Hello Richard: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:45:21 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > 19 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Essence: > *) Why do american interests are more worthy than the interests of the rest of > the world ? They aren't. > *) Why is american law to be applied in the whole world ? It isn't being applied to the whole world. > SH> The US does not need to have a UN mandate to determine whether it is > SH> in her national interests to invade a country. > naturally not. > But if they determined it, and actually CARRY IT OUT, they are breaking > international law. > Just as Germany did when starting WWII. Germany committed aggression. The US is contemplating a justifiable pre-emptive strike. Justifiable pre-emptive strikes are not acts of aggression. > Hey ... it was in the national interest of Germany to start the war. > Was it justified than ?? No, it was not in the national interests of Germany to start the war because Germany lost. > What about the interests of the people you kill by enforcing american > interests. What about their interest to survive ? When it comes to a kill or be killed situation the interest in surviving is usually equal on both sides. > Why are their lives (contarary to the human rights declaration) less worth than > american lives ? > I can't believe that you have written such nonsens ... They aren't, but one's own life is relatively more important to him than the life of the enemy who is trying to kill him. That is no nonsense. It is a simple statement of fact about how the survival instinct works. > SH> We captured Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. > Who gives america the right, to drag its law to the whole world ?? What gives Noriega the right to narco-terrorize the whole world? Aren't you glad he got busted? > What if panama captured the US president and punished him according to panamese > law ?? The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would get hunted down and busted. > They would have the same right to do so as america. > PLEASE explain me who gives america the right ? OK, its like this: The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them to justice. The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good guys. If they do they will face additional criminal charges. The US President is the good guy. Noriega is the bad guy because he is a narco-terrorist. I learned about good guys and bad guys in the first gangster movies I saw when I was a little kid. Why haven't you learned about good guys and bad guys? > SH> During our invasion of Panama we were not hearing any complaints of > SH> any significance from the international community and from anti-war > SH> protestors. > If I were born, you sure would have ! > SH> There might be proof that Saddam has links to the OBL organization > SH> and there might also be proof that he has weapons of mass destruction. > What would you say, if your arch enemy would sue you. > He would say there might be evidence that Sam killed sombody. > And the very same arch enemy who sued you, is also the judge who says that you > are guilty, and the person who hangs you ... It doesn't matter whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or links to the OBL otganization. What matters is that he is a bad guy and he must be taken down. Whatever can be proven against him in addition to what we have already proven serves only to further embellish the case. We already have enough on him to prove he is a bad guy. > SH> The US doesn't always lay all its proof on the table for all the world > SH> to see because it needs to protect its sources and its methods of > SH> intelligence collection. > But than it can't claim that it has proof. > Imagine Saddam Hussein saying: <snip> It doesn't matter what Saddam says because he has no credibility. He is a known liar. > SH> Your country and everybody else's countries likewise do not prove to > SH> everybody all that they know about their enemies. > Sure ... but my country does not want to start a war ... > a tiny but important difference. Neither does the US want to start a war. The US is contemplating a pre-emptive strike to prevent a war from happening. > SH> US military policy is to accomplish its objectives with minimum > SH> casualties on both sides and with minimum collateral damage. > Who gives US military police the right to operate on the terretory of another > country ?? The Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA's), which your country voluntarily signed with the US gives the US Military Police the rights to operate their vehicles on certain designated territories of your country and subject to whatever limitations and restrictions as specified in the agreements. There are SOFA's in every country which allows US military forces to be there. The US-Germany SOFA's are probably publicly available documents. I have seen documents of this type and they were not classified. > SH> I don't think the "world" should be worrying over whether the US would > SH> be competent to restore order and to restore the economies of any > SH> territories which may temporarily come under its control. > I beg to differ. > I do worry a LOT about that. > SH> The sanctions are not causing any casualties. The UN and the US allow > SH> food and medicines to be shipped into Iraq. > They are causing MANY, MANY casualties ... > that is a sad fact ! How are they causing casualties? Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
