-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Op donderdag 20 februari 2003 07:31, schreef Vitaly Luban:
> Hi Ricsi,
>
> Aha, as if Saddam have not used gases against Kurds and Iranians,
> as if he did not invade Kuwait! Still not enough?
Actually, there is some compelling evidence that the gas that murdered the
Kurds was released by the Iranians. But I agree with you, that Saddam should
be stopped from doing more harm, one way or the other. I don't think we have
to start a full scale war to do this.
> > 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.
>
> That's what, makes him (Saddam) a Santa?
Saddam is crazy, but not stupid. He knows he's being watched, he knows that if
he launches an attack, the rest of the world will agree to respond
immediatly. He will not survive this.
When he is pushed into a corner, and realises there is no more way out, he
might decide to take the world with him, and push "the" button.
>
> > WHAT RIGHT has america to invade another country on its own ??
>
> The same right Saddam had to invade Kuwait, at least.
exactly, none. That's why Iraq was the agressor.
>
> > 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.
>
> The problem here is, that you're talking about the guys and affairs, where
> there's no place for the fair play. You cannot win playing by the book
> against an opponent who does not. Look, who you are advocating for, this
> guys will call for the fair play when they are loosing the game, but sure
> they will spit on the rules should the situation change.
Iraq is not participating in the game. The United Nations are playing the
game: "Should we invade Iraq or not?". They are playing it amongst their
members, and the members should respect each other. Specifically, if the UN
decides not to invade Iraq, the US shouldn't do so either. This also works
the other way round, if the UN do decide to attack, all members should
cooperate on this attack.
>
> For anyone to excercise a right, there is a requirement to respect this
> right of the others. Thus, proven murderer has no right to live, for
> example. And, IMHO, such an approach is the only fair one.
Your example clearly demonstrates the differences between European and
American thinking. A typical European view would be: "The state has no right
to kill anyone, no matter what he did. If you don't respect this persons
rights, no matter the circumstances, you are just as bad as him."
> See above. Unlike many other countries, Iraq with Saddam does not have
> a right to have such weapons.
>
Because he used them to kill innocent civilians that did not threaten him?
Ask Vietnamese how they think about the USAs right to have such weapons.
> > VL> Have you ever heard the term "preemptive strike"?
> > Yes ... and it is the BIGGEST BULLSHIT I have ever heared.
>
> Think of it as you wish, but it is a legitimate military strategy to
> cope with an enemy.
But we are not in a war yet. It might be a legitimate military strategy, it
certainly isn't a legitimate political move.
> Like, if I get an information that someone
> planning something against me, or my family, I will never wait
> for a plan to became a reality. Same thing there.
Your neighbour is a terrorist. He plans on hurting your family. If you don't
believe me, break in to his house, you'll find a baseball bat, plenty of
rope, gasoline and some chemicals.
> > YOU ARE INNOCENT AS LONG AS YOU PROVEN GUILTY.
>
> This guy (Saddam) did enough to be guilty. Would you say
> otherwise?
But is he guilty enough to sacrifice the lifes of many innocents to take him
down. If he's building more weapons, especially long range weapons, the
answer is yes. If were not sacrifing lifes, he will kill many more. If the
answer is no, how does the current situation differ from 10 years ago, except
for the fact that Iraq hasn't been in a war for 10 years.
> - First of all, whoever US supports financially, does not make US an
> aggressor.
It is if you know your support is going to be used for violence.
> - Second, if you'll check serious historical documents, and not a
> propagandistic lies you are operating with, I doubt you'll find any example
> of US invading any country unprovoked and with a goal to annex it. That's
> what makes an aggressor and that's exactly what Saddam did with Kuwait.
We're trying to keep it that way.
> - Third, yes, US supported Iraq and Iran, as it does support many others.
> But I doubt that Iraq, for one, enjoyed much of US support after Kuwait.
> Now, about Al-Kaeda, that is a pure freaking lie, and this is exactly the
> mixing I'm talking about.
I don't have any proof of this (other than webpages stating so) but over here
(Europe) it's considered common knowledge that the US trained Afghan rebels
to fight against the USSR. One of the leaders of those rebels was Osama Bin
Laden. I just showed your mail to a roommate, and he was seriously surprised
you even doubted this.
>
> I think it is you, who has to understand that it's not. Maybe like Holland
> and Austria, only stronger, but definitely totally unlike Iraq and Somalia.
> Here again you make an example of brainwashing of yourself with the method
> described just above.
