Hi Samuel!
24 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sam I have to say that I really do not understand your points:
- you claim that is OK if the US invades iraq without an UN mandate
- at the same time you say that it was not OK when saddam invaded kuweit
WHERE EXACTLY IS THE DIFFERENCE ?
For me both deeds were not justified by international law.
You say that:
- it was OK if Israel bombs Iraq without UN mandate
I can very well understand the reasons (and I am personally very thankful that
they did) but from the point of law it was false.
Because it means that any single country can attack any other country by
claiming that the other country has x (x=something)
For example Iraq could say that Israel has atomic reactors, and wants to build
the bomb (which is true) and bomb them.
They have the same right to do so as Isreal had.
What seems to be the case, is that you are extremely US centered.
If WE say it's Ok, than it is OK.
This implies that the US is "better" than any other single country.
That the US can do things, when they think its OK, and other countries can't.
And that the US has the right to decide who is GOOD and who is BAD.
For _me_ this is not the case.
For me the US are a country among many ... and the US has the same rights as
any other country on the world.
SH> There is no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take
SH> action.
AGAIN !!!!!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT !!!
ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES US LAW IS IRRELEVANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So *YOU* think that if there is no iraqi law that Iraq is not allowed to attack
Kuweit, than they have the right to do so ????
>> 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.
SH> The President has always has the power to make decisions on where he
SH> wants to bomb and and how much he wants to bomb, and without a UN
SH> mandate.
If the US president has the right to do so, than EVERY president of a country
has the right. (including saddam)
And that is not the case !!!
The fact that it has been done before does not make it right.
Saddam invaded Kuweit without an UN mandate. This was a CRIME !!
If the US invade Iraq without an UN mandate, than it is exactly the same crime.
SH> Innocent people do not deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily
SH> enter any building which is a legitimate military target.
Who decides what a legitimate military target is ??
the US ?
who gives them the right ?
>> The idea of doing something against US aggression is great, but the
>> picture that is cause by this is horrible.
SH> There is no case here for accusing the US of aggression.
not yet ... unless they start a war without UN mandate.
>> It looks like these people stand behind Saddam, which is not the
>> case. They stand against an US war.
SH> People who deliberately and knowingly and voluntarily occupy a
SH> legitimate military target in Iraq stand behind Saddam.
This is your oppinion.
Mine is that everybody has the right to go to Iraq and go there to hospitals,
water pipelines, etc.
And that there is not a single target there unless Iraq directly attacks the
US, or UN gives a mandate for war.
They can even stay where they are than ... but if they are killed, it is their
fault.
>> I only see parallels to US deeds. (Iraq was behind Sept. 11th, Iraq
>> works together with Al Quaida .......)
SH> Whether Iraq was behind Sept. 11th or whether Iraq works together with
SH> Al Queda, is irrelevant.
Not for Bush.
His propaganda wants under all circumnstances to make a connection between
them.
SH> There is a very solid case that Saddam is not a nice guy and that he
SH> is a danger to the world community and that he needs to be removed
SH> from power.
The US says YES.
The Iraq says NO.
So only an organization which stands above the country level can decide.
This is the UN.
>> SH> When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their
>> SH> "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war
>> SH> against the Serbs. The US went to war against the Serbs just
>> SH> because their leader, Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil
>> SH> man in world opinion because he was committing genocide.
NO ...
Milsovic being anything HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT !!!!!!!
It was because genocid was commited. (and this is the only reason)
>> I strongly oppose !!!!
>> Nobody has the right to start a war because the leader is seen as an
>> evil man. SO WHAT ??
SH> Most people feel that it is OK to start a war because the leader is
SH> seen as an evil man.
But thanks good we have laws.
So the feelings are irrelevant.
If you kill somebody, and you feel its right, you are still guilty, and will be
punished.
>> 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.
SH> The genocide going on in Bosnia-Kosovo was not a threat to Americans.
No.
Here we have it again ... this america centricity.
It was started because many people died, and this is against the human rights.
(Sam they are called HUMAN rights, not american rights)
SH> The Americans were revulsed by the genocide. Only evil people commit
SH> genocide. The US went to war just because Milosevic was seen as evil.
This has nothing to do with evil.
Genocid was commited, which had to be stopped.
If it were commited by angels, or the pope or whomever it would have to be
stopped as well.
>> If Saddam does now something like that - go get him.
SH> He has done that.
yes.
But right NOW there is no imminent danger from him.
So we have to wage the consequences and risks.
And if the international community says that the risk of a extremely supervised
saddam is much smaller than the consequences of a war, than there should be no
war.
