Japanese (was Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 03:58:28 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: > Excerpt from Bastiaan Edelman: >> A Japanese and a Chinese can write to each other and understand most of >> it... but talking to each other is useless. > I didn't realize Japanese and Chinese written languages were so close. You > mean a Chinese could read a Japanese newspaper, and vice versa? But Korean has > a different look to me, I think I might tell Chinese from Korean printed matter, > but no way could I distinguish handwritten Chinese from handwritten Korean. > If intonation is such a critical part of spoken Chinese, I'd be really lost in > that language. Written Japanese is very complex. The characters it is written in were adapted from Chinese but through a long process came to symbolize Japanese words of similar sound and meaning. In the process the characters were simplified and made more cursive to the point where many characters retain little of nothing of their original shape. The characters (called Kanji) have two sets of meanings. One based on the sound of the original Chinese. Another is based on native Japanese words of similar meaning. The characters may also be used to represent the sounds of Japanese syllables. There are two systems of this syllabic representation. (hiragana and katakana) All three systems are used in modern Japanese and you couldn't read a newspaper without knowing all three. There are currently just under two thousand Kanji in common use and the phonetic representations have been modernized. I once thought of trying to learn Japanese and did a little reading about it. The spoken language is simpler than the writen, but the combination is quite daunting. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
Excerpt from Bastiaan Edelman: > A Japanese and a Chinese can write to each other and understand most of > it... but talking to each other is useless. I didn't realize Japanese and Chinese written languages were so close. You mean a Chinese could read a Japanese newspaper, and vice versa? But Korean has a different look to me, I think I might tell Chinese from Korean printed matter, but no way could I distinguish handwritten Chinese from handwritten Korean. If intonation is such a critical part of spoken Chinese, I'd be really lost in that language.
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
Dear List: Like Sam I had to suffer under a tyrant teacher and learn handwriting with a steel nib pen. My handwriting was allways terrible and never improved :-( Thankfully I suffered under another tyrant - a nun who taught me piano technique. This transferred to the keyboard and now in the age of computers I am one of those who can touch type quickly - one reason why I am so adverse to using a mouse. I was using a CAD program last night, SCHEDIT, and thinking that it uses hotkeys as much as does Arachne. For such an old program it is quite good. A far less pleasant experience was trying to deposit some minutes I typed up as .rtf into our corporate body computer - a recent window$ machine with the full horror: microsopic icons, ratty mouse, ill;ogical dialog boxes, ridiculous directory structure, shortcuts that arnt, clipboards that erase files, non handling of tabs, things stuck behind each other, help screens that wont go away, programs arguing about what file type they want, refusal to take a command, demands to go through an iterative technique to get the action you want,etc Kali > If only I could have performed good enough to > do the kind of work that she does, I might have even been able to get a > job as a guiding angel. > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ http://www.nimnet.asn.au/~kali
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:06:50 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: > Is Japanese a more ridiculous language than Chinese or Korean? I think these > three languages have a large complicated character set as opposed to an alphabet > such as Roman, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew or Arabic. A Japanese and a Chinese can write to each other and understand most of it... but talking to each other is useless. > I imagine Chinese, Japanese or Korean must be monstrously difficult to learn for > somebody accustomed to an alphabetical language such as English. I hate to > think what it must be like to read less-than-neat handwriting. Sometimes I > can't even read handwriting in English! I had some courses in Chinese and yes it is difficult to write and read. Handwritten is impossible to me but printed writing can be understood... if you knew enough 'caracters'. You need abt 4000 to read a newspaper... I know abt 700. Knew because you forget them very quickly if you do not use them on a daily basic. Speaking and listening is also not easy for Chinese is a "tone" language. Eg. the word "ma" has abt 30 different meanings and wichone is meant depends on the pitch given to the word and it's location in the sentence. At the end very often it is a spoken question mark... At the start: mum or horse could be the meaning or in the expression: "ma shang" literally "on a horse" it means: very quickly, very fast. However: grammar and structure of the language is very simple. No irreqular verbs (one exeption), no femine/masculin, etcetera. CU, Bastiaan
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 01:06:50 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: > I imagine Chinese, Japanese or Korean must be monstrously difficult to learn for > somebody accustomed to an alphabetical language such as English. I hate to > think what it must be like to read less-than-neat handwriting. Sometimes I > can't even read handwriting in English! The reason why you can't even read handwriting in English nowadays is that the public schools have stopped teaching penmanship. When I was in the third grade I was attending a public school in Stoughton, Massachusetts, a small town about 18 miles from Boston. It was one of the last of the public school systems in the US where penmanship was still being taught according to the established classical standards. That was in 1950. We had a special teacher who would visit each classroom in the elementary school for one hour each day to teach penmanship. We were not taught penmanship by using one of those then new-fangled fountain pens. We were taught penmanship by using a steel quill pen which we would have to burnish with a gauze cloth each time before dipping it into a bottle of ink. Our penmanship instructor was a most demanding perfectionist when it came to forming lettering in conformity with the standards. None of us children liked her because she was so nitpicking. When I became an adult my parents told me that the liberal and progressive educators of the times when I was in the third grade in Stoughton were condemning the school system there as being hopelessly old-fashioned and out of touch with modern theories of education which emphasized the alleged need of letting the student express his individuality and do his own thing and develop his own style of doing things. Also my parents told me that they do not agree with the notions of the modern liberal and progressive educators. They told me that they most highly approved of the methods and ways I was taught and they were greatly impressed with the handwriting skills I had learned when I was in the third grade. After completing the third grade in Stoughton I moved with my family to Norfolk, Virginia, where my father had been given a new assignment. Throughout the rest of my schooling I never again received another class in penmanship. Also I never again ever saw a steel quill pen until I applied for a civil service job in 1963. It was the first civilian job I had ever applied for. In order to get the job I was told that I would have to pass a series of civil service tests. One of the most important tests was one designed to test my handwriting skills. The job title I was applying for was that of Cartographic Technician for the US Geological Survey. For making maps extremely good handwriting skills are required. The test standards required that I use a steel quill pen. I was told that the test evaluators were very nitpicking perfectionists and that for this reason many people fail the handwriting test. They advised me to practice for the test first, which I did for about three days. They told me that I would have to copy all of the characters "perfectly", just as my third grade penmanship instructor always would insist of me. As I was taking the test for the record I thought of my third grade penmanship instructor whom I used to despise so much for her most nitpicking insistence for my conformity with the standards. As I was forming the letters with my steel quill pen I felt as though I was a child in school again and I felt a presence of her looking over my shoulder and speaking to me about how important it is to copy all of the characters so perfectly. Sometimes it seemed as though I could even feel her gentle guiding grasp upon my hand. A couple of days after I submitted my handwriting sample and the other tests, the evaluators informed me that I can have the job because I had performed good enough for doing government work. If only I could have performed good enough to do the kind of work that she does, I might have even been able to get a job as a guiding angel. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
> In Australia we were a little peeved when the new state of East Timor > adopted Portugese as its national language instead of English. > Indonesian would have been a better choice as like Esperanto it is an > excellent language and spoken by neighbouring countries, but we could > sort of understand resentment after the years of occupation by > the US backed Soeharto dictatorship. > My sister has just given up on Japanese, in spite of working in Japan. > Ridiculous language. > Bye > Kali Is Japanese a more ridiculous language than Chinese or Korean? I think these three languages have a large complicated character set as opposed to an alphabet such as Roman, Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew or Arabic. I imagine Chinese, Japanese or Korean must be monstrously difficult to learn for somebody accustomed to an alphabetical language such as English. I hate to think what it must be like to read less-than-neat handwriting. Sometimes I can't even read handwriting in English!
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
Dear List: The Arachne list is getting like philosophy 11A, but it is interesting. Sam wrote: > This situation might change after a few more decades. The growth rate > of the Spanish speaking populations in the world is much greater than the > rate seen in populations which speak English. Soon the Spanish speaking > people will outnumber those who speak English. In Australia we were a little peeved when the new state of East Timor adopted Portugese as its national language instead of English. Indonesian would have been a better choice as like Esperanto it is an excellent language and spoken by neighbouring countries, but we could sort of understand resentment after the years of occupation by the US backed Soeharto dictatorship. My sister has just given up on Japanese, in spite of working in Japan. Ridiculous language. Bye Kali -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
- Original Message - From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arachne List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > > >> If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local > >> police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her > >> with assault. > > > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I > > was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. > > Anyone in this country has the right to swear out a warrant for the > arrest of anybody else in this country, regardless of the nationality, > race, and/or the religion of the complainant. > > >> If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have > >> been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie > >> and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can > >> get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement > >> authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which > >> they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the > >> suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. > >> As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to > >> get away with it the incidents will continue. > > > It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the > > authorities. > > In that case you could have filed a federal complaint charging the > local authorities with violation of your civil rights. You could have > contacted some anti-racist organizations such as the Jewish Defense > League or the Southern Poverty Law Center I suppose I could have done a lot of things. But don't forget, I was a tourist and did not grow up in the US. I didn't even speak much English. I didn't know of any anti-racist organizations, or that there was a possibility to to file a federal complaint. I didn't even know the word for "attorney". > >> Unfortunately racism is > >> still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, > >> especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in > >> areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order > >> groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold > >> racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > > >> > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > >> > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > >> > anywhere. > > >> The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and > >> warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and > >> they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he > >> is a known madman. > > > Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. > > Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, > > we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons > > stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to > > use them. > > He will use them. He has in the past used chemical weapons even against > his own people and with devastating results. This fact is not disputed. > > >> I don't think we need to worry so much about the > >> other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq > >> we have quite a problem with that. > > > Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The > > regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. > > See above. > > >> > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > >> > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > >> > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have > > no > >> > means of getting them all the way to America. > > >> Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might > >> try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical > >> and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried > >> by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are > >> bringing into the country. Since the crimina
In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
Hi bobdohse!