>
I don't think you understand his point. Although the US are more powerfull
than any other country, they are only that, just another country. Being more
powerfull doesn't make the US better, smarter or more important than other
countries. They do not have more rights.
quoting risci:
> > 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.
>
> The right example would be: If you and I are the leaders of villages, and
> you are supporting thieves in the woods, who've done harm to me, and the
> king, or whoever else is the autority, is reluctant to take action against
> you, because there's no solid proof of your support (sure thing, how else),
> I will take an action myself. And rightfully so.
>
how about: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
>
> Aha, in the next life. Because the whole world does not give a sh*t about
> you being a terrorist and has his own carrots to tender.
>
Yet we do give a sh*t about the US attacking Iraq, this smells fishy.
> > But what if the colleteral damage would be MUCH higher than the goal ?
>
> So what?
> If Iraqis worry about collateral damage, they shall oust Saddam themselves.
> If they are in agreement with his course, then they are the same way
> subject to an action as he is.
Maybe they don't agree with him, but they have bigger worries than
international politics (eg finding enough to eat). Fighting against Saddam
will not help those people, it will mean they have to leave their wive and
family behind.
> Nothing extreme happened yet. And if iraqis wont go to war to protect
> Saddam, nothing whill. See, they shouldn't even oust him, just not to
> support him. But if they go to war, then they become an enemy with all the
> consequences. See my paragraph above.
The typical US way of warfare is to first bomb the enemy back to the
stone-age, and only than send in ground-troops. It's quite a good way of
fighting a war, but it will lead to many civilian casualties. Maybe not as
many as other ways of fighting wars, but that's why we're so opposed to war.
> > Al Quaida fought with american weapons against america.
Weapons payed for by the US. Given to them with the intention to kill. (That's
what guns are made for). That Al Qaida is using those weapons to fight
Americans is just one of those ironic twists of history.
>
> How this is relevant? Or will you conclude from the fact, that Taliban used
> Russian arms, that Russians supported Taliban?
>
> > Saddam Hussein has many american weapons lying araound.
>
> So what?
>
> > Given to him freely
> > by the american government.
>
> Before he did what he did. Everyone is strong by backthought.
To Europeans it seems a stupid idea to give weapons to anybody, without a way
of controling how those weapons will be used.
> > 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.
"less important" is a mistake on your side, right? You tried to say that the
goal of find more land was "more important" (to germany) than the collateral
damage caused by this.
>
> The hell with "collateral damage" there. Hitler was an aggressor and a
> murderer, because he exactly invaded these countries with the goal to annex
> their territory and to murder their original population.
first, whatever happend, what Hitler did was worse. But the actions of the US
might also not be good. The problem is that most Europeans (including me)
have doubts about the USs primary goal. Most of us think the primary goal is
"securing oil", if it's not that it's an attempt to draw the attention of the
US people away from the economical troubles and lack of succes in capturing
Osama Bin Laden to a goal that's more likely to be reached. World peace and
liberty for the Iraqis is a nice bonus.
That's why were so opposed to war. That's why we are insisting on finding
evidence that affairs in Iraq are getting worse, instead of improving.
> But if you will
> try to place a sign of equality between Hitler, and the allies (as you are
> undoubtedly instructed, or, at least, brainwashed by your islamic friends),
Wow, so far this has been a heated discussion, now you are crossing a line, by
implying the Islam is trying to brainwash Europe into hating the US. Maybe
some Muslems (like the members of Al-Qaida) do so, but that's a minority, and
it has nothing to do with being a Muslem. Those people are crazy, and happen
to be Muslem and use their religion as a justification for their acts.
But enough about this, I'll assume you this is not what you inteded to say.
> who invaded Germany in order to remove Hitler and his regime, then you will
> be terribly wrong.
Please, read his message again. I don't think he's trying to say this at all.
He's comparing Hitlers need for land to the US's need to kill Saddam. All
damage caused by it is considered an acceptabel loss.
It's still nota very nice comparison, but he's certainly not comparing Hitlers
invading army's against the allied liberation forces.
> And, while the damage to the countries, invaded by
> Hitler, counts, nobody gives a sh*t about a damage to Germany itself. And,
> again, rightfully so. Same thing about Iraq.
nobody but the germans civilians
- --
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+VSndIhQIPPgOSvcRAr9dAJ4h5LuFzTfA37myyQQVtHYsDdcR9QCfdEnw
3Oh+jU3phdhBWNEtdJBLaPU=
=rV+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