>> If America finds evidence that something like this happens right
>> now, they will have no problems convincing the UN.
SH> The US has plenty of evidence to prove that Saddam isn't a nice guy,
ONLY DEEDS MATTER.
If you have evidence that there are concentration camps, where many people die
per day, than go to the UN and you will get immediately your mandate.
SH> but the UN doesn't like the US plans for dealing with the problem.
than the US has no right to
>> SH> Although he was doing very evil things, he wasn't threatening
>> SH> the US or any of those European nations which teamed up in a
>> SH> military coalition to stop his genocide campaign and to
>> SH> 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)
SH> You had stated before that it is wrong to start a war with somebody
SH> just because he does evil things.
NO !!!!!!!
I said that it is not justified, if he is believed to be "evil".
Naturally if somebody does "evil" things, than this can be a reason to start a
war.
(PS: I really hate the word evil ... because it is subjective ...)
SH> You had said that it is OK for one's country to go to war against
SH> another only if the other country commits aggression against his.
Or if the world agrees that aggression is justified.
But not if a single country thinks so.
>> There was a reason behind it, which was justified.
>> I personally was for that war.
SH> The same reasons may be applied to Saddam.
Yes !!!
Saddam is one of the most brutal murderers in history.
But at this instance most people think that bringing him to den haag will kill
more people than if he is left (for the moment) and extremely closely
supervised.
>> SH> This was seen as perfectly OK simply on the grounds that
>> SH> Milosevic is 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.
SH> Isn't that an evil thing to do?
Sorry ... misunderstanding.
If you mean strongly breaking human rights == "evil"
than I wholeheartedly agree with you.
>> SH> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to
>> SH> conduct 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".
SH> The US does not break international law. There is no international
SH> law recognized by the US that abbrogates or restrains the powers of
SH> the US Congress to declare war. The US is a free country. It is not
SH> ruled by the UN.
Here lie our difference.
So Iraq is another country ... equally free.
Why was it "evil" if they attack Kuweit ??
For me it was evil, because it was against international law.
And for me the US and any other country stand BELOW the UN.
Naturally only if international things are considered.
So if the US says that all americans have to go on their hands.
Than this is OK, because only american terretory is affected.
If america decides to bomb austria, than this is not right.
>> Who gives the US the right to judge over others ??
SH> Nobody has been given the right to judge over others,
Than why do they do it than ??
SH> With or without UN approval, the US might decide to invade Iraq
SH> anyway.
the problem with that is shown below.
It basically means that we go back from civilized state to stoneage.
(the person with the biggest stone is allways right)
SH> Saddam is clearly a threat to peace in the region.
Why has the US the right to decide who is a threat ??
What happens if America decides that austria is a threat ??
will you bomb me than ??
SH> There is no statute of limitations for murder. If doesn't matter
SH> whether a murderer is still killing people or whether he stopped doing
SH> it 50 years ago.
yes I fully agree.
But if you kill more people by enforcing the punishment, than the original
genocid has killed, than it should not be enforced yet.
SH> If enough evidence can be gathered against him indicating that he
SH> committed a murder 50 years ago, he can be indicted and put on trial
SH> for it today.
Yes ... sure ... and I hope he will.
>> In Iraq there is no mass-murder right now.
>> So we don't need a war to stop it.
SH> Why should it matter if the mass murders aren't going on right now?
because than we can safe lives.
SH> In WWII there were no mass murders of Jews immediately following
SH> Germany's surrender. Some of the murderers escaped trial and
SH> punishment. The search for these killers continues even unto this day
SH> even though any of them who might still be living would now all be
SH> well into their 80's or 90's.
yes ... and I FULLY support it.
This is how it should be !!!
But see above.
War in Iraq will kill > 1 million people propably.
>> 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 ?
SH> Bush is the good guy. He wears a white hat.
SH> The bad guy is the one with the mustache.
I personally believe that this is the case.
But our personal believes are irrelevant.
Saddam says exactly the opposit.
We need a higher authority who decides ...
>> 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.
SH> Bush speaks the truth.
We say that.
But saddam says that he lies.
So we need to ask the UN who is right.
SH> There is nothing in US law that says that the
there is also nothing in the Iraqi law stating that it is illegal to attack
kuweit.
SO WHAT ??
SH> Are European countries so spineless as to feel that they have to get
SH> UN permission to do what they want to do?
YES ... thanks god ... now you understand.
But for us it is not spineless but civilized.
SH> Why would they want to let themselves be controlled by the capricious
SH> whims of the UN?
Because we are not better than any other country in the world.
So no single country has the right to judge over any other country.
SH> Sam Heywood
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun <=-
