Hello Richard:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:37:37 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel!
> Sorry the mail is long.
> essence:
> Why is the war not justified now, and was widely believed to be
> justified in Yogoslavia ?
> A: Because the latter war stopped ongoing genocid.
> 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.
The President has always has the power to make decisions on where he
wants to bomb and and how much he wants to bomb, and without a UN
mandate. This is not just a new attitude being expressed by Bush.
Clinton launched 450 cruise missiles on Iraq in 1998 because he was
infuriated with Saddam for kicking out the UN weapons inspectors. Also
he ordered the conducting of a very extensive bombing campaign over
Bosnia-Kosovo without a UN mandate. Another thing he did was to launch
a couple of cruise missiles targetting where he thought Osama Bin Laden
was as a retaliation for the bombing of the USS Cole. There is no law
that says that the President has to get permission from the UN before he
can launch missiles or drop bombs or deploy troops into any region in
the world. George Bush senior sent troops to Panama to get the
narco-terrorist Manuel Noriega without a UN mandate. Also he ordered
a bombing mission over Libya targetting Mohammar Quadaffi's terrorist
training camps. There were no international protests of any
significance over these US actions.
> 18 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SH> Regardless of who invades whom, both sides will call the other the
> SH> "aggressor".
> Usually yes ... but only one side will be right.
Often the issues are very foggy and it is unclear as to which side is
right.
> SH> Neither side wants to be thought of by world opinion as being the
> SH> "aggressors".
> Any side which STARTS a war without a good reason is an aggressor.
> good reason == troops of another country invade your country
> other country's government bombs your country
> international community decides
Another good reason exists when one country shows obvious intent of
invading another. In 1981 Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq
because Israel knew that Iraq was producing weapons grade nuclear
materials at the reactor and the Israelis had reason to fear that
Saddam would develop a nuclear weapon and try to use it against them.
> SH> Countries which go to war against each other will often employ
> SH> "agents-provocateurs" to make things appear as though the other
> SH> country is the aggressor.
> Yes ... but this works only one way.
> Eg Hitler has done it.
> Only somebody who wants to attack somebody else can use this tactics.
Those who use this tactic are sometimes successful at it. When
"agent-provocateur" tactics are employed sucessfully everybody will
think that the innocent party is the aggressor. The tactic didn't work
for Hitler because his "agent-provacateur" schemes were promptly found
out and exposed.
> So this will work for the US. ("mass destruction weapons") but not for Saddam.
> Saddam on the other side highly welcomes idiots (mostly from europe) who want
> to protect civil buildings from US bombs by simply being in those buildings.
Innocent people do not deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily enter
any building which is a legitimate military target.
> The idea of doing something against US aggression is great, but the picture
> that is cause by this is horrible.
There is no case here for accusing the US of aggression.
> It looks like these people stand behind Saddam, which is not the case.
> They stand against an US war.
People who deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily occupy a legitimate
military target in Iraq stand behind Saddam.
> SH> This is what Hitler did just prior to his invading Poland. The
> SH> operations he pulled off in an attempt to frame the Polish people as
> SH> aggressors were planned and conducted in a very foolish manner.
> SH> Hitler's "agent provocateur" tricks didn't work out at all well for
> SH> him because the staged scenes were discovered and exposed for what
> SH> they really were.
> Where do you see the parallel to the iraq ??
I don't see any parrallel in Iraq. I was merely pointing out there are
dirty tricks that are often used in war to frame the innocent.
> I only see parallels to US deeds. (Iraq was behind Sept. 11th, Iraq works
> together with Al Quaida .......)
Whether Iraq was behind Sept. 11th or whether Iraq works together with
Al Queda, is irrelevant. Even if those particular allegations can't
be proved there are plenty of other cases against him that can be proved.
There is a very solid case that Saddam is not a nice guy and that he is a
danger to the world community and that he needs to be removed from power.
> SH> When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their "ethnic
> SH> cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war against the Serbs.
> SH> The US went to war against the Serbs just because their leader,
> SH> Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil man in world opinion because
> SH> he was committing genocide.
> I strongly oppose !!!!
> Nobody has the right to start a war because the leader is seen as an evil man.
> SO WHAT ??
