arachne-digest Thursday, February 27 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2059
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:39:46 +0000 From: "J J Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? >From the Washington File at http://usinfo.state.gov Q: Ari, you said yesterday that if we go to war with Iraq, the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam Hussein, would be a legitimate target under international law. Does this mean that if we go to war with Iraq our leadership would be a legitimate target under international law? MR. FLEISCHER: I think you should address that to an international lawyer. But the point remains the same -- our nation is threatened, all people in our nation are threatened by Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. We know that terrorists desire to strike the United States. We know terrorists desire to strike the leadership of the United States. We don't know definitively if that fourth airplane was heading toward the White House or the Congress. So we do know that we are at war with people who want to seek maximum damage on our country and its leadership. Q: But you made a judgment yesterday under international law that Saddam would be legitimate target. So does that mean our leadership would be a legitimate target? MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, I have no intention of becoming Saddam Hussein's international lawyer. You can find another one. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 23:6:14 +0000 From: "J J Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? Hmmm, the tale-end of my earlier message was removed: there were intervening lines each commencing with a period. >From the Washington File at http://usinfo.state.gov Q: Ari, is the U.S. government prepared to offer compensation to Derek Bond, the 72-year-old British man who spent three weeks in prison because the FBI misidentified him as a man they're looking for in connection with a fraud case? MR. FLEISCHER: I think you may want to talk to the FBI about this. This is not information that I have at my disposal here at the White House. Q: The President is aware of the case. MR. FLEISCHER: This is the first that I have been personally informed about it, so I couldn't tell you. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:11:37 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Morality [was Re: International law??? Bart, All thoughts are welcomed by me. Anything which can goad the general population into at least semi-rational thought processes is a mitzvah! As to being sent on before my time ... there's something about that terminology that opens a can of worms. At my stage in life I don't fear death, but I'd be rather pixxed off if I didn't get to do all those things on my personal list waiting for the discovery of the 'round tuit' ... Yet I try to live each day so that I don't have any major errors of import that can't be corrected before I drop dead. That means I speak out instead of thinking of speaking out, I attempt to make apologies due as soon as I realize they are due, I try to give praise as soon as it is earned, I try to encourage when encouragement is what is needed. And I don't consider that a "religious" approach to anything. It's simply the way I feel I want to live my life, what I believe in 'body & soul.' But if I live that way when is "my time" to go? Right now, or only when I'm unable to live by my own belief structure? And what about the young? I have a son who cannot even visualize his own future ... he has no idea where he'll be or what he'd be doing in two years, let alone twenty. When is his time? Death is essential to life, because resources are limited and recycling is necessary. But what is the baseline for anyone or anything when it comes to being the right time? As far as I know, there is no religion or philosophy which sets forth a specific number of years of life being "right," let alone guaranteed. And who can say what the consequences are of a single death, anywhere in the world? Where would China be if Mao died as a child? Where would the Western Hemisphere be if Kennedy were assasinated before the Cuban 'missle crisis'? If Saddam Husein's sons had rebelled against him, killed him, and taken over the country 20, 15 or 10 years ago, what shape would the world be in? Would the Turks still be afraid of the Kurds getting their own atonomous country? Would Afganistan been freed of Soviet influence sooner & Al Qaida never gotten as strong? It's impossible to say ... but lots of authors can get rich playing around with 'alternate universes' based upon those what-ifs. <G> So, for myself, I must take the stance that "before my time" isn't a viable part of the formula for how I live my life. l.d. - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:32:07 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:01:53 +0100 Casper Gielen wrote: > - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Op woensdag 26 februari 2003 06:42, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: >> Morality may be defined as virtuous conduct. Popular opinion >> frequently fails to support virtuous conduct. Haven't you ever >> noticed that? > But in the end, morality is changed by public opinion. > What is right and what is wrong changes from country to country, and from time > to time. Popular opinion changes faster and more often than morality, but it > certainly influences it. Morality has never been changed and it never will be changed. What is legal and what is illegal varies from country to country. Also the standards of behavior that are socially acceptable may vary from country to country and they may change from time to time. Popular opinion has a very strong influence on behavior, but it has no influence whatsoever on morality. Socially acceptable behavior is not necessarily morally upright behavior. Haven't you ever noticed that? Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:48:24 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:54:57 +0100, Casper Gielen wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > Op woensdag 26 februari 2003 06:41, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: <snip> >> > 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. >> How could it have been done any better? > With the support of the UN. Why should the US appeal for the support of the UN? It was a small problem and the US easily could deal with it on their own and without the need for support from the UN or anybody else. >> However we do it the US will defend it as being legal. > Ofcourse, but that doesn't make it right. >> >>> 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. >> How many times do I have to tell you that it is OK for good guys >> to take down the bad guys, but not the other way around. >> > 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. >> The opinion of the majority doesn't count. What is right and what >> is wrong is not decided by popular opinion. Popular opinion is >> useful as a basis for making other kinds of decisions. > Currently most people think it's wrong to use humans for slaves, the ancient > Romans thought very different about that. In many countries prostitution is > considered illegal, in even more, smoking marihuana is considered a > punishable offence. What does this issue have to do with slavery and prostitution and smoking marijuana? >> > 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 ? >> Whoever gets them. > So if I come to your home, and arrest you, even though my authority to do so > has not been recognized by the US, I'm free to judge and punish you, for > whatever crimes I can come up with. In the case of your tracking down a person wanted for war crimes you can go anywhere and abduct the suspect and transport him to any country you want to stand trial. Some Israeli agents did this in Argentina in the case of the Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann. The Israeli agents got away with it, despite a few insignificant complaints alleging that their actions were uphanded and against international law. Most people applauded the success of the Israeli snatch operation and they were delighted that Eichmann got busted. >> > 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. >> Often it is in black and white, like in the old classic good guys >> vs. bad guys western movies. Shades of gray are seen only in the >> so called "adult" westerns. Real life plays both kinds of dramas. > I'm stunned by this statement. IMHO no situation ever is only black and white. > Any conflict will consist of various shades of gray. >> > 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. >> I think what you are trying to say here is that one should be judged >> by an impartial party. In your case that can happen. If you were >> accused of having committed a non-sensational and not very highly >> publicised crime, it would be easy to assemble a jury of your peers, >> and consisting of people who don't know you and who don't know about >> you, and who would be able to impartially weigh and consider the >> evidence against you. In the case of Saddam that can't happen because >> everybody knows of him and everybody already has an opinion of him and >> nobody would be capable of judging him in an impartial manner. > We could try to get as close as possible. But before arresting & judging, > shouldn't there be some sort of proof? People get arrested all the time without any proof. They only pretext needed to legally make an arrest is probable cause. A person can get arrested just because he looks like the guy they are looking for. It happened to me once. >> Why do you ask? I am certain that you already know that the US >> government and its allies have decided 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. >> The UN is generally held in low regard by the average US citizen. >> Americans love their freedom and independence and they resent >> being told what to do by some kind of wannabee world government >> organization. Advocates of world government are seen as a threat >> to the national sovereignty of all nations. The UN should not try >> to be aspiring to serve for anything more than as an international >> debating society and as a place for making friends and interchanging >> ideas. The UN should not be trying to impose its consensus on the >> individual member nations to enforce conformity with the opinions of >> the majority. > Yet the US are acting like they are the world governement. To the rest of the > world, this is even more repulsive than a real world wide governement. > Allthough you consider freedom and independence very important, you do listen > to your local governement. Why? Because the local government is elected by a free people and its powers are derived from the consent of the governed. The people have not given the UN any consent to be governed by that organization. The US is not acting like a world government. The US doesn't care if some other countries require people to drive on the left side of the road instead of on the right side of the road as required of motorists in this country. The US is not trying to make everybody else do it our way. >> Here is an analogy for you: In the cowboy movies, and according to >> the Code of the West, you have to wait for the other guy to draw >> first, but you don't have to wait for him to shoot first. After he >> goes for his, you are supposed to go for yours and whip it out and >> shoot him before he shoots you. It is much better to be quick than >> dead. > And you wonder how it comes the world calls Bush a cowboy. I don't wonder at all. Bush has a ranch in Texas and he lives by the traditional Code of the West just like all the other good cowboys. