Hi Folks, Sam, Bob,
Can't help but agree with cousin Bob, here.
As I posted before, all we are seeing is the continuation of the
"Great Game".
For those too young to have heard of it, see if you can look it up.
or;
When people say "It's not the money, it's the principle.", they mean
"It's the money."...... Robert Heinlein
Regards,
Ron
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:07:15 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Sam (and others),
> (FYI, I agree with Sam's argument and conclusions in the quoted text,
> below).
> A quick glance at the map and a review of economic developments between
> Austria-Germany and Slovenia-Croatia will shed a lot of light into why
> Germany and Austria were so quick to recognize Slovenia and Croatia as
> independent, sovereign states. At that point in time, there was no
> obvious humanitarian crisis in the Balkans.
> You might also be interested in doing a web search on *Corridor X* and
> the *Albania, Macedonia, and Bulgaria Oil Company* (AMBO). Take that info
> and cross reference it to the map. Voila, a handy trans-European route
> that bypasses both Greece and Turkey (and remains in American control).
> Hmmm.
> Some would argue that the humanitarian response in Bosnia and Kosovo (and
> Macedonia) was just a cover for more sinister plans.
> If so, the European governments were just as greedy and selfish as the
> USA.
> If not, then the *humanitarian mandate* remains valid and is applicable
> to Iraq (where Saddam has killed more of his citizens than Milosevic ever
> did).
> In either case, it's a little late in the neo-colonial game for any party
> (on either side of the Atlantic) to claim the moral imperative.
> Governments, by virtue of their status as sovereign states within the UN
> structure, have a mandate to maintain the current system. The alternative
> would be the recognition of governments based upon social groupings (and
> not geography).
> Since NO current sovereign state is willing to endorse that type of
> government, any discussion about *good and bad* is a moot point. Every
> sovereign state determines their own actions to be *good* and necessary
> for the protection of its citizens, and their is no supreme authority to
> declare those actions illegal.
> Thus, *good and bad* is relative, and determined ultimately by brute
> force. We all like to think that this determination is by the majority
> consensus in the UN, but (as we've recently seen) this, too, is only
> wishful thinking.
> Therefore, I argue that all the criticism (of any state) is misplaced.
> Since we are all a citizen of a sovereign state, we all are de facto
> supporters of the system and have no moral position to criticize the
> morality of another state. Austria and Germany schemed as much in Croatia
> as the USA is in Iraq. France is just as guilty in Africa as America is
> in the Middle East. In short, we are all equally innocent or equally
> guilty.
> As a former American President once said (although about a different
> subject), ...
> "It's about the economy, stupid".
> Every government does whatever is necessary for its continuance and
> prosperity. Always has and probably always will.
> Certain wars are inevitable because certain sovereign states have
> differing objectives that are mutually exclusive. We should either accept
> that reality or change the system.
> In the interim, how can we collectively pick up the pieces (of the
> current crisis) and make friendships with those who (some would say) are
> our enemies?
> For those who say this is impossible, I suggest some research into
> British-American historical relationships (over, say, the last 400
> years).
> Regards to all,
> Bob Dohse
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (in response to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) ...
> <snipped>
>> When Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs were conducting their "ethnic
>> cleansing" campaigns in Kososvo, the US went to war against the
>> Serbs.
>> The US went to war against the Serbs just because their leader,
>> Milosevic, was being seen as a very evil man in world opinion
>> because
>> he was committing genocide. Although he was doing very evil
>> things,
>> he wasn't threatening the US or any of those European nations which
>> teamed up in a military coalition to stop his genocide campaign and
>> to overthrow him. During the Kosovo-Bosnia war we were not hearing
>> from the countries of our NATO allies any protests about US
>> "aggression" against Milosevic. It was considered perfectly OK to
>> go
>> after Milosevic and put him out him out of business. This was seen
>> as
>> ly OK simply on the grounds that Milosevic is an evil man and
>> that the world would be a lot better off without his genocide
>> campaigns.
>> Nearly all Europeans know that Saddam Hussein also is a very evil
>> man.
>> He can be compared to Milosevic. Saddam Hussein commits genocide
>> campaigns against the Kurds living in Iraq. It is very well known
>> that
>> he has killed thousands of Kurds by attacking them with chemical
>> agents.
>> These Kurds whom he kills are his own people. If Saddam remains in
>> power he will kill more Kurds, and he will likely use chemical
>> agents
>> against them again. Even if he doesn't have any more weapons of
>> mass
>> destruction to kill them with, I am sure he has other means of
>> killing
>> them.
>> Why are so many people making such a fuss about US threats to
>> conduct
>> a war of alleged aggression against Saddam Hussein? If it is OK to
>> attack Milosevic to stop genocide, then why isn't it OK to attack
>> Saddam Hussein for the same reason? The issue isn't really about
>> aggression or weapons of mass destruction. It is about genocide
>> and
>> the need to get rid of a ruthless and evil dictator.
>> Sam Heywood
Ron Clarke
http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html
http://tadpole.aus.as
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