Most people feel that it is OK to start a war because the leader is seen
as an evil man. This is the reason why all violent revolutions are
started and it is the reason why many other kinds of wars are started.
> 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.
The genocide going on in Bosnia-Kosovo was not a threat to Americans.
The Americans were revulsed by the genocide. Only evil people commit
genocide. The US went to war just because Milosevic was seen as evil.
> If Saddam does now something like that - go get him.
He has done that. He has attempted to exterminate the Kurds in his
country. Also his troops plundered and raped and killed thousands
of innocents in Kuwait.
> If America finds evidence that something like this happens right now, they will
> have no problems convincing the UN.
The US has plenty of evidence to prove that Saddam isn't a nice guy, but
the UN doesn't like the US plans for dealing with the problem. There is
no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take action.
> The problem is that nothing like this is happening right now - and the world
> asks itself why it is so important to bomb Iraq now.
> And the most plausible answer for most people is that the US wants the oil.
The most plausible answer is that if Saddam isn't taken out now it will
be a lot more difficult to take him out later. The US isn't going to
steal anybody's oil. If the US just wanted to steal oil they could take
it from countries which are not anywhere near as well defended as Iraq.
> As mass-destruction weapons are conserned I quote a high US military:
> "Saddam is a sun of a bitch, but he is _our_ son of a bitch.
The original quote was made by some very high US military or state
department official back in the 1950's in describing Chiang Kai Shek
(sp?), the former leader of Nationalist China. This guy was on our
side, but Saddam is against us.
> He will stop the ayatola from burning down the region in an islamic
> fundamentalist fire.
> And I have to admit that we have provided poisonous gas to Saddam."
The US gave some support to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war because
Iran was our enemy at the time. I don't know if we gave him any
poison gas, but I do know that we would not have given him any without
his agreeing to the condition that it would not be used against any
of his enemies except as a response in kind to a chemical attack
delivered by his enemies.
> And than the Kurds in Iraq were murdered with the american gas.
> No problem for america. Saddam was still their guy, and nobody spoke about the
> dead Kurds.
> After Saddam occupied (the oil wealthy) Kuweit, CNN and others spoke very much
> about the murder of the Kurds. (what they did not tell was that it was american
> gas which did it)
When the poison gas was used against the Kurds all the newspapers in the
US condemned this deed as an atrocity. Some of the bodies were examined
and the gas was identified as a chemical weapon type that is distributed
by the Russians. It was not of a type that the US has.
> SH> Although he was doing very evil things, he wasn't threatening the US
> SH> or any of those European nations which teamed up in a military
> SH> coalition to stop his genocide campaign and to 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)
You had stated before that it is wrong to start a war with somebody just
because he does evil things. You had said that it is OK for one's
country to go to war against another only if the other country commits
aggression against his.
> So the goal of the war was to stop the murdering of people.
> What is the goal of a war against iraq ?
It is the same.
> PS: Iraq is the most closely supervised country in the world.
> You can't fart without being noticed !
Saddam is being noticed for what he is doing and he will be taken down.
> SH> During the Kosovo-Bosnia war we were not hearing from the countries of
> SH> our NATO allies any protests about US "aggression" against Milosevic.
> Naturally not.
> There was a reason behind it, which was justified.
> I personally was for that war.
The same reasons may be applied to Saddam.
> War is horrible, but there was no other chance of stopping the murdering back
> than. So we had to face the terrible sides of war, because they were still
> better than the situation prior of the war.
> The situation now is completely different.
> SH> It was considered perfectly OK to go after Milosevic and put him out
> SH> him out of business.
> yes
> SH> This was seen as perfectly OK simply on the grounds that Milosevic is
> SH> 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.
Isn't that an evil thing to do?
> SH> Nearly all Europeans know that Saddam Hussein also is a very evil man.
> yes
> SH> He can be compared to Milosevic.
> I think he is worse.
> SH> Saddam Hussein commits genocide campaigns against the Kurds living in
> SH> Iraq.
> This was long ago, and it was done with american aid.
> But I agree that he is evil.
It was not done with American aid. Some of the things he did against
the Iranians was done with American aid. The American aid was not
given to him for the purpose of conducting ethnic cleansing campaigns
against the Kurds.
> What we europeans do not see is the imminent danger, which would justify a war.
