50 to 7.05). > Other files in the Ghostscript package are commom for all > operating systems, so you can take them from Windows GS; > but the version numbers have to match! > Hope this helps, Hi Michal, I just tried your link and it was inaccessible. (perhaps just temporarily) This one worked fine. ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl:21/pub/GUST/contrib/PS-supp/ (same as above... DOS versions 5.50 to 7.05) BTW, Please take note of the last link in my signature file. ;-) - -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.cisnet.com/glennmcc/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:36:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Quoting SPAM ... On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Thomas Mueller wrote: > I never got to use procmail but will no doubt study the > man page when I get set > up with Linux (Slackware 8.1). Can procmail search on only the headers, or > only the Return-Path: line? Yup. Search only the headers, search only the body, search the whole e-mail. > I would like to put all the NetBSD mails in one > file or folder, coming from [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > [EMAIL PROTECTED], no advantage in separate files, > could search Return-Path: > line for "netbsd" string. Yup. Simple as :0 : * ^Return-Path:.*netbsd $MAILDIR/netbsd-folder > For spam, I might choose a safe procedure of putting > spam candidates in a separate file but not /dev/null until I look through them > all. You will soon see that some characteristics will flag your mail as *always* being spam. Looking through them all is a waste of time. Suppose there's a domain that has as its only purpose, spam. ALL mail from interbusiness.it is something you don't care to see. Further, complaints to the abuse address at that ISP are never acknowledged, nor do they make any difference. Pipe them to /dev/null before your log function and you never even have to know they exist... or pipe them to /dev/null after the log spec, and the only time you'll have to think about them is if you happen to peruse your logfiles, at which time you'll see the forged From: address, date and time the mail was processed by procmail, the fact that it went to /dev/null, and its size: >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Feb 24 01:40:02 2003 Subject: Check out this Crazy new Formula... Its Unbelievable Folder: /dev/null 2863 > Then I can save legit messages but delete the others en > masse. Maybe I could search the headers, not > case-sensitive, for a string charset=euc-kr and > charset=ks_c_5601-1987 (typing this from memory, > sometimes there are quotes) > Sure, no problem. > Spam phrases could occur in a message discussing the issue of spam; recurring > topics include improving one's breast or penis size, and Viagra, and then there > are the sexy young women on webcams or sexy web sites. > > Breast enlargement can occur in young men normally, and in older men as a side > effect of some prescription drugs, quite apart from spam. Procmail could be used as a conditional operator there. "If mail is from my pharmacist, send it to my inbox" "If [Vv]iagra is in the Subject, send it to /dev/null" "If [Vv]iagra is in the Body, send it to spamfolder" Given those rules in that order, your pharmacist can e-mail you and discuss your viagra use all he wants, both in Subject and body, and it will go to your inbox. When your brother writes about his vacation, and incidentally mentions he's trying out viagra... it'll end up in your spamfolder, where you can read it and reply. When the spammer writes "Viagra at discount prices" in the subject, the mail will disappear, and you'll never see it. SpamAssassin does better with those kinds of words and phrases, assigning points to various conditions, and then acting on the e-mail based on the total number of points it accrues. SpamAssassin can also send mail to a separate file where you can check it out, or straight to /dev/null. > I never heard of "ham" referring to legit email, as opposed to spam. It seems to be mostly be a recent usage pretty much restricted to the "spamfighting industry." - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:13:20 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript Glenn, It was probably temporarily inaccessible as I visited it today and downloaded some of the GS files. There were only 4 of an allowed 80 people using the site when I went there. (It isn't often that I get a chance to tell Glenn, "It worked for me!") Roger Turk Glenn McCorkle wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:40:59 +0100, Michal H. Tyc wrote: > Hi, > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:51:50 +0000, Neo Sze Wee wrote: >> Where to get ghostscript for pure dos, not dos/win32? > The Ghostscript executables for DOS (compiled with Watcom C, 386+) > can be found at ftp://ftp.gust.org.pl/TeX/GUST/contrib/PS-supp/ > (several versions from 5.50 to 7.05). > Other files in the Ghostscript package are commom for all > operating systems, so you can take them from Windows GS; > but the version numbers have to match! > Hope this helps, Hi Michal, I just tried your link and it was inaccessible. (perhaps just temporarily) This one worked fine. ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl:21/pub/GUST/contrib/PS-supp/ (same as above... DOS versions 5.50 to 7.05) BTW, Please take note of the last link in my signature file. ;-) - -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.cisnet.com/glennmcc/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 21:45:15 +0900 From: "Kali Mclaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS software for auction On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:31:21 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, thanks for this. If anyone has Autocad 13 for DOS or SYSTAT or one of those really expensive things for sale .... even MC4 .... I have been using the student edition for years. Now, OT, I have had a couple of very bad days tryign to find drivers for ephemeral printers (canon BJC265SP), and tryign to recover the Co-Ops Win 95 HDD which was scrambled by a hot CPU. I hate Windows with more passion.... Meanwhile the "100 year" drought in Eastern Australia seems broken, and the price of petrol has climbed past US60c per litre. If the Iraq war bogs down I imagine we might be paying European prices for petrol before long. The more I hear moral rhetoric and semantic invention, the more I see a grubby imperial resource war. We still remember September 11th as the day the democratically elected government of Chile was "regime changed". I know some of the refugees. Kali ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:17:17 +0100 From: Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op maandag 24 februari 2003 22:14, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: > > The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would get > hunted down and busted. > Why is it outrageous? There is no law in Panama that says it's illegal to take the US president hostage. > > OK, its like this: > > The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them > to justice. The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good > guys. If they do they will face additional criminal charges. The > US President is the good guy. Noriega is the bad guy because he is a > narco-terrorist. I learned about good guys and bad guys in the first > gangster movies I saw when I was a little kid. Why haven't you learned > about good guys and bad guys? > Who is determining who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys. I think Saddam considers himself the good guy. And in his own (twisted) mind, he really is. > > Neither does the US want to start a war. The US is contemplating > a pre-emptive strike to prevent a war from happening. > What is the difference between a pre-emptive strike and a war? Maybe Saddam is planning a pre-emptive strike to prevent the US from killing him? Selfdefence is a valid motive for violence, isn't it? - - -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - -- No weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq? No problem, we'll bring them some of our own. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W0K4IhQIPPgOSvcRAmM9AJwNyIYmD4bzZ/sQrW0ABy1g+UOH2ACfXKpk ZBwpl8y7CcOXYkBKc1yVQCk= =W1qw - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:18:00 +0100 From: "Aroujo Tao Savimbi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ** MESSAGE** Good day, I have to first of all apologise for taking you unawares by the contents of this message. I had to send the message straightaway because of the short time involved in what I demand of you. Please treat this message with utmost seriousness and swiftness. Apart from the fact that you will be adequately rewarded, I will forever show my gratitude. I am Mr. Aroujo Tao Savimbi, son of the late Angolan Leader Jonas Savimbi who was killed last year. I got your contact details from the internet because I really have no time and I needed an anonymous person abroad whom I hope I can trust. I pray I am not making wrong judgement by coming to you. Jonas Savimbi deposited a large sum of money with a security vault in Europe and America . The movement of members of his family (including me) is restricted. Our movement are monitored but I have managed to enter South Africa where I intend to lie very low until I complete this transaction with you. Other members of my family and I do not have access to any of these deposits with banks in Angola ,Europe and America so you can see how desperately we need your assistance. Both government officials and fraudulent relatives are trying to get their hands on my father�s wealth by claiming that the wealth was gotten through arms smuggling and illegal sale of diamonds. You can find out more about my late father by checking this profile at URL below: www.kwacha.com/edoc2.htm His wealth is estimated to be over US$1billion and my mother, being the only one with some of the documents has aided me to sneak into South Africa refugee Camp and conclude this transaction with any one I choose. I have