Hi Samuel!
24 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 ?
SH> They aren't.
You stated exactly the opposit in the previous message.
SH> There is no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take
SH> action.
This means that if there is no US law that forbids something, than it is
allowed.
Even if it contradicts to international law.
So hypotetically if the US bombs austria, they can do so, if the US law says
its ok ... see below.
>> *) Why is american law to be applied in the whole world ?
SH> It isn't being applied to the whole world.
see below what you wrote:
SH> Without even trying to get a UN mandate the US went into Panama to
SH> forcefully abolish the regime of Manuel Noriega because he was a
SH> narco-terrorist and an oppressor of his own people. We captured
SH> Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial.
You take a non US person, capture him, and bring him to US trial ??
what do you call that ?
You clearly forced YOUR law to a non US person.
And what you have done to panama, you can do to any other country.
SH> The US is contemplating a justifiable pre-emptive strike.
SH> Justifiable pre-emptive strikes are not acts of aggression.
Says who ??
For me they are. (as long as they are not backed up by a UN mandate ... which
means that not only a single country thinks so, ... but the majority of the
nations ... or at least the majority of the UN security council)
alone from the fact, that Iraq can say the same.
They can claim that they have evidence against Kuweit, and that they only did a
preemptive strike.
They have the same right to do so. (purely from the standpoint of the law.)
>> 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 ??
SH> What gives Noriega the right to narco-terrorize the whole world?
SH> Aren't you glad he got busted?
yes.
But the way it has been done was wrong.
What if noriega would have done that with the us president ??
so we need a legal way to cope with it.
-> UN
>> What if panama captured the US president and punished him according
>> to panamese law ??
SH> The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would get
SH> hunted down and busted.
Why ??
If america has the right to do so, than panama has as well.
SH> The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them
SH> to justice.
depends on who decides what is good.
a single country can't do that.
country a says b is bad.
country b says a is bad.
what do we do ??
ask the rest of the countries, and let them decide.
SH> The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good guys.
Who is bad ????
who decides who is good and who is bad ?
SH> If they do they will face additional criminal charges.
who will charge them ?
SH> The US President is the good guy.
says who ??
SH> Noriega is the bad guy
says who ??
SH> because he is a narco-terrorist.
says who ??
SH> Why haven't you learned about good guys and bad guys?
because world is not black and white.
is usually dark grey vs. light gray.
I personally don't think that I as a person have the right to decide if another
person is bad.
I can have my personal thoughts.
I believe that Saddam Hussein is bad.
But in a civilized manner the fact that Richard Menedetter thinks that Saddam
Huessein has commited crimes does mean nothing.
I have to proove that, and another instance has to decide.
This instance has to be "above" me and the bad guy.
If it is not it does not have the right to judge.
SH> It doesn't matter whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or
SH> links to the OBL otganization.
SH> What matters is that he is a bad guy and he must be taken down.
says who ??
This has to stand on a firm legal ground.
SH> We already have enough on him to prove he is a bad guy.
who decides this ?
SH> It doesn't matter what Saddam says because he has no credibility.
who decides who has credibility ?
for me only the UN can.
SH> Neither does the US want to start a war. The US is contemplating
SH> a pre-emptive strike to prevent a war from happening.
a preemptive strike is a war.
so you say:
us does not want to start war, it wants to start war.
International law does not contain preemptive strikes.
What if Hussein starts a preemptive strike against kuweit.
Why is america allowed to do so, and Iraq not ??
I say that neither has the right to do so.
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Genius: One who can do anything except earn a living <=-
