Hi Samuel!
sorry ... very long ... and very OT
But it contains very important views at the end.
About how America wants american law everywhere, and about the RIGHT OF AMERICA
TO DO WHAT IT WANTS, to kill people etc.
13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to
SH> each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a
SH> successful suicide bombing mission.
SH> I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true.
Exactly this is the problem ...
Bush works exactly the same way ... and the propaganda is GREAT.
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.
For a european mind there are 2 possibilities:
1) US doesn't have any proof, but wants Iraqi oil
2) US has indeed prove, but wants US-Iraq war instead of a UN-Iraq mission
Both are inherently bad.
SH> North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft
US aircrafts are not flying over N Korean terretory.
<very idiotic example from me>
What would bush do if austrian airplanes <haha> fly over texas to protect the
people sentenced to death from execution.
OK a very bad, extremely far fetched and absolutely incorrect example ...
Anyways here is what I think:
1) Saddam is a highly insane person, which is very dangerous
2) Saddam has no problem with mass murdering
3) Saddams goal is to get atomic and biological weapons
(especially biological ...)
but:
1) nobody can take actions against not yet commited crimes
2) the US has no right to take any actions against any country, which the
other countries government did not directly attack america or an american ally.
THESE 2 POINTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE ... and I don't think that US
understands them.
They mean:
If america (country) attacks another country, without before being attacked by
the official military of the other country, than america is the AGGRESSOR !
America is than guilty of breaking international law.
If the UN (stands above any single country) thinks (eg CIA shows proofs) that
Saddam is going to build atomic/biological weapons (which is IMO 95% likely)
than they send Inspectors.
2 possibilities:
1) Iraq doesn't let them in, than UN (2. letter is an N not an S) can take
measires ... like sending troops (66% america, 80% american ....
the only importance is that the actions are controlled by the UN ... and not by
the US)
2) they can do their work
again if they find somethinh U_N_ takes measures, if not, than we have to
leave saddam in peace (also we would sleep better if he weren't in power ...
there is no international right which we can use)
My problem is that
1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries
2) America _REFUSES_ International court
for point 1) see
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13763/1.html
for point 2)
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12716/1.html
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.
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 ...
This is in my eyes a much, much, much more serious problem, than Iraq, Isreal,
North Korea, etc.
And this is why 75% of Europeans think that the US is the biggest threat to
peace in 2003 (according to times survey I posted recently)
SH> and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea.
I'm not sure that Iraq supports them ... but IMO it can very, very possibly be
so.
SH> There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel
SH> some time in the near future.
There are strong indications that US is planning to start war with Iraq.
(without Iraq commiting any crime against the US)
SH> It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy
SH> continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so
SH> that he can plan his attack according to his own time table.
And it is *ILLEGAL* to attack a country which hasn't done anything.
But it is *VITAL* that an organization standing *ABOVE ANY SINGLE COUNTRY*
monitors the weapon production and takes countermeasures.
SH> If the US waits for Sadam to attack first
If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely ILLEGAL.
It starts a WAR, and *IT* is the aggressor.
If than iraq brings the US to the International court, than it has to speak
them guilty.
SH> then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would
SH> happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we
SH> should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by
SH> simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost.
There are no arguments for starting a war ...
And you forget THAT UN INSPECTORS *ARE* *CURRENTLY* in the Iraq, to look if
american unproofen accusations are true.
SH> There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any
SH> US leaders except in US courts.
THIS IS WHAT THE US WANTS YOU TO THINK BUT IT IS TERRIBLY WRONG !!!!!
SOrry for shouting ...
example:
Austrian chancelor says: "Bush I don't like you, and I want your oil anyways"
and than attacks the US.
So now only austrian court can speak justice ??
NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For intra american (only americans affected, on american terretory) crimes,
american courts are to be used.
FOR INTER COUNTRY (crimes between 2 countries) the internetional court is to be
used.
American court has NOTHING to do with it !!
SH> The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our
SH> accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European
SH> prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values.
There are no american values.
There are international laws.
Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED.
This is a very vital point to me ...
Anything else is AMERICAN WORLD DICTATORSHIP.
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> We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us.
No problem.
As long as america STAYS ON *ITS* terretory, nobody will intervene.
But if america starts wars, than this is not americas thing ... but a WORLD
ISSUE ...
If W says I don't like Ricsi ... let's kill him.
And they send a drone or squad that kills me here in Austria.
Than the US has commited a crime, and only because a US court says it is OK,
doesn't mean it is OK.
And my relatives HAVE ALL RIGHT to go to the international court, and ask for
right.
If we disagree here, than there is no use speaking on.
This is the most basic thing.
SH> I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are
SH> not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and
SH> occupying their territory and to steal their oil.
See above ... the intentions ARE NOT IMPORTANT
STARTING a war is a crime.
That is a fact.
SH> US intentions are only to disarm Sadam
no ... these are the intentions of the UN Inspecors.
Yeah ... right those ones where Bush says that they don't get the information
where the alleged weapons are kept.
SH> replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are
SH> more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people.
Are you joking ??
THE US HAS NO POWER over the iraqi leader.
If he attacks america, than america can defend itself.
If america has information, than they can give it to the UN to act on it.
And especially AMERICA CANNOT HANDLE IN THE NAME OF IRAQI PEOPLE ...
only iraqi people can do so.
SH> Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem
SH> with that?
see above.
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 ??
And on top of that nobody can do anything to me, because Austrian court says it
is OK, after the austrian government passed the "KILL THE US PRESIDENT ACT" ??
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.
International law, is for _inter_ nations ... so if more than one nation is in
it.
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> All reality is aspect dependent <=-