17 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sorry all ...
I have 100 msgs in ml.arachne, and no time to dig through.
(exam season ...)
anyways:
PS: I'm myself half hungarian, and the Hungary vs. Romania "battle" is simply
not true (any more:).
But you are right about the Gypsies.
And _NATURALLY_ Europe is not perfect (who is ?)
Europe has many, many problems.
America has also problems.
But a subset of these problems lies in different areas.
For example burocracy is very big here, whereas much smaller and faster in the
US. The amount of money you have to pay for taxes is much higher than in the
US, etc.
b> So, does that mean that it's OKAY for all of us to keep our separate
b> ways?
SURE ! As long as it doesn't hurt others.
It's the old freedom debate:
Does freedom mean that I am free to hurt others ? :))
b> Or must everybody change so that all become alike, yet each
b> keeps their individual name so that *diversity* remains?
NOO
Where did I state something like that.
b> Because, what I'm hearing is that you don't like some of the American
b> ways.
Right.
But this doesn't have to do with the discussions.
America has its values, and I have mine.
This is absolutely OK and good.
As long as nobody wants to force the way onto others with force, everything is
perfect.
b> And, my understanding is that you think America should change.
no.
My understanding is that america can do what it wants on its terretory.
But it is not OK if America _starts_ a war without being attacked.
It is not OK if america invades a country, without any legal mandate by the UN.
This means there is no legal protection for anybody outside of the US.
Basically "America can do what it wants, and nobody can stop it.
The only thing which matters is what Americans think will help them, and they
can do anything in the world to achieve their goals."
PS: Schröder and jaques chiraques (?spelling) said:
UN Insepctors should investigate.
If evidence is found, than Iraq has to fully cooperate in the destruction
b> What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it
b> is logical to argue that America should change to a European
b> perspective, yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact,
b> needs to change its perspective.
Nobody should change.
Americans can do what they want, as long as they stay on their terretory.
MY problem is if america itself decides what is good and bad for others, and
forces this way on somebody.
b> Maybe that's because I've never been indoctrinated with that
b> particular version of basic knowledge.
??? (I'm very diasspointed about that comment)
Anyways ... maybe this comes from the mixing of 2 issues.
American bullying ... threatening to start an illegal war by its own.
(this is bad ... maybe it is MY being indoctrinated ... but maybe it is you
watching too much fox news)
MY PERSONAL feeling about some American issues.
The second is simply how I see things.
It doesn't mean that america should change.
And I'm sure that there are many european issues as well.
But anyways the 2. part is unimportant. Here I simply wanted to express some of
my private thoughts.
But the first part is of HIGH IMPORTANCE:
again ...
what if america would acuse austria of having many skiers.
america would have 100.000s of soldiers at the borders of austria.
it would say Schüssel ("president" of austria) I want to see you dead.
every 2. word concerning Austria would be war.
The UNs would have highly skilled skier detection personel in austria in order
to detect possibly skiers.
And america says I don't care about the UN, I will attack another counrty,
because I want to.
No evidence is given, no proof of any illegal Action in austria is given.
Is it OK if America starts a war against austria ??
b> Bob
CU, Ricsi
--
|~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP)
|~\|(__\| -=> He who laughs last doesn't understand the joke <=-
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: >> If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local >> police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her >> with assault. > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I > was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. Anyone in this country has the right to swear out a warrant for the arrest of anybody else in this country, regardless of the nationality, race, and/or the religion of the complainant. >> If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have >> been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie >> and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can >> get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement >> authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which >> they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the >> suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. >> As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to >> get away with it the incidents will continue. > It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the > authorities. In that case you could have filed a federal complaint charging the local authorities with violation of your civil rights. You could have contacted some anti-racist organizations such as the Jewish Defense League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They would have provided you with with lawyers for free. You could have sued the town for a lot of money. The organizations I mentioned are very strongly against allowing the authorities to get away with this kind of thing. They have very strong and positive ties to the press and to the TV news networks. They can bring down very negative national media attention against any town which allows this kind of thing to happen. The investigative reporters could have set up some scenes involving people playing the role of foreign Jews and they could have interviewed the local authorities in such a way as to portray them very negatively. You could have fought back and won big if you knew how to go about doing it. You would not have even needed any money to press your case. >> Unfortunately racism is >> still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, >> especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in >> areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order >> groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold >> racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. >> > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and >> > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around >> > anywhere. >> The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and >> warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and >> they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he >> is a known madman. > Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. > Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, > we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons > stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to > use them. He will use them. He has in the past used chemical weapons even against his own people and with devastating results. This fact is not disputed. >> I don't think we need to worry so much about the >> other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq >> we have quite a problem with that. > Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The > regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. See above. >> > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just >> > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to >> > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have > no >> > means of getting them all the way to America. >> Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might >> try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical >> and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried >> by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are >> bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully >> conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also >> at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents >> also. > Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would > be the reason for them to do it? Because they want to kill Americans. Why did the terrorists hijack some commercial airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center? It is because the
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
Hi Casper, My extensive disagreements are noted below. I actually happen to agree with some of Ricsi's stated positions, although probably for different reasons. I think there is logic in the argument that Europe's positions is not necessarily *right* just because America's position is possibly *wrong*. It is theoretically possible that both perspectives are wrong. Bob On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:03:18 +0100 Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > > > Menedetter) writes: > > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to > worldwide > > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force > foreign ways > > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to > make > > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, > the > > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to > sound > > like Mr. Heston?) > > The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. > I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. - >From the people with whom I've talked: "Saddam gave us guns, but no ammunition". >From the photos I've seen: With the exception of the government escorts to foreign journalists, most of the guns in the hands of people in civilian dress do not have ammo clips. On some occasions, there are clips, but the clips are empty. I see no evidence of clip holders attached to belts, or clips hidden in pockets. So, the conclusion I make from the evidence I've seen and the interviews I've conducted is that the majority of Iraqi civilians are not armed (with weapons of modern warfare). This is not the case in the northern areas. Kurds, Turkomen, and Assyrians have both guns and ammo. I would be interested in seeing your evidence. > > > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear > > in their schools about the German people. > > Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about > what they tell us about Germans at school. > > - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been > for a long time. - Oh? That doesn't explain why, when my wife and I (who both have some German features) would walk down the residential streets in Holland, the kids would spit and make anti-German remarks. That also doesn't explain why our hosts would speak Dutch to the kids (who would then smile and wave), and then our hosts would tell us that the kids first thought we were German, but now understood that we were from America. I had the exact experience in Bitche, France. Perhaps the spitting and cussing were culturally appropriate gestures of affection. If so, I apologize for reaching the wrong conclusions. If not, I stand firm on my conclusion that Pan-European hugs and kisses are not universally approved. I am NOT claiming that all Dutch or French hate Germans, I'm only countering the argument that some sort of Pan-European enlightenment had removed all traces of prejudices in Europe, or that the lessons taught in European schools have reached a level of perfection. I AM countering the implication that Europe has obtained a position of moral superiority from which it should lecture the rest of the world. And that does NOT mean that the USA should do so, either. People in glass houses should not throw rocks - whether the houses are European or American. > - - Although Germans started WWII, that does not make them > warmongers. Hitler wasn't even German. - According to my elderly neighbor in Homberg, it was France who started the war by insisting upon heavy reparations after WW1. Of course, he wasn't schooled under the modern curriculum. He's also dead now, so only the modern textbook remains. Is it only the Europeans from the east who understand that those with political power also have editorial power? > - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's > (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The > Netherlands, > France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). > - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong > leader and a > scapegoat. Germany's economy was completely destroyed by heavy (close > to impossible) punishments for WW1. - This is absolutely true - it was an impossible situation. Some people use this as an argument AGAINST the collective bargaining of victorious combatants. Sanctions, embargoes, and war reparations are several of the UN tactics with which I disagree. I can't recall an occasion when they have been useful in achieving their stated objective. > > All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of > us. And just > like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being > "good" or "b
Guantanamo [formerly Re: Iraq vs. N Korea]
Original subject was Re: Iraq vs. N Korea On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Are the Taliban fighters among them really criminals... they were > defending their country, invaded by US forces. Ah, here's the sad truth, Bastiaan. The Taliban government wasn't recognized by the UN or most of the individual member countries. At the time of the Taliban fighters' capture, the 3 UN members that previously had recognized the Taliban had already withdrawn their recognition. The officially "recognized" government was that of President Rabbani (who was living in exile). And THAT government invited the foreign militaries to *come and assist the Afghani people*. (That, BTW, was very similar to how Panama became separate from Colombia). So, by decision of all the members of the club, the Taliban wasn't a government and their fighters weren't part of an (internationally recognized) army. Neither were they civilians committing ordinary crimes. They were, therefore, illegal combatants. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the outcome, but that's a fact. I called this the *sad truth*, because the legitimacy of a government can be decided by those who are not citizens, and the citizens would have no choice or vote. It's just a simple matter of the UN making a decision. Perhaps this sheds some light on why I protest so strongly to what I've previously called *the European voice* in this ongoing debate. It's a dangerous precedent that I do not want to leave unchallenged. If WE (as the UN members) have the authority to take away the government from those whom we dislike, what would happen if everybody else decided to take away the authority of my elected leader (currently Bush)? Doesn't this violate my personal and individual rights as a "member of the human family"? Not if the UN decides I made the wrong choice. Maybe this is a remote threat to the USA, but that was the exact situation for Yugoslavia in the 1990s. The UN didn't like Slobo's style, so they suspended Yugoslavia from the club. I didn't much like Slobo either, but I also dislike idea of the UN having that authority. So, those guys who are jailed at Guantanamo are there because of a UN decision - a vote originally cast in 1648 in Munster, West Phalia. The long arm of colonialism - UN style. Hey, Bastiaan. Maybe we can share a cell in the (future) dissenter's prison (also known as The UN Center for the Education of Progressive Governmental Concepts). (And the American voice in the background mutters, "After they pry my gun from my cold, clinched fist"). Bob - Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
I have just found the following article: http://www.theworldnews.com.au/index.html?ArtID=51757 It's refreshing to see that some people keep their sanity.