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:41:01 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? Morality has changed, and continues to change. At one point in history it was moral -- even blessed by God -- to kill infants by bashing their heads on boulders. Morality is societally based; in one culture eating dead bodies to keep yourself and children alive is sickening [Donner Party], while in other societies eating the body of a family member is the ultimate way to show love and caring, or eating the brain of the enemy is the way to show ultimate respect. In France if a man has a mistress, it is not immoral; in the USA it is. Judgments of right/wrong, immoral/amoral/moral can only be based upon the where/when/who/how ... Morality is limited to cognizant intelligent animals [and whatever god spiritual being they believe in]. Because of that, morality must change when what is known changes and when intelligence is different. The problem with "morality" is that too often people don't want to "own" it themselves ... they prefer to point to an outside source of "right" and "wrong." ==== On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:32:07 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:01:53 +0100 Casper Gielen wrote: >> - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> Op woensdag 26 februari 2003 06:42, schreef Samuel W. Heywood: >>> Morality may be defined as virtuous conduct. Popular opinion >>> frequently fails to support virtuous conduct. Haven't you ever >>> noticed that? >> But in the end, morality is changed by public opinion. >> What is right and what is wrong changes from country to country, and from time >> to time. Popular opinion changes faster and more often than morality, but it >> certainly influences it. > Morality has never been changed and it never will be changed. > What is legal and what is illegal varies from country to country. > Also the standards of behavior that are socially acceptable may vary > from country to country and they may change from time to time. > Popular opinion has a very strong influence on behavior, but it has > no influence whatsoever on morality. Socially acceptable behavior is > not necessarily morally upright behavior. Haven't you ever noticed > that? > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:46:20 +0000 From: Neo Sze Wee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:43:27PM +0100, Michal H. Tyc wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 21:42:57 +0000, Neo Sze Wee wrote: > > > When I run it on a pdf file, it complains there is no gs_ini.ps file. > > BUT where is gs_ini.ps file? > > Does it requires font files? > > Where to get them? > > Can you give me the names of the required files? > > Lots of... > > ftp://ftp.gust.org.pl:21/TeX/support/ghostscript/gnu/gs550/ > > You may delete sources (*.c, *.h, etc.). > You don't need zlib and libpng. > Docs are included as html. > > Michal I am sorry, I am looking for the 16 bit dos version of ghostscript. The faq says the last version for 16 bit dos is 2.61 or 3.33 but I could not find it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:46:35 +0000 From: Neo Sze Wee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:32:05AM -0500, Steve wrote: > On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Neo Sze Wee wrote: > > > I have downloaded 5.50 and it consists of: > > > > dos4gw.exe > > gs386.exe > > > > When I run it on a pdf file, it complains there is no gs_ini.ps file. > > BUT where is gs_ini.ps file? > > In version 4.03, you needed to download 3 files: > (if you didn't already have fonts) > > gs403dos.zip (797K) > gs403fn1.zip (1170K) > gs403ini.zip (693K) > > Within gs403.ini.zip is a file called gs_init.ps > > > Does it requires font files? > > Yes. > > > Where to get them? > > I would think they should be available wherever you got > your gs505dos.zip. If naming conventions remain the same, > you would be looking for gs505ini.zip and gs505fn1.zip. But I do not see there is any files like these. The faq says the last version for 16 bit DOS is 2.61 or 3.33 but I could not find them. > > -- > Steve Ackman > http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) > http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:33:31 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re2: International law??? On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:41:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: <snip> > Judgments of right/wrong, immoral/amoral/moral can only be based upon > the where/when/who/how ... <snip> This applies only to legal judgements based on the law and also to judgements based on wishy-washy philosophies such as situational ethics and moral relativism. Even those philosophies are commendable as having some value. They are certainly of much greater worth than no philosophy at all. They reflect a very good start for one who is just beginning to examine his life. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:18:40 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:41:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Morality has changed and continues to change. At one point in history > it was moral -- even blessed by God -- to kill infants by bashing their > heads on boulders. <snip> > Morality is societally based: <snip> You are attempting to define morality as behavior that is considered by popular opinion to be blessed by God or approved of within a society. That kind of definition won't do for most people who will put themselves to really think about it. If morality were just about going along with the crowd or going with the flow, or by doing what the Romans do when in Rome, then morality would have no meaning. Unlike attitudes and opinions and historical eras and laws and evolving cultures and religions, morality is fixed and it does not change. You cannot change morality simply by changing your geographical location. You can go somewhere on a trip, but you can't put morality on a trip and make it go somewhere else. The moral position is a fixed position. It is a stable, immovable, and inflexible position. It cannot be changed by human forces nor by any known natural forces. You can compromise with the moral position, but it is immoral to do so. Haven't you noticed that is the way it is? Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:58:20 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg=20Dietze?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript Hi folks, no need to use these old versions. There is an inoffical DOS compile of GS 7.05 which works fine with the lates PDF version (1.4, Acrobat ver. 5). To build Your own DOS version get the OS/2 package here: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1897&release_id=86074 Download the Dos exe here: http://djvomght.bei.t-online.de/GS705DOS.ZIP Unzip both archives and replace the OS/2 exe with the DOS one and You are ready to go. Regards Joerg [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 26.02.03 16:43:01: > > > > In version 4.03, you needed to download 3 files: > (if you didn't already have fonts) > > gs403dos.zip (797K) > gs403fn1.zip (1170K) > gs403ini.zip (693K) > > Within gs403.ini.zip is a file called gs_init.ps > > > Does it requires font files? > > Yes. > > > Where to get them? > > I would think they should be available wherever you got > your gs505dos.zip. If naming conventions remain the same, > you would be looking for gs505ini.zip and gs505fn1.zip. > > -- > Steve Ackman > http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) > http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) > > ______________________________________________________________________________ Bequemer und billiger - SMS mit FreeMail verschicken! Mehr Information unter: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021147 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:15:25 +0100 From: "Michal H. Tyc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:46:20 +0000, Neo Sze Wee wrote: > I am sorry, I am looking for the 16 bit dos version of ghostscript. The > faq says the last version for 16 bit dos is 2.61 or 3.33 but I could not > find it. So you are in trouble. You may try to compile GS from sources for a 16-bit real mode target (e.g., with Turbo C or OpenWatcom), but I don't know if it's even possible. It will probably need at least some playing with the makefiles. Anyway, GS is a very memory- and CPU-intensive application. I had sometimes troubles running it on a 486 with 8 Mbytes RAM (when virtual memory was unavailable). Real mode version of current GS would be painfully slow and seriously limited, I think. And with these old (3.33) version, you will probably be unable to process PDFs anyway (at least newer PDFs, i.e., most of them). I hate to say this. I really hate to say this. But -- you seem to have to upgrade your hardware to at least 386. Sorry, Michal (who hates to upgrade just for upgrading and still works mostly with 486-based machines) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:19:33 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: International law??? On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:20:50 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > 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. It was not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait because Kuwait was not behaving as a threat to peace in the region. Saddam has no intent to remove threats to peace. It was just his intent to steal territory and gratify his greed for power. You keep citing some international laws but you never indicate any title and section and paragraph numbers. You don't tell us where these laws are posted, and you do not present any evidence that the US is obligated to comply with this law. If the US has not signed and ratified the law, the US is not obligated to comply with it. > 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) I do not know whether Israel violated any international law which she has agreed to comply with. I don't have a problem with Israel's attacking a country which has threatened her. > 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. It is a well known fact that Israel does indeed have nuclear weapons. Israel is not a threat to neighboring countries. Their having nuclear weapons serves only as a deterrent to any would-be enemies who might want to attack her. > What seems to be the case, is that you are extremely US centered. > If WE say it's Ok, than it is OK. Are you insinuating that Americans are more egocentric than Austrians? The Austrians might think so but Americans don't think so. > 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. The Austrians also think they have