Hi Vitaly!
17 Feb 2003, Vitaly Luban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But for most europeans war is the very, _very_ last measure.
>> It shows complete failure of all parties involved.
>> (and for most europeans we are not there yet)
VL> I deem the same arguments could be heard about Hitler right before
VL> Czechoslovakia or Austria.
Not really ... after invading another country we clearly _ARE_ at the last
measure.
Meaning that he should have stopped at last than.
If the UN (or another world wide organization) would have investigated, and
found millions of people murdered by the regime, they should have tried to put
an end to it than.
But this all is _NOT_ the case in iraq.
VL> With your arguments, you're advocating ignorance (besides empty
VL> rhethoric) to the _very_ last moment, when it's too late already.
No I'm not.
But Saddam is the closest supervised Dictator ever.
There are many spy satellites supervising iraq.
there are insepctors in the country.
There are american planes over most of the northern and southern terretory.
WHAT RIGHT has america to invade another country on its own ??
and this is exactly what Bush often has said.
He said that he will attack iraq ... even if he doesn't get an UN mandate for
it.
VL> Precisely as it was with Hitler. Shouldn't europeans learn the lesson
VL> of their own past?
you can't compare Hitler to Saddam.
This would make the cruelties of Hitler really, really small ...
Hitler was much, much worse.
>> And if I hear the talks, where Bush says that he wants a regime
>> change in Iraq (not the destruction of mass destruction weapons ...)
VL> Because just destruction does not assure anything. Destroyed weapons
VL> could be built again.
yeah sure ...
so what ??
kill the population of the whole world ??
No more mass destruction weapons ... I guarantee.
How would you like it if you got killed after birth ??
with the argument that you could kill somebody later.
No evidence given ... nothing.
>> The US does not have the right to forcefully make a regime change in
>> the iraq without an UN mandate. (and maybe inner american mandates
>> from congress or whatsoever)
VL> First, existing UN resolution says enough to be considered a mandate.
according to bush no.
Because he wanted another one, and now says that he can make war without an UN
mandate.
If he would have one we could hear the bombs falling right now.
VL> For example, not islamic countries, nor russians are interested in oil
VL> prices decline, same way as US interested in exactly the opposite. And
VL> so should be you, as an european, BTW.
I'm not interested in the oil prize.
I'm interested in fair play.
Attacking somebody of having something without any evidence is not OK.
Hans Blix said that the "evidence" by Powell does not show anything.
It could have been anything the US showed.
This doesn't mean that they don't have mass destruction weapons (like many,
many other countries).
>> If it does so by attacking another country, than the US are the
>> aggressor. Than US are the "bad" as bush likes to call them.
VL> Have you ever heard the term "preemptive strike"?
Yes ... and it is the BIGGEST BULLSHIT I have ever heared.
This is kill all the potential killers (babs born in the world)
YOU ARE INNOCENT AS LONG AS YOU PROVEN GUILTY.
This is the most basic notion of all law in Europe, maybe this is not the case
in the US.
VL> Saddam already proven to be an agressor, why should we wait for more?
so has the US.
US financially supported Iraq, Iran, Al quaida and others ...
so what ... should I invade the US ??
>> PS: Sam ... Iraq _IS_ the country wich has second most oil in the
>> world.
VL> So what?
This was a remark to Sam Heywood ...
who (if I recall correctly) stated that he thinks that Iraq doesn't have that
large amount of oil.
VL> Wait a bit. There will be thir turn also. FIFO.
Oh ... so America has switched to FIFO.
When are they attacking Austria ??
You have to understand that America is a country like Holland, Austria, Somalia
Iraq or any other.
They don't have the right to randomly attack other countries they don't like.
If they have evidence that international law is broken, than the world (with
the lead of the biggest military nation US) should take countermeasures.
troops, bombs, war ...
>> Bush very intelligently plays the "defence" card here.
>> (Bush tries to make connections between everything he wants to
>> destroy and sept. 11th.)
VL> And there is a connection. He (Bush) said it right after Sep.11, that
VL> every party involved will be punished. And here he does.
Bush can say many things.
This doesn't make these things right.
What if Bush accuses me of being a terrorist participating in sept. 11th.
He sends troops to Austria (without any permit from austrian government) and
kills me ... no evidence given ... nothing.
Was this right ??
Hey sure ... Bush said I'm a Terrorist ...
Correct behaviour:
present evidence of my being a terrorist.
And get the whole world to chase me.
For example exactly this has happened in Germany, France.
CIA found evidence about possible Al Quaida people in these countries.
They forwarded the evidence to the local authorities, they investigated, and it
turned out that the US was mostly right.
>> SE> The United States is reasonably and appropriately concerned
>> SE> about the safety and security of it's citizens.
>> yes ... I also truely believe this.
>> The question is how far do you go, and how correct are your thoughts
>> about the threat.
VL> As far, as it is necessary to reach the goal,
But what if the colleteral damage would be MUCH higher than the goal ?
VL> And it's always better to overestimate the threat, than underestimate
VL> it.
Not if extreme measures are caused by the extreme overestimation of the threat.
VL> You in Europe done that once.
America has done it often.
Al Quaida fought with american weapons against america.
Saddam Hussein has many american weapons lying araound. Given to him freely by
the american government.
>> Eg. you have not only to look at US citizens, but also that no wrong
>> things are done to non-us citizens, in order that US citizens profit.
VL> Isn't it only natural, that for the US government an interests of US
VL> citizens are more important, than interests of all the others?
As long as it doesn't harm the interest of non US citizens SURE ...
VL> I wish your government would respect yours the same way.
<personal remark>
I'm really highly happy to live here and not in the US.
really, really happy.
</remark>
In my country this was once long ago the case.
Hitler thought that we need more land ... and he invaded "some countries" to
make more land available.
A clear case where the goal (more land for germany) was "less important" than
the collateral damage.
VL> Vitaly.
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> One crow will not peck out another crow's eye <=-