> If Bush sen. would have invaded Iraq and captured Saddam and brought him to Den
> Haag this would have been a great deed.
> But he hasn't.
In hindsight Bush Sr. and his allies should have done that. At the time
the mission of the US and its allies was limited to simply driving Saddam
out of Kuwait. Once the mission was accomplished they stopped the war.
They thought at the time Saddam would promptly thereafter be overthrown by
his own people and a new government would be established by the iraqi's
themselves. What was hoped for did not happen.
> SH> If Saddam remains in power he will kill more Kurds, and he will likely
> SH> use chemical agents against them again.
> I don't think this is likely.
> Saddam Hussein is highly inelligent. (this makes him so dangerous)
> But he is neither a second hitler nor satan nor ....
But he is a very serious threat to peace in the region.
> He is an intelligent man, who secures his power with extreme brutality. (even
> more than china)
>> From his completely weired point of view the killing of the Kurds made some
> absurd sense. He wanted to show his own people what happens if somebody in his
> own country turns against him.
> Naturally he has to be punished for this mass murder, but I do not agree that
> this is a reason for starting a war. (today his hands are bound ...)
> SH> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to conduct
> SH> 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".
The US does not break international law. There is no international law
recognized by the US that abbrogates or restrains the powers of the US
Congress to declare war. The US is a free country. It is not ruled by
the UN.
> Who gives the US the right to judge over others ??
Nobody has been given the right to judge over others, but most people
simply accept the fact that they will be judged over. Sometimes you
may be judged rightly. Sometimes you may be judged wrongly. If you
are judged wrongly there is nothing you can do about it because you
can't fight City Hall, even if you take your case to the UN. If the
UN rules in your favor, City Hall will just laugh at the UN because the
UN has no power of its own to enforce its judgements.
> If they show evidence, that there is a massive breaking of human rights RIGHT
> AT THE MOMENT, than the situation changes.
> But the "evidence" of the US, has been classified of Hans Blix (who is a highly
> intelligent person) as It could show anything ... it is no evidence of mass
> destuction weapons.
With or without UN approval, the US might decide to invade Iraq anyway.
Saddam is clearly a threat to peace in the region.
> SH> If it is OK to attack Milosevic to stop genocide, then why isn't it OK
> SH> to attack Saddam Hussein for the same reason?
> Because the attack stopped the ONGOING genocid.
> So there was genocid, many, many talks (and Milosevic could not be stopped)
> than there was war, and than there was no genocid.
There is no statute of limitations for murder. If doesn't matter
whether a murderer is still killing people or whether he stopped doing it
50 years ago. If enough evidence can be gathered against him indicating
that he committed a murder 50 years ago, he can be indicted and put on
trial for it today.
> In Iraq there is no mass-murder right now.
> So we don't need a war to stop it.
Why should it matter if the mass murders aren't going on right now?
In WWII there were no mass murders of Jews immediately following
Germany's surrender. Some of the murderers escaped trial and punishment.
The search for these killers continues even unto this day even though any
of them who might still be living would now all be well into their 80's
or 90's.
> SH> It is about genocide
> there is no genocid at the moment.
> So the war can't stop it.
The killers can be caught and punished.
> SH> and the need to get rid of a ruthless and evil dictator.
> With what right ??
> Who decides what is ruthless ??
Even you yourself have decided that genocide is ruthless and evil.
> 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 ?
Bush is the good guy. He wears a white hat.
The bad guy is the one with the mustache.
> 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.
Bush speaks the truth. There is nothing in US law that says that the
US must have a UN mandate to do whatever it wants to do. Are European
countries so spineless as to feel that they have to get UN permission
to do what they want to do? Why would they want to let themselves be
controlled by the capricious whims of the UN?
> PS: don't take it too seriously ... but:
> what have bush jr and saddam hussein in common ?
> Both are not officially elected. (I would really like to see the votes, and
> count myself ... I'm sure that it would have an interesting result)
Bush was officially elected, as ruled by an impartial court which
watched over the re-counting of the ballots. Saddam was officially
elected, as ruled by ballot counters whom he himself and his lackies
had appointed. Saddam's election was of course just a show, but it
was official.
Sam Heywood
--
This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser:
http://browser.arachne.cz/