spoken with the security company and the operations manager has agreed to release the two trunk boxes in their possession to whomever�s name I issue a power of attorney as the new beneficiary of the deposit. This security company has US$50,000,000.00 each and precious materials which my father lodged in their safe keep in America before his death so I will give you their contact and relevant documents including power of attorney to allow you access to the two trunk boxes of money. The whole idea is for you to receive this money physically, set up bank accounts in America and transfer in bits into your home bank accounts before my government even knows what is happening. My father was a rebel leader in Angola before his death. You must follow my instructions as stated above the transfer of the funds because it will be difficult for the Angolan government to trace my father�s money to an individuals account moreso, when you have no prior relationship with us. I am currently and temporarily living in South Africa refugee camp and I will be communicating with you on a satellite phone and GSM to avoid intervention by the authorities. We have to keep this transaction very secret because of the political situation in Angola at the moment. I shall send you a password and information that will include power of attorney and the contact of the security company as soon as you are ready to proceed. Could you please send your full names, address, confidential telephone and fax number to enable me issue a power of attorney to you and refer you to the security company in Amsterdam for immediate payment. Please reply to my confidential e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours sincerely, Aroujo Tao Saimbi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:49:47 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:34:43 +0100, Casper Gielen wrote: > You're completly missing my point. You stated a few times that actions by the > USA were justified because, A. the US are the good guys, and B. there is no > law that doesn't not allow the US to do what they did. > What I'm trying to make clear: > A. Everybody considers themselves the good guys, so this point is invalid > B. Just because something isn't explicitly dissalowed, it isn't a good thing. No, not everybody considers themselves good guys. Most bad guys know damn good and well that they are wrongdoers, despite whatever lies they may tell you in an attempt to convince you otherwise. If they are really ignorant and don't know that they are bad guys, their ignorance is no excuse. The consequences for their misdeeds will befall them anyway. > You are only the good guys, if the majority agrees with you. In the case of > Iraq, the majority of the world does not agree with a war. This doesn't mean > you are the bad guys, but your not the good guys by default either. Morality is not established by majority vote or popular opinion or by the UN. >> of self-defense. Self-defense is not violence. Saddam cannot conduct a > What I was trying to say with this paragraph is, imho self-defense is > violence. Maybe justified violence, but it is violence. So before you use it, > even if it is in self-defense, think very good about who you are going to > hurt, because people are going to get hurt. It is violence to tolerate violence. If you see somebody getting raped and you just stand by and watch and you don't do anything to stop it, then you too are violent. If there is no way you can stop it except by injuring the perpetrator, then it is perfectly OK for you to do what you have to do. Kicking the perpetrator's ass is not violent. Standing by and watching and doing nothing is violent. > IMO (and that of most Europeans) the price is not worth the gain. There is not > enough evidence to support what you are about to do. (you probably think > different about that). What would be gained in going to war against Saddam would be the removal of a threat to peace in the region. If we exercise too much restraint now, Saddam will be able to start a war later on his own time-table. His own time-table provides for a somewhat lengthy period for strengthening his forces and for further horrification of his weapons systems. It is a question of whether it is worse to see a few hundred people get killed now, or wait and see millions get killed later. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:49:11 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: "bounce" software or ??? I know that some people know how to make phony return addresses on e-mail. I don't and my ISP wouldn't appreciate me hacking [not negative term] via telnet or whatever to pull something like that off. So I'm asking if anyone knows of any software which will generate a "no such account" type bounce back to sender... user level would be nice, but ISP level is worth considering also. Does it exist? Anyone out there capable of writing the software to do it? I get a porn spam I know better than to "remove" My only option at present is delete I'd like to be able to send that message to software that would take the original message and add a demon bounce message and demon sender shown in headers. This alone could make someone richer than Bill Gates if it could be an option provided by ISPs!! Please someone invent it, and I'll help test to the best of my ability. - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:54:58 +0100 From: Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op dinsdag 25 februari 2003 21:49, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: > > > You are only the good guys, if the majority agrees with you. In the case > > of Iraq, the majority of the world does not agree with a war. This > > doesn't mean you are the bad guys, but your not the good guys by default > > either. > > Morality is not established by majority vote or popular opinion > or by the UN. What else is morality then popular opinion? > > >> of self-defense. Self-defense is not violence. Saddam cannot conduct a > > > > What I was trying to say with this paragraph is, imho self-defense is > > violence. Maybe justified violence, but it is violence. So before you use > > it, even if it is in self-defense, think very good about who you are > > going to hurt, because people are going to get hurt. > > It is violence to tolerate violence. If you see somebody getting > raped and you just stand by and watch and you don't do anything to > stop it, then you too are violent. If there is no way you can stop > it except by injuring the perpetrator, then it is perfectly OK for > you to do what you have to do. Kicking the perpetrator's ass is not > violent. Standing by and watching and doing nothing is violent. In this case somebody else is committing violence. You use violence to stop it. This is a valid use imho. Breaking into somebody's house, because you know he raped someone ten years ago, to attack him, in the process seriously injuring his family is not. Even when you are the police, you need some kind of evidence to do this. > > IMO (and that of most Europeans) the price is not worth the gain. There > > is not enough evidence to support what you are about to do. (you probably > > think different about that). > > What would be gained in going to war against Saddam would be the removal > of a threat to peace in the region. If we exercise too much restraint > now, Saddam will be able to start a war later on his own time-table. His > own time-table provides for a somewhat lengthy period for strengthening > his forces and for further horrification of his weapons systems. It is a > question of whether it is worse to see a few hundred people get killed > now, or wait and see millions get killed later. If only it were hundreds, I don't think the US will get off this easy, let alone the Iraqis. - - -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W/RQIhQIPPgOSvcRAtXIAJ4r50Z3jA3cPGZjaDgw3o++No2s3gCePmIG iRS97tFga4yswcjEC6GnN8E= =4B1n - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:20:50 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: International law??? Hi Samuel! 24 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sam I have to say that I really do not understand your points: - - you claim that is OK if the US invades iraq without an UN mandate - - at the same time you say that it was not OK when saddam invaded kuweit WHERE EXACTLY IS THE DIFFERENCE ? For me both deeds were not justified by international law. You say that: - - it was OK if Israel bombs Iraq without UN mandate I can very well understand the reasons (and I am personally very thankful that they did) but from the point of law it was false. Because it means that any single country can attack any other country by claiming that the other country has x (x=something) For example Iraq could say that Israel has atomic reactors, and wants to build the bomb (which is true) and bomb them. They have the same right to do so as Isreal had. What seems to be the case, is that you are extremely US centered. If WE say it's Ok, than it is OK. This implies that the US is "better" than any other single country. That the US can do things, when they think its OK, and other countries can't. And that the US has the right to decide who is GOOD and who is BAD. For _me_ this is not the case. For me the US are a country among many ... and the US has the same rights as any other country on the world. SH> There is no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take SH> action. AGAIN !!!!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT !!! ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES US LAW IS IRRELEVANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So *YOU* think that if there is no iraqi law that Iraq is not allowed to attack Kuweit, than they have the right to do so ???? >> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to >> conduct a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? >> A: What scares the shit out of europeans is the attitude of bush >> saying: Hey we don't need an international mandate. We can bomb whom >> we want, when we want as much as we want and _WHY_ we want. SH> The President has always has the power to make decisions on where he SH> wants to bomb and and how much he wants to bomb, and without a UN SH> mandate. If the US president has the right to do so, than EVERY president of a country has the right. (including saddam) And that is not the case !!! The fact that it has been done before does not make it right. Saddam invaded Kuweit without an UN mandate. This was a CRIME !! If the US invade Iraq without an UN mandate, than it is exactly the same crime. SH> Innocent people do not deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily SH> enter any building which is a legitimate military target. Who decides what a legitimate military target is ?? the US ? who gives them the right ? >> The idea of doing something against US aggression is great, but the >> picture that is cause by this is horrible. SH> There is no case here for accusing the US of aggression. not yet ... unless they start a war without UN mandate. >> It looks like these people stand behind Saddam, which is not the >> case. They stand against an US war. SH> People who deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily occupy a SH> legitimate military target in Iraq stand behind Saddam. This is your oppinion. Mine is that everybody has the right to go to Iraq and go there to hospitals, water pipelines, etc. And that there is not a single target there unless Iraq directly attacks the US, or UN gives a mandate for war. They can even stay where they are than ... but if they are killed, it is their fault. >> I only see parallels to US deeds. (Iraq was behind Sept. 11th, Iraq >> works together with Al Quaida .......) SH> Whether Iraq was behind Sept. 11th or whether Iraq works together with SH> Al Queda, is irrelevant. Not for Bush. His propaganda wants under all circumnstances to make a connection between them. SH> There is a very solid case that Saddam is not a nice guy and that he SH> is a danger to the world community and that he needs to be removed SH> from power. The US says YES. The Iraq says NO. So only an organization which stands above the country level can decide. This is the UN. >> SH> When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their >> SH> "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war >> SH> against the Serbs. The US went to war against the Serbs just >> SH> because their leader, Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil >> SH> man in world opinion because he was committing genocide. NO ... Milsovic being anything HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT !!!!!!! It was because genocid was commited. (and this is the only reason) >> I strongly oppose !!!! >> Nobody has the right to start a war because the leader is seen as an >> evil man. SO WHAT ?? SH> Most people feel that it is OK to start a war because the leader is SH> seen as an evil man. But thanks good we have laws. So the feelings are irrelevant. If you kill somebody, and you feel its right, you are still guilty, and will be punished. >> The war was started because the genocid. (And _ONLY_ because of the >> genocid) And I highly attribute it to the US that they initiated an >> end to the murder. SH> The genocide going on in Bosnia-Kosovo was not a threat to Americans. No. Here we have it again ... this america centricity. It was started because many people died, and this is against the human rights. (Sam they are called HUMAN rights, not american rights) SH> The Americans were revulsed by the genocide. Only evil people commit SH> genocide. The US went to war just because Milosevic was seen as evil. This has nothing to do with evil. Genocid was commited, which had to be stopped. If it were commited by angels, or the pope or whomever it would have to be stopped as well. >> If Saddam does now something like that - go get him. SH> He has done that. yes. But right NOW there is no imminent danger from him. So we have to wage the consequences and risks. And if the international community says that the risk of a extremely supervised saddam is much smaller than the consequences of a war, than there should be no war. >> If America finds evidence that something like this happens right >> now, they will have no problems convincing the UN. SH> The US has plenty of evidence to prove that Saddam isn't a nice guy, ONLY DEEDS MATTER. If you have evidence that there are concentration camps, where many people die per day, than go to the UN and you will get immediately your mandate. SH> but the UN doesn't like the US plans for dealing with the problem. than the US has no right to >> SH> Although he was doing very evil things, he wasn't threatening >> SH> the US or any of those European nations which teamed up in a >> SH> military coalition to stop his genocide campaign and to >> SH> overthrow him. >> But he did kill million of his own people. >> And the war was initiated to stop the ongoing murdering. (which is >> naturally against the human rights) SH> You had stated before that it is wrong to start a war with somebody SH> just because he does evil things. NO !!!!!!! I said that it is not justified, if