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
- Original Message - From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arachne List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:15 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > > > Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the > > last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not > > heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come > > to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that > > happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a > > small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face > > when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was > > scum as far as she was concerned. > > If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local > police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her > with assault. I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. > If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have > been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie > and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can > get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement > authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which > they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the > suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. > As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to > get away with it the incidents will continue. It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the authorities. > Unfortunately racism is > still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, > especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in > areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order > groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold > racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > > > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > > anywhere. > > The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and > warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and > they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he > is a known madman. Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to use them. > I don't think we need to worry so much about the > other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq > we have quite a problem with that. Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. > > > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no > > means of getting them all the way to America. > > Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might > try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical > and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried > by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are > bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully > conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also > at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents > also. Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would be the reason for them to do it? > > > For that reason alone it would > > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to > > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in > > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, > > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't > > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... > > > Have a good day, > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ >
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:10:15 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the > last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not > heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come > to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that > happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a > small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face > when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was > scum as far as she was concerned. If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her with assault. If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to get away with it the incidents will continue. Unfortunately racism is still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > anywhere. The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he is a known madman. I don't think we need to worry so much about the other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq we have quite a problem with that. > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no > means of getting them all the way to America. Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents also. > For that reason alone it would > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... > Have a good day, Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: >>> How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? >>> They are treated worse than animals. >> The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated >> any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be >> treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. >> The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well >> as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal >> classification, status, and category. > The only way to classify someone 'a criminal' is by a court decission > and until trial they are supposed to be 'innocent'. In the case of persons captured on the battlefield they can be classified as criminals or POW's by the military authorities. If they are classified as criminals their cases may be disposed of by a military tribunal rather than by a civilian criminal court. The military has officers who are competently trained lawyers and who are well qualified to determine who should be classified as POW's and who should be categorized as criminals. The military will appoint legal counsel to help those who feel they have grounds to protest their classification. > The detainees in Guantanamo are refused a (fair) trail or even legal > advice to defend them selves. Kept in prison outside the US and outside > US law. Guantanamo is a US military base. All US military bases must adhere to US law. > If there is that overwhelming evidence that they are guilty why not give > them a fair trail? Whatever the military tribunal decided is considered fair enough. They are military prisoners. They are not prisoners detained by order of a civilian court. > Are the Talibaan fighters among them realy criminals... they were > defending their country, invaded by US forces. They were not defending their country. They were defending Al Queda, a terrorist organization. They are all war criminals. All war criminals are men without a country. > What was the reason for their arrest? Did they look like Bin Laden? > Did they have a beard? Have they been questioned in Afghanistan and did > they speak English very well? They were caught in the criminal act of serving in either the Taliban or in Al Queda or in some other terrorist organization. > After all, they are over a year now in Guantanamo and still deprived of > decent conditions or a fair trial... if it ever comes to a trial. > Bin Laden & comp is still at large; the information gathered by US > intelligence from those prisoners does not seem of any help. > So why not let them go if there is no sufficient evidence (maybe no > evidence at all?) or give them a fair trail very soon. If we expatriated them to Afghanistan they would likely be put on trial there by the current government and sentenced to death. Would this be a better fate for them? > Is this an example of the "American values" that the 'rest of the world' > is supposed not to understand? Sadam does understand... I don't! > Suggestion to G.W.B... hand them out to the court in The Hague. What should the Hague do with them? Execute them? Expatriate them to Afghanistan? Release them into civilized society and prevent them somehow from returning to their terrorist organizations? Keep them detained somewhere forever? Whatever is finally decided as to what to do with them, I don't think the detainees are going to be happy unless they would totally renounce their terrorist cause. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
>> How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? >> They are treated worse than animals. > The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated > any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be > treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. > The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well > as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal > classification, status, and category. The only way to classify someone 'a criminal' is by a court decission and until trial they are supposed to be 'innocent'. The detainees in Guantanamo are refused a (fair) trail or even legal advice to defend them selves. Kept in prison outside the US and outside US law. If there is that overwhelming evidence that they are guilty why not give them a fair trail? Are the Talibaan fighters among them realy criminals... they were defending their country, invaded by US forces. What was the reason for their arrest? Did they look like Bin Laden? Did they have a beard? Have they been questioned in Afghanistan and did they speak English very well? After all, they are over a year now in Guantanamo and still deprived of decent conditions or a fair trial... if it ever comes to a trial. Bin Laden & comp is still at large; the information gathered by US intelligence from those prisoners does not seem of any help. So why not let them go if there is no sufficient evidence (maybe no evidence at all?) or give them a fair trail very soon. Is this an example of the "American values" that the 'rest of the world' is supposed not to understand? Sadam does understand... I don't! Suggestion to G.W.B... hand them out to the court in The Hague. Regards, Bastiaan
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
Excellently put, Casper. I am a Jew who grew up in Germany just after the last war, went to school there and university. During that time I have not heard EVER a racist remark by my peers or anyone else for that matter. Come to think of it, I was naive enough to think that racism is something that happened in the past. Until I went on a holiday to the USA. It was in a small town in Louisiana where a woman I talked to in a diner spat in my face when she heard I was Jewish and had the audacity to live in Germany! I was scum as far as she was concerned. What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around anywhere. Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have no means of getting them all the way to America. For that reason alone it would be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war in the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is that, apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I don't want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... Have a good day, Dr. Ron - Original Message - From: "Casper Gielen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:03 AM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > > > Menedetter) writes: > > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide > > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force foreign ways > > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to make > > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, the > > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to sound > > like Mr. Heston?) > > The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. > I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. > > > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear in their > > schools about the German people. > > Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about what they > tell us about Germans at school. > > - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been for a long > time. > - - Allthough Germans started WWII, that does not make them warmongers. Hitler > wasn't even german. > - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's > (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The Netherlands, > France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). > - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong leader and a > scapegoat. Germany's economy was completly destroyed by heavy (close to > impossible) punishments for WW1. > > All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of us. And just > like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being "good" or > "bad". > > > > > Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? > > > > The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to Portugal. > > Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have been > > abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US (whoever them > > and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural > > Anthropology. > > The mistake you make is thinking that "THEM vs US" is something like a > football match in which you are supposed to "beat" "THEM" so "US" will be the > winners. > Sure, prejudices exist everywhere, but being taught how to recognize and avoid > them helps. > > > I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of teaching the > > American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > > > > I might have missed a day, but most of those 3 month I was there. That is > three months of History dedicated to the US. Many other classes also spend at > least some time to US views, eg English. For the record, they also try to > teach us about other country's/believes. Think Islam/North-Korea/Communism. > > > What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that
Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Op zaterdag 18 januari 2003 07:04, schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard > > Menedetter) writes: > > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide > > affairs. THIS is not possible. > > I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. > > It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force foreign ways > upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to make > this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, the > American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to sound > like Mr. Heston?) The Iraqis have guns, just like the Taliban. I'll save the anti-gun argument for later. > Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear in their > schools about the German people. Being Dutch, 22 years old, I think I have quite a clear view about what they tell us about Germans at school. - - They are NOT the enemy anymore, they are friends, and have been for a long time. - - Allthough Germans started WWII, that does not make them warmongers. Hitler wasn't even german. - - During the pre-war years, movements similar to the Nazi's (fascist/nationalist) existed in most country's, including The Netherlands, France and Italy (Mussolini was an example to Hitler). - -Whenever the economy goes bad, people will look for a strong leader and a scapegoat. Germany's economy was completly destroyed by heavy (close to impossible) punishments for WW1. All of this boils down to: they are humans, just like the rest of us. And just like colour of skin or religion, have nothing to do with being "good" or "bad". > > Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? > > The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to Portugal. > Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have been > abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US (whoever them > and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural > Anthropology. The mistake you make is thinking that "THEM vs US" is something like a football match in which you are supposed to "beat" "THEM" so "US" will be the winners. Sure, prejudices exist everywhere, but being taught how to recognize and avoid them helps. > I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of teaching the > American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > I might have missed a day, but most of those 3 month I was there. That is three months of History dedicated to the US. Many other classes also spend at least some time to US views, eg English. For the record, they also try to teach us about other country's/believes. Think Islam/North-Korea/Communism. > What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it is > logical to argue that America should change to a European perspective, > yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, needs to change > its perspective. > As long as you are only dealing with the US, don't change a thing. However, as soon as you start interacting with people from other parts of the world, you'll have to adapt to find a common way of interaction. - From some other discussion: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." - -- Casper Gielen [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -- Linux sucks twice as fast and 10 times more reliably, and since you have the source, it's your fault. -Ca1v1n -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+LwcWIhQIPPgOSvcRAtxQAJ9KER9QfWCLyXxVdnIkiIGOUwwsqgCcCFXE L+knVdW+jIfdA4mybj/hp7U= =V7mS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:12:26 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > .. > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with > .. > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It > .. > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge > .. > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be > .. > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant > .. > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the > .. > awards should not be a factor in their decisions. > Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" > during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, > any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to > trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is > independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will > not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of > recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. > I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two > years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, > now you've won; try now to collect." Here in Virginia, if you don't pay off a judgement fast the lawyers for the plaintiff can easily place a lien on your home, even if the home is in another state, for the amount of the judgement plus interest until the judgement is paid off. Until you pay off the judgement you will have a bad credit rating and you won't be able to sell your home. This happened to me. They put a lien on a residential building lot that I own in another state. I eventually paid off the judgement even though it was most unfair because there was no way I could prevent them from collecting. Sam Heywood -- > Roger Turk > Tucson, Arizona -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
Samuel W. Heywood wrote: . > I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with . > the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It . > seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge . > amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be . > nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant . > is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the . > awards should not be a factor in their decisions. Here in Arizona, at least, even mentioning the word, "insur(e)(ed)(er)" during a trial will result in a mistrial as it prejudices the jury. However, any halfway intelligent juror will realize that if a lawsuit is brought to trial, either an insurance company is involved or the defendant is independently wealthy. A lawyer who takes a case on a contingency basis will not pursue a case unless he/she feels that there is a reasonable chance of recovery. However we may wish to think of lawyers, they are not stupid. I am a structural engineer, not a lawyer. A client of mine won a lawsuit two years ago and is still trying to collect. It appears to be a case of, "OK, now you've won; try now to collect." Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:23:32 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> [Cultureal differences] >>> Some minor points ... >>> I did not mean to include the charta word by word. >>> It would be enough to include the most vital things. >>> Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. > SH> The US Declaration of Independence says something very similar . . . > SH> "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable > SH> rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of > SH> happiness." > How does this go together with people in Guantanamo ? > They are treated worse than animals. The illegal combatants detained in Guantanomo ought not to be treated any worse than any other ordinary criminals. All criminals ought to be treated equally and according to the risks of their possible escape. The detainees in Guantanamo do not however deserve to be treated as well as we would treat POW's because the illegal combatants have a criminal classification, status, and category. >>> IMO american social/health system is total crap. > SH> Bush fixed that problem yesterday. > This problem is sooo HUGE that you can't "fix" it simply. > But hopefully he imporved the situation. > SH> Bush in his speech called for legislation to correct this problem. > SH> Among other measures he proposes, he is seeking a reasonable max on > SH> the awards that can be given for medical malpractice suits. > The question is how can that happened the first place. I don't know. There appears to be something fundamenatally wrong with the jury selection process, especially for civil lawsuit trials. It seems that many jurors think it is OK to award the plaintiffs huge amounts of money just because the defendant is insured. There should be nothing awarded at all unless they can honestly find that the defendant is at fault. The ability of the defendant's insurers to pay for the awards should not be a factor in their decisions. > Some examples: > Person buys coffee at McDonalds. > Person spills coffee over hand ... person sues McDonalds because they did not > tell her that the coffee is hot. > No problem until now ... BUT > Person _WINS_ law suit, and gets really much $$$ for it. > Person B buys new microwave oven. > Person B has a cat which was out in the rain. > Person B decides that he dries the cat in the oven. > Cat doesn't survive. > Person B sues microwave oven maker, and gets huge amount of $$$. > For european thinking these cases are ridicolous. > And judge would give the other party right. I agree. There is something really wrong with the thinking of a lot of our judges and juries, especially in the area of civil lawsuits. >>> (eductation) >>> There is no "don't agree". >>> There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can >>> intervene. For me this is the best system available. And it saves >>> the children from misguided parents. In America it is possible that >>> children grow up with the thought that black/white/purple whatever >>> people are inferior. In Europe the child would at least hear >>> something different in school. > SH> The best solution for many parents is to take their children out of > SH> public schools. If the parents tell the teachers they are teaching > SH> things wrong the teachers won't change their ways, no matter how good > SH> a job the parents do at proving that the teachers are wrong. > This is not the problem of public schooling, but about bad american school > system. > In europe any teacher teaching not the truth will be immediately fired. It ought to be that way here too. I am not so sure that you europeans don't have some of the same problems with lousy teachers as we have here. >>> For example a german family left germany, because the children were >>> taught that there is evolution, and that the world was not created >>> in 6 (7) days. > SH> This is the reason why many parents take their children out of public > SH> schools in the US. > What ?? > That teachers teach them facts ?? The problem is that many people would rather believe in their interpretations of religious scripture than in the logical conclusions born out by science. > If yes than these parents have serious problems. Yes, they certainly do. In many other respects they might be very good parents. We can't expect all parents to be perfect in every way. Most people have problems in sorting out the religion vs. science problem and in getting it all together. What works best for me in tweaking my mind and spirit to run the way I want it might not work for somebody else. > SH> I don't think that is a good reason because I believe that evolution > SH> occurs and I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. > Believes are irrelevant for school. (facts are relevant) > Believing is not knowing. (german proverb) > And what you do not know has not to be taught in school
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights ... > as in the UN human rights charta ... The UN Declaration of Human Rights only recognizes human rights "given" by law. The Bill of Rights recognizes inherent rights. I wish you would read both documents, and understand the difference between rights given by a State, and rights already owned simply by virtue of birth. Both, however, are simply pieces of paper. All ten of the Bill of Rights have been violated in this country, as have all the declarations in the UN paper been violated. A piece of paper ultimately contains only as much power as someone is willing to pay for, whether it be with blood, sweat, compromise (or yes, even money or deceit). Yes, the US government has ignored its own Constitution many times... as has every government on Earth ignored its own written law. All governments are evil. That is axiomatic. Therefore, creating an even larger, more remote, less accountable world government will not change a thing, except to enable it to be even more daring in its various abuses of power. Governmental power can only exist at the expense of individual rights. There's no way around it. ... and I now bow out of any further political discourse. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea)
