On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:20:50 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> 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. It was not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait because Kuwait was not behaving as a threat to peace in the region. Saddam has no intent to remove threats to peace. It was just his intent to steal territory and gratify his greed for power. You keep citing some international laws but you never indicate any title and section and paragraph numbers. You don't tell us where these laws are posted, and you do not present any evidence that the US is obligated to comply with this law. If the US has not signed and ratified the law, the US is not obligated to comply with it. > 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) I do not know whether Israel violated any international law which she has agreed to comply with. I don't have a problem with Israel's attacking a country which has threatened her. > 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. It is a well known fact that Israel does indeed have nuclear weapons. Israel is not a threat to neighboring countries. Their having nuclear weapons serves only as a deterrent to any would-be enemies who might want to attack her. > What seems to be the case, is that you are extremely US centered. > If WE say it's Ok, than it is OK. Are you insinuating that Americans are more egocentric than Austrians? The Austrians might think so but Americans don't think so. > 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. The Austrians also think they have the right to decide who is good and who is bad. Right now the Austrian government thinks the US government 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. Right. The US has the same rights to think the Austrians are bad as the Austrins have to think the US is bad. Every country has the right to express its own national opinion, but when one country threatens another there will be bad consequences. > 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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why should I consider US law irrelevant on international issues or on any other issues involving the US? How would you like it if I were to tell you that on international issues Austrian 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 ???? The only law in force in Iraq is Saddam. There are a few rebel groups which have made their own laws in opposition to Saddam's law, but unfortunately the rebels are not in power yet. >>> 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 !!! Why would you elevate people like Saddam to the same moral level as GW Bush? > 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. It would not have mattered to the US if Saddam had invaded Kuwait even with the blessings of a UN mandate. The US would have treated the matter as a crime anyway. The only thing good about having a UN mandate is that it tends to make you look good in the eyes of world opinion. What really counts is knowing that you are right, and the hell with those who think you are wrong. > 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 ? It is decided by interpretations of international law as explained in FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", and the sources cited, and also in other relevant documents. FM 27-10 is endorsed by NATO, an alliance of which your country is a member. Saddam commits a war crime if he orders or allows non-combatants to be in proximity to legitimate military targets. He has openly declared his intention to commit such war crimes and he has invited non-combatants to come to Iraq for the purpose of hanging around military targets. >>> 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. The US invaded Panama without a UN mandate, and without having to answer to any complaints of any significance alleging US aggression. Why should invading Iraq be any different? Saddam is just a terrorist, and he is a far greater threat to peace than Manuel Noriega ever was. >>> It looks like these people stand behind Saddam, which is not the >>> case. They stand against an US war. It sure would be a really stupid thing for them to do to stand against a US war while hanging around a military target in Iraq. There is no way the US can guarantee their safety under these circumstances. They have been well advised of the dangers of doing such stupid things. If they want to protest the US war they could organize and conduct a march and hold a demonstration where the police can protect their rights to speak out. There are lots of perfectly safe methods for protesting a 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. Hospitals are not legitimate military targets. It would be safe for them to go to hospitals, but there would be no point in doing so unless they needed medical treatment. Water pipelines probably would not be targetted, but there is no international law that I know of which forbids the targetting of water pipelines. If there were such a law, water pipelines would have been included in the list of prohibited targets in FM 27-10. > And that there is not a single target there unless Iraq directly attacks the > US, or UN gives a mandate for war. Neither you nor I are in a position to know whether a target list has been developed. If you were to call the Pentagon and ask they would probably tell you that they will neither confirm nor deny the existence of a target list. > They can even stay where they are than ... but if they are killed, it is their > fault. Anybody who goes to Iraq for the purpose of hanging around a military target ought to get arrested when he returns to his home country. As a minimum disciplinary measure he should get treated the same way as they treat people who deliberately trespass into an impact zone on a military base when the big red range flag is up and clearly visible. In addition, anybody who does such things should be committed for psychiatric treatment for his suicidal tendencies. >>> 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. It is perfectly normal and typical to find in war propaganda and also in anti-war propaganda a lot of half-truths and even some gross exaggerations and outright lies. If the majority among the target audience thinks the propaganda is mostly credible, the propaganda is effective and it accomplishes its intended purpose. On the Iraq controversy both