he is believed to be "evil". Naturally if somebody does "evil" things, than this can be a reason to start a war. (PS: I really hate the word evil ... because it is subjective ...) SH> You had said that it is OK for one's country to go to war against SH> another only if the other country commits aggression against his. Or if the world agrees that aggression is justified. But not if a single country thinks so. >> There was a reason behind it, which was justified. >> I personally was for that war. SH> The same reasons may be applied to Saddam. Yes !!! Saddam is one of the most brutal murderers in history. But at this instance most people think that bringing him to den haag will kill more people than if he is left (for the moment) and extremely closely supervised. >> SH> This was seen as perfectly OK simply on the grounds that >> SH> Milosevic is an evil man >> no this did not have anything to do with Milosevic being evil. >> It had to do with Milosvic giving the command to kill many 100.000s >> of people. SH> Isn't that an evil thing to do? Sorry ... misunderstanding. If you mean strongly breaking human rights == "evil" than I wholeheartedly agree with you. >> SH> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to >> SH> conduct a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? >> Because the US wants to break international law. >> They think that they have the right to attack somebody, just because >> it will benefit them, or because they think he is "evil". SH> The US does not break international law. There is no international SH> law recognized by the US that abbrogates or restrains the powers of SH> the US Congress to declare war. The US is a free country. It is not SH> ruled by the UN. Here lie our difference. So Iraq is another country ... equally free. Why was it "evil" if they attack Kuweit ?? For me it was evil, because it was against international law. And for me the US and any other country stand BELOW the UN. Naturally only if international things are considered. So if the US says that all americans have to go on their hands. Than this is OK, because only american terretory is affected. If america decides to bomb austria, than this is not right. >> Who gives the US the right to judge over others ?? SH> Nobody has been given the right to judge over others, Than why do they do it than ?? SH> With or without UN approval, the US might decide to invade Iraq SH> anyway. the problem with that is shown below. It basically means that we go back from civilized state to stoneage. (the person with the biggest stone is allways right) SH> Saddam is clearly a threat to peace in the region. Why has the US the right to decide who is a threat ?? What happens if America decides that austria is a threat ?? will you bomb me than ?? SH> There is no statute of limitations for murder. If doesn't matter SH> whether a murderer is still killing people or whether he stopped doing SH> it 50 years ago. yes I fully agree. But if you kill more people by enforcing the punishment, than the original genocid has killed, than it should not be enforced yet. SH> If enough evidence can be gathered against him indicating that he SH> committed a murder 50 years ago, he can be indicted and put on trial SH> for it today. Yes ... sure ... and I hope he will. >> In Iraq there is no mass-murder right now. >> So we don't need a war to stop it. SH> Why should it matter if the mass murders aren't going on right now? because than we can safe lives. SH> In WWII there were no mass murders of Jews immediately following SH> Germany's surrender. Some of the murderers escaped trial and SH> punishment. The search for these killers continues even unto this day SH> even though any of them who might still be living would now all be SH> well into their 80's or 90's. yes ... and I FULLY support it. This is how it should be !!! But see above. War in Iraq will kill > 1 million people propably. >> What would you say if Hussein bombs the US. >> He would state that Bush is a ruthless evilman. >> Would it be OK ?? >> And if not ... where is the difference ? SH> Bush is the good guy. He wears a white hat. SH> The bad guy is the one with the mustache. I personally believe that this is the case. But our personal believes are irrelevant. Saddam says exactly the opposit. We need a higher authority who decides ... >> What scares the shit out of europeans is the attitude of bush >> saying: Hey we don't need an international mandate. We can bomb whom >> we want, when we want as much as we want and _WHY_ we want. And for >> every sane thinking person this is not true. SH> Bush speaks the truth. We say that. But saddam says that he lies. So we need to ask the UN who is right. SH> There is nothing in US law that says that the there is also nothing in the Iraqi law stating that it is illegal to attack kuweit. SO WHAT ?? SH> Are European countries so spineless as to feel that they have to get SH> UN permission to do what they want to do? YES ... thanks god ... now you understand. But for us it is not spineless but civilized. SH> Why would they want to let themselves be controlled by the capricious SH> whims of the UN? Because we are not better than any other country in the world. So no single country has the right to judge over any other country. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun <=- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:39:50 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: International law??? Hi Samuel! 24 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Essence: >> *) Why do american interests are more worthy than the interests of >> the rest of the world ? SH> They aren't. You stated exactly the opposit in the previous message. SH> There is no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take SH> action. This means that if there is no US law that forbids something, than it is allowed. Even if it contradicts to international law. So hypotetically if the US bombs austria, they can do so, if the US law says its ok ... see below. >> *) Why is american law to be applied in the whole world ? SH> It isn't being applied to the whole world. see below what you wrote: SH> Without even trying to get a UN mandate the US went into Panama to SH> forcefully abolish the regime of Manuel Noriega because he was a SH> narco-terrorist and an oppressor of his own people. We captured SH> Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. You take a non US person, capture him, and bring him to US trial ?? what do you call that ? You clearly forced YOUR law to a non US person. And what you have done to panama, you can do to any other country. SH> The US is contemplating a justifiable pre-emptive strike. SH> Justifiable pre-emptive strikes are not acts of aggression. Says who ?? For me they are. (as long as they are not backed up by a UN mandate ... which means that not only a single country thinks so, ... but the majority of the nations ... or at least the majority of the UN security council) alone from the fact, that Iraq can say the same. They can claim that they have evidence against Kuweit, and that they only did a preemptive strike. They have the same right to do so. (purely from the standpoint of the law.) >> SH> We captured Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. >> Who gives america the right, to drag its law to the whole world ?? SH> What gives Noriega the right to narco-terrorize the whole world? SH> Aren't you glad he got busted? yes. But the way it has been done was wrong. What if noriega would have done that with the us president ?? so we need a legal way to cope with it. - -> UN >> What if panama captured the US president and punished him according >> to panamese law ?? SH> The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would get SH> hunted down and busted. Why ?? If america has the right to do so, than panama has as well. SH> The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them SH> to justice. depends on who decides what is good. a single country can't do that. country a says b is bad. country b says a is bad. what do we do ?? ask the rest of the countries, and let them decide. SH> The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good guys. Who is bad ???? who decides who is good and who is bad ? SH> If they do they will face additional criminal charges. who will charge them ? SH> The US President is the good guy. says who ?? SH> Noriega is the bad guy says who ?? SH> because he is a narco-terrorist. says who ?? SH> Why haven't you learned about good guys and bad guys? because world is not black and white. is usually dark grey vs. light gray. I personally don't think that I as a person have the right to decide if another person is bad. I can have my personal thoughts. I believe that Saddam Hussein is bad. But in a civilized manner the fact that Richard Menedetter thinks that Saddam Huessein has commited crimes does mean nothing. I have to proove that, and another instance has to decide. This instance has to be "above" me and the bad guy. If it is not it does not have the right to judge. SH> It doesn't matter whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or SH> links to the OBL otganization. SH> What matters is that he is a bad guy and he must be taken down. says who ?? This has to stand on a firm legal ground. SH> We already have enough on him to prove he is a bad guy. who decides this ? SH> It doesn't matter what Saddam says because he has no credibility. who decides who has credibility ? for me only the UN can. SH> Neither does the US want to start a war. The US is contemplating SH> a pre-emptive strike to prevent a war from happening. a preemptive strike is a war. so you say: us does not want to start war, it wants to start war. International law does not contain preemptive strikes. What if Hussein starts a preemptive strike against kuweit. Why is america allowed to do so, and Iraq not ?? I say that neither has the right to do so. SH> Sam Heywood CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> Genius: One who can do anything except earn a living <=- ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2057 ******************************