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > MY problem is if America wants to force american law to worldwide > affairs. THIS is not possible. I agree, Ricsi. One should not force their own ways upon others. It is equally true that Americans don't want others to force foreign ways upon America. And, if a foreign force were to come and attempt to make this happen, they would fail. This is because, as a last resort, the American people still possess their guns. (Gee, I'm starting to sound like Mr. Heston?) > (education) > There is no "don't agree". > There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can > intervene. For me this is the best system available. > And it saves the children from misguided parents. > In America it is possible that children grow up with the thought > that black/white/purple whatever people are inferior. > In Europe the child would at least hear something different in > school. I'm guessing your haven't interviewed too many Turkish kids in Germany, Kurdish kids in France, Kosovars in Serbia, Hungarians in Romania, Romanians in Hungary, Gypsy peoples anywhere in Europe, etc., etc. Or, dare I ask, what do you think the French and Dutch kids hear in their schools about the German people. Care to guess what the Serbian people say about Austrians? The Europe I know isn't quite so perfect. I haven't yet been to Portugal. Perhaps they have reached the position where all prejudices have been abolished. For the rest of the world, it's still THEM vs US (whoever them and us happens to be). It's actually the core concept in Cultural Anthropology. < snipped - Sam Heywood's comment about right to own guns > > For me this is no basic human right. (and for most of the world) > Naturally if a nation is still wants such archaic things they can > additionally do it. And they will probably remain so - a nation free to do what they want. > The UN and me think that there is basic knowledge that every human > being should know. This is not indoctrination. Critical question - am I free to disagree and decline the opportunity to receive this enlightenment? *Basic* implies a standard, the minimal requirement. If an individual or group decides to remain ignorant and, thus, receive no indoctrination from anyone, is it acceptable? Or, for the good of the world and the betterment of all people, must all receive the enlightenment? If I am free to choose, then the subject knowledge cannot be *basic*. So, am I mandated to receive this *non-indoctrination*, or is it REALLY not actually *basic*, but merely an opinion which you hold and desire that I embrace? > Indoctrination is what is done on CNN and Fox-news. > When I first saw that I thought it was a joke. > BIG american flags blowing in the wind, taking away 25% of the screen. I'm guessing that you haven't watched too many replays of the 1936 Olympics. > For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a > diversity of opinions. I'm also guessing that the school system did a poor job of teaching the American perspective. Or were you absent that day? > What is the UN. > It is an organization formed by the world governments. > So, no you couldn't be more wrong. > Because the world's governments can never form a world government. So, does that mean that it's OKAY for all of us to keep our separate ways? Or must everybody change so that all become alike, yet each keeps their individual name so that *diversity* remains? Because, what I'm hearing is that you don't like some of the American ways. And, my understanding is that you think America should change. What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it is logical to argue that America should change to a European perspective, yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, needs to change its perspective. Maybe that's because I've never been indoctrinated with that particular version of basic knowledge. Bob - Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:54:16 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > 17 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Cultureal differences] > Some minor points ... > I did not mean to include the charta word by word. > It would be enough to include the most vital things. > Like that _every_ human being has indeniable rights. The US Declaration of Independence says something very similar . . . "That all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." > (guaranteed minimal income) > The minimal income is so minimal that it is just enough to survive. > IMO american social/health system is total crap. Bush fixed that problem yesterday. He made a speech which pleases nearly everybody except the unscrupulous trial lawyers which force doctors and hospitals to pay for outrageous premiums for their malpractice insurance to protect themselves from the rash of frivolous lawsuits. Bush in his speech called for legislation to correct this problem. Among other measures he proposes, he is seeking a reasonable max on the awards that can be given for medical malpractice suits. > But again this is MO, and I don't care, because I'm not affected ... this is > america's problem > (eductation) > There is no "don't agree". > There are facts. If somebody teaches something wrong, you can intervene. > For me this is the best system available. > And it saves the children from misguided parents. > In America it is possible that children grow up with the thought that > black/white/purple whatever people are inferior. > In Europe the child would at least hear something different in school. The best solution for many parents is to take their children out of public schools. If the parents tell the teachers they are teaching things wrong the teachers won't change their ways, no matter how good a job the parents do at proving that the teachers are wrong. > Everything has pros and cons. > SH> The US Constitution provides for the people to own weapons to provide > SH> for their security. There is nothing in the UN human rights > SH> declaration recognizing the right of the people to own weapons. > Naturally not - THANX GOD !! > For me this is no basic human right. (and for most of the world) > Naturally if a nation is still wants such achaic things they can additionally > include it. > SH> The UN feels that they should be instructed and indoctrinated in some > SH> ideas and laws and customs and religions that their parents want to > SH> protect them from. > First ... religion is not part of education. > Everybody is entitled to additionally and freely take religious education. > And yes. > The UN and me think that there is basic knowledge that every human being should > know. > This is not indoctrination. > Indoctrination is what is done on CNN and Fox-news. > When I first saw that I thought it was a joke. > BIG american falgs blowing in the wind, taking away 25% of the screen. > For example a german family left germany, because the children were taught > that there is evolution, and that the world was not created in 6 (7) days. This is the reason why many parents take their children out of public schools in the US. I don't think that is a good reason because I believe that evolution occurs and I don't believe the world was created in 6 days. In the US parents have the right to take their children out of public schools, even if they don't have a good reason in my opinion for doing so. Some parents do have some good reasons in my opinion for taking their children out of public schools. > For me the education is a safeguard that young people get to know a diversity > of oppinions. This should be one of the main purposes of education in the US. In most of the private schools in the US the schools seek to protect the children from learning of any opinions and points of view that the teaching staff thinks are wrong. > SH> When the last original native speaker dies, his language dies with him > SH> because there is nobody left who can teach it, thanks to mandatory > SH> public education. > NO !!! > Exactly the opposit is true. > There are many courses for the people where they can learn their native tongue. > There are classes with 2 teachers, one speaking the native tongue, and who > supports the pupils. In a recent TV news program there was a story about a chieftain of an Indian tribe in Alaska who is 87 years old. She is the only member of the tribe who remains who can still speak the native language. She speaks English also, and she speaks it well. In an interview she said that when she was a little girl most members of the tribe could still speak the native language. She has attracted the attention of some professional linguists who recognize that only she can pass on this knowledge of the tribe's native tongue. She is cooperating very closely with them. She says that
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:54:17 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Eg. he says that he has proof of Iraq having atomic weapons again. >>> But he refuses to a) show the proofs to his allies >>> b) refuses to give them to the UN insepctors. > SH> For a European mind which understands anything about the need to > SH> safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies") > SH> there is another possibility. > NO > see below why. > SH> The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the > SH> proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he > SH> would have to cite his secret sources. > I haven't said that he should present it to the public. > But to the UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS !!! > Dammed, this is a big difference !! > It is their job to find the weapons, and destroy them. > Bush says that he knows where they are, but he doesn't say, because he wants to > attack the Iraq and take the oil. The UN weapons inspectors have the need to know, but do they have the clearance? Both the need to know AND the clearance is required. Even if the inspectors had the clearance they might not get provided with the information they need because of fear of possible compromise which could result from theft of documents or kidnapping and torture, etc. > SH> If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its > SH> oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. > SH> Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq. > no ... much more is simply wrong. > But US still doesn't dare to rob without a "reason". > And Iraq and Saddam are in the eyes of Bush good reasons. There cannot be a "reason" by which the US could justify outright robbing. >>> Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a >>> *HUGE* problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill >>> anybody, and that International court can't react. > SH> It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject > SH> to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). > But what do we do if the US doesn't follow them. > THIS is the question. > As long as they are following it, nobody will be dragged to court. The US law will not allow a US servicemember to get dragged into an international court. The US law protects them from that. It is for American courts to determine whether US servicemembers are following the UCMJ. International courts do not have the authority to make rulings on such matters. Even if they were to be so high-handed as to assert such authority, their rulings would not count because they could not enforce them. > SH> Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon > SH> does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he > SH> wants. > Sure not ... > but what do we do if those person kills Fidel Castro with this weapon. > This is a murder, and has to be punished. There is a current executive order prohibiting the assassination of political leaders. Anyone violating this order will be punished accordingly. > And what do we do if the Country which gave him the weapon told him (breaking > law and UCMJ) to kill the person ?? It is an unlawful order. The person receiving the order has the duty to disobey it. If he obeys an unlawful order he will be subject to prosecution and punishment under the UCMJ. > SH> You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be > SH> accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under > SH> the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather > SH> see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system > SH> rather than by an international court? > SURE ... > this is clear. > And this will be the case. > Principle of subsidiarity. > But what if Bush illegally starts war ?? > Will he than be punished by american lawy ?? Yes. >>> Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... >>> and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... >>> than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... > SH> The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a > SH> fair trial in accordance with the standards prescribed in the UCMJ. > This is the *PUREST* NONSENS I have ever heared. Well, you have said yourself that Austrian soldiers should be tried in their own military courts for alleged violations of their military laws, and I agree with that. What is wrong with my thinking that US soldiers should be tried in their military courts for alleged violations of their military laws? > It is exactly the other way round. > We need international law to be fair, because America has shown often that it > is incapable of being fair. Has Austria always been fair? > SH> The UCMJ is approved by the US Congress and signed into law by the > SH> President. > I DO NOT CARE. > Really