the right to decide who is good and who is bad. Right now the Austrian government thinks the US government 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. Right. The US has the same rights to think the Austrians are bad as the Austrins have to think the US is bad. Every country has the right to express its own national opinion, but when one country threatens another there will be bad consequences. > 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why should I consider US law irrelevant on international issues or on any other issues involving the US? How would you like it if I were to tell you that on international issues Austrian 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 ???? The only law in force in Iraq is Saddam. There are a few rebel groups which have made their own laws in opposition to Saddam's law, but unfortunately the rebels are not in power yet. >>> 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 !!! Why would you elevate people like Saddam to the same moral level as GW Bush? > 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. It would not have mattered to the US if Saddam had invaded Kuwait even with the blessings of a UN mandate. The US would have treated the matter as a crime anyway. The only thing good about having a UN mandate is that it tends to make you look good in the eyes of world opinion. What really counts is knowing that you are right, and the hell with those who think you are wrong. > 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 ? It is decided by interpretations of international law as explained in FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", and the sources cited, and also in other relevant documents. FM 27-10 is endorsed by NATO, an alliance of which your country is a member. Saddam commits a war crime if he orders or allows non-combatants to be in proximity to legitimate military targets. He has openly declared his intention to commit such war crimes and he has invited non-combatants to come to Iraq for the purpose of hanging around military targets. >>> 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. The US invaded Panama without a UN mandate, and without having to answer to any complaints of any significance alleging US aggression. Why should invading Iraq be any different? Saddam is just a terrorist, and he is a far greater threat to peace than Manuel Noriega ever was. >>> It looks like these people stand behind Saddam, which is not the >>> case. They stand against an US war. It sure would be a really stupid thing for them to do to stand against a US war while hanging around a military target in Iraq. There is no way the US can guarantee their safety under these circumstances. They have been well advised of the dangers of doing such stupid things. If they want to protest the US war they could organize and conduct a march and hold a demonstration where the police can protect their rights to speak out. There are lots of perfectly safe methods for protesting a 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. Hospitals are not legitimate military targets. It would be safe for them to go to hospitals, but there would be no point in doing so unless they needed medical treatment. Water pipelines probably would not be targetted, but there is no international law that I know of which forbids the targetting of water pipelines. If there were such a law, water pipelines would have been included in the list of prohibited targets in FM 27-10. > And that there is not a single target there unless Iraq directly attacks the > US, or UN gives a mandate for war. Neither you nor I are in a position to know whether a target list has been developed. If you were to call the Pentagon and ask they would probably tell you that they will neither confirm nor deny the existence of a target list. > They can even stay where they are than ... but if they are killed, it is their > fault. Anybody who goes to Iraq for the purpose of hanging around a military target ought to get arrested when he returns to his home country. As a minimum disciplinary measure he should get treated the same way as they treat people who deliberately trespass into an impact zone on a military base when the big red range flag is up and clearly visible. In addition, anybody who does such things should be committed for psychiatric treatment for his suicidal tendencies. >>> 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. It is perfectly normal and typical to find in war propaganda and also in anti-war propaganda a lot of half-truths and even some gross exaggerations and outright lies. If the majority among the target audience thinks the propaganda is mostly credible, the propaganda is effective and it accomplishes its intended purpose. On the Iraq controversy both sides have failed to some considerable degree in some of their propaganda efforts. > 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. But you and I both know which side is wrong. > So only an organization which stands above the country level can decide. > This is the UN. Why do you think the UN is such an infallible organization? There are many international organizations and associations of nations each having their own special envoys and diplomats. The UN is only one of them. The OAS is another. There are also several others. Saying that all countries ought to to follow the dictates of the UN is like saying that everybody ought to uphold the dogmas of some particular religion. >>> 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) That is just what I said above, but I added the observation that people who commit genocide are seen