sides have failed to some considerable degree in some of their propaganda efforts. > 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. But you and I both know which side is wrong. > So only an organization which stands above the country level can decide. > This is the UN. Why do you think the UN is such an infallible organization? There are many international organizations and associations of nations each having their own special envoys and diplomats. The UN is only one of them. The OAS is another. There are also several others. Saying that all countries ought to to follow the dictates of the UN is like saying that everybody ought to uphold the dogmas of some particular religion. >>> 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) That is just what I said above, but I added the observation that people who commit genocide are seen as being very evil, which is true. What objections do you have to this observation that I added? >>> I strongly oppose !!!! >>> Nobody has the right to start a war because the leader is seen as an >>> evil man. SO WHAT ?? Isn't it OK to regard as evil any person who commits genocide? > 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. The feelings are not irrelevant. In the courts in this country they allow the victims to stand up and let their feelings be known to all the courtroom audience about how they feel about the convicted defendant. Sometimes the victim impact statements are aired on national TV. This happened at the conclusion of the recent trial of a criminal named Westerfield, who was convicted of abducting and raping and murdering a little girl. The parents and other relatives of the murdered girl were all allowed to stand up in court one by one and tell Westerfield about how they feel he is such a wretched, despicable, detestable, and evil person. Westerfield listened in a most detached manner. He offered no apology, nor did he express any feelings of remorse. After hearing these impassioned speeches from the family members of the victim, the judge asked Westerfield if he had anything to say for himself. Westerfield replied that he had nothing to say. Thereupon the judge sentenced Westerfield to suffer the death penalty. > If you kill somebody, and you feel its right, you are still guilty, and will be > punished. Only if the court finds that the homicide was not justifiable. >>> 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 not a threat to Americans. It was a threat to only Ethnic Albanians. I support doing whatever is necessary to stop genocide regardless of whatever ethnic group or racial group is being killed off. What is ethnocentric about that attitude? > It was started because many people died, and this is against the human rights. > (Sam they are called HUMAN rights, not american rights) It doesn't matter to me what kind of rights you call them as long as you recognize their rights to live and you are not going to allow anyone to try to kill them off. > 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. OK, but what is your problem with my considering genocide as evil? >>> 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. He will not submit to supervision. You have to get rid of or otherwise deal with anyone who refuses to submit to supervision. >>> 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. OK, he does lots of dirty deeds too. > 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 According to the US Constitution the US Congress has the right to declare war. The UN does not have the right nor the power to abbrogate the US Constitution. >>> 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) Yeah, and evil too. > 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 ...) Oh, so that is why you hate the word. > 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. Bush has said that he isn't going to let a little thing like world opinion turn him around. A true leader does not allow himself to be manipulated by frivolous opinions. >>> 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. He will not submit to supervision. >>> 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. How could you have possibly inferred anything else from the context in which I have used the word in this discussion? >>> 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 ?? Iraq is not free. > 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. The US should stand tall and proud, and beneath no coalition of other nations who are out to put her down. > 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) I have nowhere in this discussion attempted to advance the argument that might makes right. > SH> Saddam is clearly a threat to peace in the region. > Why has the US the right to decide who is a threat ?? It is a vital function of any government to decide who is a threat to peace and national security interests. Your government also makes threat assessments. > What happens if America decides that austria is a threat ?? > will you bomb me than ?? Why do you keep raising such hypothetical questions that are so utterly beyond any foreseeable scenario? > 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. The problem is about having a war now or later. Do it now and maybe only a few hundred will get killed. Wait until after Saddam can build up his weapons and equipment and forces some more and maybe millions will get killed. > 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. We can't save lives by waiting. > 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. War appears very imminent anyway. The sooner it starts the faster it will be over with and fewer the numbers who will get killed. >>> 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. The UN is the infallible oracle of the truth? > 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 ?? So what? So why let him attack Kuwait again? > 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. Every country has the right to make its own threat assessments based on its own sources of information and considering its own capabilities for national defense. Also every intelligence agency of every country recognizes the importance of protecting their sources of information. In addition they have the right to keep secrets from one another. Why should every country be forced to share all their information with all those untrustworthy outsiders at the UN? Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