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 05:35:46 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: > I heard on National Public Radio about the USA planning to use land mines in > their military campaign in Iraq, contrary to the wishes of most of the rest of > the world who wanted to ban land mines. The USA also planned to use cluster > bombs. If there were land mines hidden under the White House lawn, then I bet > the US President would join the clamor to ban land mines. Lesson is that only > American lives and limbs count, other people are somehow a lesser breed, less > than fully human. I can see why 75% of Europeans view the USA as a greater > threat to world peace than Iraq or North Korea. > I remember from my days in Atlanta GA, 1985-1989, hearing about the mandatory > gun law in Kennesaw, which is in Cobb County to the northwest of Atlanta. Modern land mines such as those deployed by the US are equipped with a time worm which causes them to auto-deactivate after a pre-determined time. They will not remain active long after the conflict is over. The land mines that are causing all the problems are those which are cheaply produced in other countries and not provided with the time-worm feature. US regulations require that mine fields be very accurately plotted and mapped so the recovery and explosive ordnance disposal operations may be conducted without danger. Mine fields save lives in that their emplacement requires fewer defenders to deny passage of an aggressor. Machine guns deployed for defensive use are said to save lives for the same reason. Here is a fact that is shocking but true, and stranger than fiction: Machine guns were invented and developed by medical doctors for the purpose of saving lives. A narrator on the History Channel, Arthur Kent, backs up that seemingly false assertion as being true. Mr. Kent agrees that despite the lofty and noble purpose for the invention of machine guns, the overall result might have been a great increase in battlefield deaths. Battles fought in very ancient times more than several hudred years before the invention of gunpowder resulted in many more casualties than any battlefield statistics you can cite from modern warfare. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > >>> 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> There are no arguments for starting a war ... >>> SH> A war to prevent a war from getting started is a good argument. > > A war can't prevent the starting of a war. > Because in order to prevent the war you have to START one. Hi Ricsi, My favorite quotation from the Vietnam War era (er, um, Vietnam Police Action) was something to the effect of ... "We had to destroy the village to save it". I can't remember if that was real or from a movie, but it seemed to capture the spirit of the moment. In some ways, it still does. (But, there are two sides to every coin. I'm still trying to figure out the state of the world.) Bob Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:27:47 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Steve! > 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > US Constitution doesn't even contain the MOST *BASIC* human rights ... > as in the UN human rights charta ... There are some things that you perceive as being the MOST *BASIC* human rights that the framers of the US Constitution do not agree with. The UN human rights declarations calls for providing a guaranteed income to everybody. The US Constitution does not. What about the problem of people who are capable of working, but who would rather receive welfare handouts instead of getting a job? They all say that they cannot get a job, but this is a lie. Also the UN human rights declaration provides for the mandatory public education of children. The US Constitution does not. What about the parents who don't want to send their children to public school because they don't agree with what is being taught in the public schools? The US Constitution provides for the people to own weapons to provide for their security. There is nothing in the UN human rights declaration recognizing the right of the people to own weapons. Recently the UN attempted to ban the private possession of small arms from all the world's peoples. The proposed ban would be imposed on all nations and on all cultures. The ban would include even all the types of guns which are designed primarily for hunting and recreational uses. Even in todays's very modern and highly developed world there are still many societies whose survival still depends on hunting-and-gathering. The UN resolution would have sought to repress such societies rather than to recognize their right to continue to carry on with their harmless and peaceable ways of living. Also the UN human rights declarations would require that the children living in such societies should be rounded up and transported to government administrated schools very far from their home environment in order that they may receive the "benefit" of mandatory public education. The UN feels that they should be instructed and indoctrinated in some ideas and laws and customs and religions that their parents want to protect them from. Also the government wants to instruct them in the language which the government thinks should be the correct language for them to speak. When the last original native speaker dies, his language dies with him because there is nobody left who can teach it, thanks to mandatory public education. The UN aspires for unlimited World Government and very limited world languages and cultures and religions. Why should all the world's peoples regard the UN human rights declarations as being so protective of the best interests of humanity? True freedom and responsible democracy arises from respect for human life and from appreciation for human diversity and individuality. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
I heard on National Public Radio about the USA planning to use land mines in their military campaign in Iraq, contrary to the wishes of most of the rest of the world who wanted to ban land mines. The USA also planned to use cluster bombs. If there were land mines hidden under the White House lawn, then I bet the US President would join the clamor to ban land mines. Lesson is that only American lives and limbs count, other people are somehow a lesser breed, less than fully human. I can see why 75% of Europeans view the USA as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq or North Korea. I remember from my days in Atlanta GA, 1985-1989, hearing about the mandatory gun law in Kennesaw, which is in Cobb County to the northwest of Atlanta.
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 16:31:23 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international > law. > If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and > breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... As an American I am deeply troubled by George W Bush's seeming intention to force Saddam Hussein out of power by unilateral military action. Absent clear notice from the UN inspectors that Iraq currently has or is trying to develop weapons of mass destruction I do not think the United States has the legal, moral or ethical right to invade another country that has not taken overt military action against us. It's not enough that it might have weapons that it might use against us. I think the United Staes should act together with the United Nations to resolve this issue. I do believe that during the Gulf War the United States would have been justified in capturing the Iraqi army and in ousting Hussein at that time. I fully supported our invasion of Afghanistan and believe it was necessary, legal, moral and the right thing to do. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
(unsubscribe quote in ... ) - Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) writes: > > If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while > killing and breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... > > CU, Ricsi > Ricsi, Were you saying that you would UNSUBSCRIBE from the Arachne list? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Welcome to Hotel California - You can check out, but you can NEVER leave. CU, 2 Bob - Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
IF... the US followed their own Constitution... You made it very clear the US don't follow their Constitution and consequently don't follow international law either. Should this assure the rest of the planet? Bastiaan On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:23:53 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: >> 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> S> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 >> S> conditions only: >> You don't get my point. >> I *don't* care about american constitution. >> American constitution is irrelevant for non american issues. > My point is that if we followed our own Constitution, > there wouldn't be any violation of international law; > therefore I need not concern myself with international law > because we would never break it. >> Example: >> Kuweit hasn't attacked Iraq. >> Iraqi congress and constitution say attacking Kuweit is OK. >> Iraq attacks Kuweit. >> Has the iraq handeled correctly ... >> according to Sam H.s argueing SURE ... iraqi congress allowed him. > Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under > German law because German law was enacted to allow it. > If the German people had risen up against such an outrage, > there would never have been a need for international > tribunals. >> S> This American believes we should adhere to our own >> S> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of >> S> the above conditions exist. >> No problem with that. >> The problem arises if amercan conditions say OK, but international law says NO. > That won't happen. In order for us to violate > international law, we must first violate our own > Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is > already far more restrictive than International Law. > For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would > never have gone to fight in Korea. There was no lawful > justification for us to do so. It was only through the > loophole of "doing what the UN wanted" that enabled us to > fight where 1) we had not been attacked, 2) we had no > treaty, and 3) there was no declaration of war. > My point is that international law, as it pertains to who > can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and > subjective. >> For any sane person international law wins. >> If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere. > No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution, > there would never be any reason to invoke international law. > When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when > we were not attacked, had no declaration of war, and had no > treaty. If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm > would never have happened. If we followed our own > Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in weapons each > year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam. If we followed > our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on > that subject... but I do understand your point. I just > think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping > American politicians' feet to the fire. I think my efforts > should be focused on my own backyard, and let Kuwait > concentrate on its own backyard, and let Israel deal with > its own backyard. If everyone worked on creating sanity in > his own government, there'd be no need for international > law. > It is axiomatic that each individual's efforts have the > most effect the closer to home he exerts those efforts. > -- > Steve Ackman > http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) > http://twovoyagers.com(glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 01:24:25 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:55:16 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: >>> Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international >>> law. >>> If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and >>> breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... >> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 >> conditions only: >> 1) US attacked. US can counterattack. >> 2) Congress declares war. >> 3) US sends troops in accordance with provisions of a treaty. >> This American believes we should adhere to our own >> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of >> the above conditions exist. When we "liberated" Kuwait from >> Saddam, for instance, none of those existed. We even >> "invited" Saddam to invade Kuwait by saying, "We do not have >> any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special >> defense or security commitments to Kuwait." This was >> broadcast, and told to Saddam personally by one or our >> Ambassadors. > If I am correctly informed: the President has also the right to declare > a war. (2) No. Only Congress can declare war. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt This is the entire US constitution (including all 27 ammendments) [45kb text file] --- Article 1, section 8 clearly states --- Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. > History learns that a cry for help from a country that has been attacked > may also result in a war... declared by the Congres? (2) > Examples: Vietnam, Koeweit, Those are some of the examples that Steve was refering to where our constition was NOT followed. The US was not attacked. No declaration of war was ever made by congress. No treaty between the US and those countries been violated. Nor would have the Korean war or the Vietnam war. All 3 of these wars were 100% legal by international law. All 3 of these wars were 100% direct violations of the US constitution. So Steve is correct. If the we had simply followed our own constitution. None of those wars would have happend. -- Glenn http://arachne.cz/ http://www.delorie.com/listserv/mime/ http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/download.htm http://www.thispagecannotbedisplayed.com/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > > The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 > > conditions only: > > > 1) US attacked. US can counterattack. > > 2) Congress declares war. > > 3) US sends troops in accordance with provisions of a treaty. > > If I am correctly informed: the President has also the right to declare > a war. (2) No, he does not... not according to the Constitution. > History learns that a cry for help from a country that has been attacked > may also result in a war... declared by the Congres? (2) > Examples: Vietnam, Koeweit, War was not declared against Vietnam or Kuwait. They were both unlawful military actions. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > sorry ... very long ... and very OT > But it contains very important views at the end. > About how America wants american law everywhere, and about the RIGHT OF AMERICA > TO DO WHAT IT WANTS, to kill people etc. > 13 Jan 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SH> Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to > SH> each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a > SH> successful suicide bombing mission. > SH> I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. > Exactly this is the problem ... > Bush works exactly the same way ... and the propaganda is GREAT. > Eg. he says that he has proof of Iraq having atomic weapons again. > But he refuses to a) show the proofs to his allies > b) refuses to give them to the UN insepctors. > For a european mind there are 2 possibilities: > 1) US doesn't have any proof, but wants Iraqi oil > 2) US has indeed prove, but wants US-Iraq war instead of a UN-Iraq mission For a European mind which understands anything about the need to safeguard "protected information sources" (euphemism for "spies") there is another possibility. The possibility that is most likely correct is that Bush has the proof, but in order to present the proof to the public as credible, he would have to cite his secret sources. If the US were wanting to go to war just to rob some country of its oil it would attack Venezuela, or Norway, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Any one of the above named nations have much more oil than Iraq. > Both are inherently bad. > SH> North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft > US aircrafts are not flying over N Korean terretory. Because US would have no grounds for asserting a right to fly over N. Korean territory. The US does have the right to fly over the Iraqi No-Fly Zones because Sadam conceded that right to coalition forces in the treaty he signed with them after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War, ca. 1992. > > What would bush do if austrian airplanes fly over texas to protect the > people sentenced to death from execution. > OK a very bad, extremely far fetched and absolutely incorrect example ... > Anyways here is what I think: > 1) Saddam is a highly insane person, which is very dangerous > 2) Saddam has no problem with mass murdering > 3) Saddams goal is to get atomic and biological weapons > (especially biological ...) > but: > 1) nobody can take actions against not yet commited crimes > 2) the US has no right to take any actions against any country, which the > other countries government did not directly attack america or an american ally. > THESE 2 POINTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE ... and I don't think that US > understands them. > They mean: > If america (country) attacks another country, without before being attacked by > the official military of the other country, than america is the AGGRESSOR ! > America is than guilty of breaking international law. > If the UN (stands above any single country) thinks (eg CIA shows proofs) that > Saddam is going to build atomic/biological weapons (which is IMO 95% likely) > than they send Inspectors. > 2 possibilities: > 1) Iraq doesn't let them in, than UN (2. letter is an N not an S) can take > measires ... like sending troops (66% america, 80% american > the only importance is that the actions are controlled by the UN ... and not by > the US) > 2) they can do their work > again if they find somethinh U_N_ takes measures, if not, than we have to > leave saddam in peace (also we would sleep better if he weren't in power ... > there is no international right which we can use) > My problem is that > 1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries > 2) America _REFUSES_ International court > for point 1) see > http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/13763/1.html > for point 2) > http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12716/1.html > Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a *HUGE* > problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill anybody, and that > International court can't react. It doesn't say that. All members of the US Armed Forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Just because someone is in the military and has been issued a weapon does not mean that he has been given the right to kill anybody he wants. You know that. If a servicemeber while on duty were to be accused of llegally killing someone, then he would be prosecuted under the UCMJ, and not by some international court. Wouldn't you rather see Austrian soldiers tried under their own military justice system rather than by an international court? > Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... > and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... > than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... The US needs that act in order to insure that the accused are given a fair trial in acc
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:21:56 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > Hi Samuel! > sorry ... very long ... and very OT Very long, but very to the point (from a European point of view) so I snipped most and make just some remarks. > But it contains very important views at the end. > About how America wants american law everywhere, and about the RIGHT OF AMERICA > TO DO WHAT IT WANTS, to kill people etc. ** > For a european mind there are 2 possibilities: > 1) US doesn't have any proof, but wants Iraqi oil > 2) US has indeed prove, but wants US-Iraq war instead of a UN-Iraq mission > Both are inherently bad. > but: > 1) nobody can take actions against not yet commited crimes > 2) the US has no right to take any actions against any country, which the > other countries government did not directly attack america or an american ally. > THESE 2 POINTS ARE OF VITAL IMPORTANCE ... and I don't think that US > understands them. > They mean: > If america (country) attacks another country, without before being attacked by > the official military of the other country, than america is the AGGRESSOR ! > America is than guilty of breaking international law. But America is not procecuted... did Panama attack the US? > 2) they can do their work > again if they find somethinh U_N_ takes measures, if not, than we have to > leave saddam in peace (also we would sleep better if he weren't in power ... > there is no international right which we can use) If they find something... they can destroy these weapons without war. > My problem is that > 1) America still thinks of itself as standing above other countries > 2) America _REFUSES_ International court > Especially point 2 "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" is a *HUGE* > problem. It says that americans and american allies can kill anybody, and that > International court can't react. > Why would any civilized country want to commit crimes ... > and it is clear that AMERICA WANTS TO COMMIT CRIMES ... > than otherwise it wouldn't need that act ... > This is in my eyes a much, much, much more serious problem, than Iraq, Isreal, > North Korea, etc. > And this is why 75% of Europeans think that the US is the biggest threat to > peace in 2003 (according to times survey I posted recently) > SH> There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel > SH> some time in the near future. > There are strong indications that US is planning to start war with Iraq. > (without Iraq commiting any crime against the US) Very, very strong indications US wants war! How about Iraqs rights to defend its own teritory? > And it is *ILLEGAL* to attack a country which hasn't done anything. > But it is *VITAL* that an organization standing *ABOVE ANY SINGLE COUNTRY* > monitors the weapon production and takes countermeasures. > If the US attacks without UN mandat than the US acts absolutely ILLEGAL. > It starts a WAR, and *IT* is the aggressor. > If than iraq brings the US to the International court, than it has to speak > them guilty. > There are no arguments for starting a war ... > And you forget THAT UN INSPECTORS *ARE* *CURRENTLY* in the Iraq, to look if > american unproofen accusations are true. > SH> There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any > SH> US leaders except in US courts. > THIS IS WHAT THE US WANTS YOU TO THINK BUT IT IS TERRIBLY WRONG ! > SOrry for shouting ... > SH> The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our > SH> accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European > SH> prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. "don't understand American values" This US arrogance isolates the US from the world and causes hate, more and more. If US-citizens are captured and brought to The Hague than the US will free them and invade allie and Nato partner Holland... the US told us. The US could have judges in the court! > There are no american values. > There are international laws. > Anybody breaking such a law HAS TO BE PUNISHED. > This is a very vital point to me ... > Anything else is AMERICAN WORLD DICTATORSHIP. *** *> If we disagree here, than there is no use speaking on. * *> This is the most basic thing. * *** > SH> I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are > SH> not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and > SH> occupying their territory and to steal their oil. > See above ... the intentions ARE NOT IMPORTANT BTW: most of the world can not think of any other reasonable motive for attacking a state that is NOT threatening the US. > STARTING a war is a crime. > That is a fact. > Basically what you say is that AMERICAN LAW can be applied to the whole world. > And this is ENORMOUSLY wrong. > American law is fo
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:55:16 -0500 (EST), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: >> Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international >> law. >> If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and >> breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... > The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 > conditions only: > 1) US attacked. US can counterattack. > 2) Congress declares war. > 3) US sends troops in accordance with provisions of a treaty. > This American believes we should adhere to our own > Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of > the above conditions exist. When we "liberated" Kuwait from > Saddam, for instance, none of those existed. We even > "invited" Saddam to invade Kuwait by saying, "We do not have > any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special > defense or security commitments to Kuwait." This was > broadcast, and told to Saddam personally by one or our > Ambassadors. If I am correctly informed: the President has also the right to declare a war. (2) History learns that a cry for help from a country that has been attacked may also result in a war... declared by the Congres? (2) Examples: Vietnam, Koeweit, CU, Bastiaan