as being very evil, which is true. What objections do you have to this observation that I added? >>> I strongly oppose !!!! >>> Nobody has the right to start a war because the leader is seen as an >>> evil man. SO WHAT ?? Isn't it OK to regard as evil any person who commits genocide? > 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. The feelings are not irrelevant. In the courts in this country they allow the victims to stand up and let their feelings be known to all the courtroom audience about how they feel about the convicted defendant. Sometimes the victim impact statements are aired on national TV. This happened at the conclusion of the recent trial of a criminal named Westerfield, who was convicted of abducting and raping and murdering a little girl. The parents and other relatives of the murdered girl were all allowed to stand up in court one by one and tell Westerfield about how they feel he is such a wretched, despicable, detestable, and evil person. Westerfield listened in a most detached manner. He offered no apology, nor did he express any feelings of remorse. After hearing these impassioned speeches from the family members of the victim, the judge asked Westerfield if he had anything to say for himself. Westerfield replied that he had nothing to say. Thereupon the judge sentenced Westerfield to suffer the death penalty. > If you kill somebody, and you feel its right, you are still guilty, and will be > punished. Only if the court finds that the homicide was not justifiable. >>> 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 not a threat to Americans. It was a threat to only Ethnic Albanians. I support doing whatever is necessary to stop genocide regardless of whatever ethnic group or racial group is being killed off. What is ethnocentric about that attitude? > It was started because many people died, and this is against the human rights. > (Sam they are called HUMAN rights, not american rights) It doesn't matter to me what kind of rights you call them as long as you recognize their rights to live and you are not going to allow anyone to try to kill them off. > 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. OK, but what is your problem with my considering genocide as evil? >>> 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. He will not submit to supervision. You have to get rid of or otherwise deal with anyone who refuses to submit to supervision. >>> 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. OK, he does lots of dirty deeds too. > 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 According to the US Constitution the US Congress has the right to declare war. The UN does not have the right nor the power to abbrogate the US Constitution. >>> 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) Yeah, and evil too. > 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 ...) Oh, so that is why you hate the word. > 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. Bush has said that he isn't going to let a little thing like world opinion turn him around. A true leader does not allow himself to be manipulated by frivolous opinions. >>> 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. He will not submit to supervision. >>> 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. How could you have possibly inferred anything else from the context in which I have used the word in this discussion? >>> 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 ?? Iraq is not free. > 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. The US should stand tall and proud, and beneath no coalition of other nations who are out to put her down. > 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) I have nowhere in this discussion attempted to advance the argument that might makes right. > SH> Saddam is clearly a threat to peace in the region. > Why has the US the right to decide who is a threat ?? It is a vital function of any government to decide who is a threat to peace and national security interests. Your government also makes threat assessments. > What happens if America decides that austria is a threat ?? > will you bomb me than ?? Why do you keep raising such hypothetical questions that are so utterly beyond any foreseeable scenario? > 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. The problem is about having a war now or later. Do it now and maybe only a few hundred will get killed. Wait until after Saddam can build up his weapons and equipment and forces some more and maybe millions will get killed. > 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. We can't save lives by waiting. > 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. War appears very imminent anyway. The sooner it starts the faster it will be over with and fewer the numbers who will get killed. >>> 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. The UN is the infallible oracle of the truth? > 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 ?? So what? So why let him attack Kuwait again? > 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. Every country has the right to make its own threat assessments based on its own sources of information and considering its own capabilities for national defense. Also every intelligence agency of every country recognizes the importance of protecting their sources of information. In addition they have the right to keep secrets from one another. Why should every country be forced to share all their information with all those untrustworthy outsiders at the UN? Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2059 ******************************