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > 13 Jan 2003, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > S> The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 > S> conditions only: > You don't get my point. > I *don't* care about american constitution. > American constitution is irrelevant for non american issues. My point is that if we followed our own Constitution, there wouldn't be any violation of international law; therefore I need not concern myself with international law because we would never break it. > Example: > Kuweit hasn't attacked Iraq. > Iraqi congress and constitution say attacking Kuweit is OK. > Iraq attacks Kuweit. > > Has the iraq handeled correctly ... > according to Sam H.s argueing SURE ... iraqi congress allowed him. Right. Just as Hitler "was allowed" to kill Jews under German law because German law was enacted to allow it. If the German people had risen up against such an outrage, there would never have been a need for international tribunals. > S> This American believes we should adhere to our own > S> Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of > S> the above conditions exist. > No problem with that. > The problem arises if amercan conditions say OK, but international law says NO. That won't happen. In order for us to violate international law, we must first violate our own Constitution. My point was that the US Constitution is already far more restrictive than International Law. For instance, if we'd adhered to the Constitution, we would never have gone to fight in Korea. There was no lawful justification for us to do so. It was only through the loophole of "doing what the UN wanted" that enabled us to fight where 1) we had not been attacked, 2) we had no treaty, and 3) there was no declaration of war. My point is that international law, as it pertains to who can attack whom, is far too lenient, convenient, and subjective. > For any sane person international law wins. > If not, than this means that american law is applicable everywhere. No, it means that if we followed our own Constitution, there would never be any reason to invoke international law. When international law wins, we go fight in Kuwait when we were not attacked, had no declaration of war, and had no treaty. If we followed our own Constitution, Desert Storm would never have happened. If we followed our own Constitution, we would not give Israel $15bn in weapons each year, thereby invoking the wrath of Islam. If we followed our own Constitution... well, I could go on for years on that subject... but I do understand your point. I just think that as an American, I should try to focus on keeping American politicians' feet to the fire. I think my efforts should be focused on my own backyard, and let Kuwait concentrate on its own backyard, and let Israel deal with its own backyard. If everyone worked on creating sanity in his own government, there'd be no need for international law. It is axiomatic that each individual's efforts have the most effect the closer to home he exerts those efforts. -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Richard Menedetter wrote: > Anyways ... it is very important to me how american's think about international > law. > > If the majority thinks that america should do its thing, while killing and > breaking law, I will try to unsubscribe ... The US Constitution allows the US to go to war under 3 conditions only: 1) US attacked. US can counterattack. 2) Congress declares war. 3) US sends troops in accordance with provisions of a treaty. This American believes we should adhere to our own Constitution, and never send troops anywhere unless one of the above conditions exist. When we "liberated" Kuwait from Saddam, for instance, none of those existed. We even "invited" Saddam to invade Kuwait by saying, "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." This was broadcast, and told to Saddam personally by one or our Ambassadors. http://tinyurl.com/4egk -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:55:47 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries > something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally > justified. I have to say I agree with this. We lived with the Russians all during the Cold War. We ought to be able to tolerate Hussein for awhile longer. But please note that even Donald Rumsfeld is saying "War with Iraq is not inevitable." I think there will be a solution other than war. Perhaps Hussein will abdicate because he has no alternative. Something surprising other than war will happen. That's my guess. Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:55:47 -0800, Ray Andrews wrote: > Hi All, > I've got to disagree with Sam: >> This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as >> being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. > Really? Sadam, until not to long ago, was one of the best good-old-boys in > the entire region--both armed and supported by the US. If he hadn't gone > off-side in the Kuwait thing, he'd still be Washington's buddy. The only > reason that the US wants to snuff him now is that he is seen as a threat to > Israel. Given the treatment his Moslem brothers are receiving from Israel, > and given that they are the ones who hold Washington's leash, it isn't > surprising that he hates them. But, so far, he has not attacked them > (Israel), or ANY other country (except Kuwait), until AFTER war has been > waged against him. Sadam violates on an almost daily basis the treaty agreements he made with the US and its allies by his attacking coalition aircraft in the No-Fly Zone. Also it is reported that Sadam pays the equivalent of $10,000 US to each Palestian family which has sent one of its members off on a successful suicide bombing mission. I don't know if those reports have been confirmed as true. North Korea isn't firing on US aircraft and they aren't sending suicide bombers streaming into South Korea. The US and the UN are pledged to support Israel by securing that country's viability even as she finds herself surrounded by very hostile enemies. There are strong indications that Sadam is planning to attack Israel some time in the near future. It isn't a very smart military strategy to wait and let one's enemy continue to build up his weapons and his logistics and his forces so that he can plan his attack according to his own time table. If the US waits for Sadam to attack first, then there will be more destruction and more lives lost than would happen if we were to attack first. The moral arguments about how we should wait until Sadam attacks first can easily be countered by simply explaining that the longer we wait the more lives will be lost. The moral issue is about how to solve the problem with the minimum amount of destruction and loss of life. There will be no legal issues and consequences to be dealt with by any US leaders except in US courts. The US tries its own people for alleged war crimes. We won't send our accused war criminals to The Hague to be put on trial by European prosecutors and judges who don't understand American values. Americans want to do their own thing. We don't wqnt to have "world government" imposed on us. I believe that most of the world understands that US intentions are not to start a war against Iraq for the purpose of conquering and occupying their territory and to steal their oil. US intentions are only to disarm Sadam of his WMD's and to replace Sadam's regime with Iraqi leaders who favor peace and who are more sensitive to the best interests of the Iraqi people. Why should anyone but Sadam and his murderous cronies have a problem with that? > To date, he has only used his 'weapons of mass destruction' on his own > people, and on nations that are at war with him. Sure, he's a butcher, but > that has never been a problem for the American government, has it? So far, > there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sadam has any intentions > of starting a war that he couldn't possibly win. Even if he does have WOMD > (like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.) there is no doubt in my > mind that he won't use them *until*he*is* *attacked* -- and then why > shouldn't he? Every rule of international law says that an attacked nation > has the right to defend itself in any way it can. The psychopath of the > piece is GWB, who should be tried as a war monger who would make the Fuhrer > blush. Pakistan and India's having WMD's is not a problem because they don't have any enemies other than each other. Although they may continue to have occasional border skirmishes with small arms, there is little danger that they would get into any really serious conflicts with each other because of the already proven facts established during the Cold War about how well the MAD theory works. (MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction). Neither country would dare launch nukes against the other because that would result in both countries becoming a devastated and irradiated wasteland. > The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries > something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally > justified. >> The Bush administration >> thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly >> even bought off. Although the North Koreans even admit to having >> some nukes, we do not believe they have any ideas about actually >> using them against nearby countries, at least not in the immediate >> future. Their corner of the world is not anywhere as troubled as >> the Middle East. I think the North Koreans are producing the nu
Re: Iraq vs. N Korea
Hi All, I've got to disagree with Sam: > This is because the North Korean leaders are not thought of as > being as psychopathic as Sadam Hussein. Really? Sadam, until not to long ago, was one of the best good-old-boys in the entire region--both armed and supported by the US. If he hadn't gone off-side in the Kuwait thing, he'd still be Washington's buddy. The only reason that the US wants to snuff him now is that he is seen as a threat to Israel. Given the treatment his Moslem brothers are receiving from Israel, and given that they are the ones who hold Washington's leash, it isn't surprising that he hates them. But, so far, he has not attacked them (Israel), or ANY other country (except Kuwait), until AFTER war has been waged against him. To date, he has only used his 'weapons of mass destruction' on his own people, and on nations that are at war with him. Sure, he's a butcher, but that has never been a problem for the American government, has it? So far, there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sadam has any intentions of starting a war that he couldn't possibly win. Even if he does have WOMD (like Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, etc.) there is no doubt in my mind that he won't use them *until*he*is* *attacked* -- and then why shouldn't he? Every rule of international law says that an attacked nation has the right to defend itself in any way it can. The psychopath of the piece is GWB, who should be tried as a war monger who would make the Fuhrer blush. The sane thing to do is to let Sadam be until when and if he tries something; then making war on him would be both legally and morally justified. > The Bush administration > thinks they can be reasoned with and negotiated with and possibly > even bought off. Although the North Koreans even admit to having > some nukes, we do not believe they have any ideas about actually > using them against nearby countries, at least not in the immediate > future. Their corner of the world is not anywhere as troubled as > the Middle East. I think the North Koreans are producing the nukes > not to start a war, but only to increase their bargaining power at > the negotiating table when dealing with countries which don't want > them to have them. The North Koreans are now in a stronger position > than the one they held before they had the nukes. They can offer to > stop producing and to dismantle their nukes in exchange for some > concessions and better treatment by the countries they don't get > along with very well. I think the North Koreans and the rest of the > world can work out a peaceable and positive outcome for everyone > concerned. Now, Kim Il-jong ... there is a nutbar. Unlike Sadam, this guy boasts about having nukes, and about the fact that he's about to start making more. He also boasts about having missiles that can deliver them, and about the fact that he is making even better delivery systems as we speak. In contrast to the Iraqi's he has just thrown UN inspectors out of the land. He is still, technically, at war with the US, and North Korea engages in almost non-stop military provocation against the South. Kim even says, out loud, that if he is embargoed, he will consider it an act of war! Sadam is Mother Theresa by comparison. Just my 2 cents worth :-) Ray Andrews, Vancouver, Canada -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
