Hello Richard: On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 23:39:50 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi Samuel! > 24 Feb 2003, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Essence: >>> *) Why do american interests are more worthy than the interests of >>> the rest of the world ? > SH> They aren't. > You stated exactly the opposit in the previous message. > SH> There is no US law that says that the US must have UN approval to take > SH> action. > This means that if there is no US law that forbids something, than it is > allowed. > Even if it contradicts to international law. > So hypotetically if the US bombs austria, they can do so, if the US law says > its ok ... see below. What you are saying here is that it is legal for somebody to do anything he wants unless there is a law against it. You are correct. >>> *) Why is american law to be applied in the whole world ? > SH> It isn't being applied to the whole world. > see below what you wrote: > SH> Without even trying to get a UN mandate the US went into Panama to > SH> forcefully abolish the regime of Manuel Noriega because he was a > SH> narco-terrorist and an oppressor of his own people. We captured > SH> Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. We didn't go to Panama to impose US laws upon the Panamanian people. We went there only for the purpose of taking out their narco-terrorist dictator. Most elements of the Panamanian Defense Force welcomed the sudden unnexpected arrival of US Paratroopers descending down on them from the sky. During the US invasion a company of US paratroopers missed their drop zone and they landed in a swamp. Some soldiers of the Panamanian Defense Force hurried to the scene and they threw ropes out to them and rescued them from their predicament. They all told the US Paratroopers about how happy they were that they had come to their country. Then they surrendered to the US soldiers whom they had rescued. Those POW's were thanked and commended by the US commander for their having done such a great job in the rescue operation. They were of course treated very well during their very brief period of detention. The POW's and their US captors were very friendly to each other. The only Panamanian soldiers who resisted the invasion were the ones who belonged to Noriega's personally selected goon-squads. > You take a non US person, capture him, and bring him to US trial ?? > what do you call that ? In the case of Noriega the Americans called it justice and the Panamanians called it good riddance. They were very happy to see Noriega gone. > You clearly forced YOUR law to a non US person. > And what you have done to panama, you can do to any other country. The Panamanians could not have forced THEIR law on him because Noriega was a dictator and he had abolished their system of laws. > SH> The US is contemplating a justifiable pre-emptive strike. > SH> Justifiable pre-emptive strikes are not acts of aggression. > Says who ?? > For me they are. (as long as they are not backed up by a UN mandate ... which > means that not only a single country thinks so, ... but the majority of the > nations ... or at least the majority of the UN security council) The US says that it would not be a case of aggression. If the UN should think otherwise, they would be thinking wrong. > alone from the fact, that Iraq can say the same. > They can claim that they have evidence against Kuweit, and that they only did a > preemptive strike. Saddam can't say anything that will be accepted as credible. Everybody knows he is a liar. > They have the same right to do so. (purely from the standpoint of the law.) What law? Saddam's law? >>> SH> We captured Noriega and we brought him back to the US for trial. >>> Who gives america the right, to drag its law to the whole world ?? The Panamanian people were fed up with Noriega and they were very happy to see us come and take him down. > SH> What gives Noriega the right to narco-terrorize the whole world? > SH> Aren't you glad he got busted? > yes. > But the way it has been done was wrong. How could it have been done any better? > What if noriega would have done that with the us president ?? He probably would have been sentenced to 400 years instead of just 40 years. > so we need a legal way to cope with it. However we do it the US will defend it as being legal. >>> What if panama captured the US president and punished him according >>> to panamese law ?? > SH> The Panamanians responsible for such an outrageous abduction would get > SH> hunted down and busted. > Why ?? > If america has the right to do so, than panama has as well. How many times do I have to tell you that it is OK for good guys to take down the bad guys, but not the other way around. > SH> The good guys have the right to hunt down the bad guys and bring them > SH> to justice. > depends on who decides what is good. > a single country can't do that. > country a says b is bad. > country b says a is bad. > what do we do ?? > ask the rest of the countries, and let them decide. The opinion of the majority doesn't count. What is right and what is wrong is not decided by popular opinion. Popular opinion is useful as a basis for making other kinds of decisions. > SH> The bad guys don't have the right to mess with the good guys. > Who is bad ???? > who decides who is good and who is bad ? > SH> If they do they will face additional criminal charges. > who will charge them ? Whoever gets them. > SH> The US President is the good guy. > says who ?? The anti-terrorists > SH> Noriega is the bad guy > says who ?? The anti-terrorists > SH> because he is a narco-terrorist. > says who ?? The US Federal Court that convicted him. Nobody is disputing the finding of the court that Noriega is a narco-terrorist. > SH> Why haven't you learned about good guys and bad guys? > because world is not black and white. > is usually dark grey vs. light gray. Often it is in black and white, like in the old classic good guys vs. bad guys western movies. Shades of gray are seen only in the so called "adult" westerns. Real life plays both kinds of dramas. You have a choice of what kind of movie you want to watch, but you don't have a choice of what kinds of dramas will be played out in front of you in real life. > I personally don't think that I as a person have the right to decide if > another > person is bad. > I can have my personal thoughts. > I believe that Saddam Hussein is bad. > But in a civilized manner the fact that Richard Menedetter thinks that Saddam > Huessein has commited crimes does mean nothing. > I have to proove that, and another instance has to decide. > This instance has to be "above" me and the bad guy. > If it is not it does not have the right to judge. I think what you are trying to say here is that one should be judged by an impartial party. In your case that can happen. If you were accused of having committed a non-sensational and not very highly publicised crime, it would be easy to assemble a jury of your peers, and consisting of people who don't know you and who don't know about you, and who would be able to impartially weigh and consider the evidence against you. In the case of Saddam that can't happen because everybody knows of him and everybody already has an opinion of him and nobody would be capable of judging him in an impartial manner. > SH> It doesn't matter whether Saddam has weapons of mass destruction or > SH> links to the OBL otganization. > SH> What matters is that he is a bad guy and he must be taken down. > says who ?? > This has to stand on a firm legal ground. What is firm legal ground? > SH> We already have enough on him to prove he is a bad guy. > who decides this ? Why do you ask? I am certain that you already know that the US government and its allies have decided this. > SH> It doesn't matter what Saddam says because he has no credibility. > who decides who has credibility ? > for me only the UN can. The UN is generally held in low regard by the average US citizen. Americans love their freedom and independence and they resent being told what to do by some kind of wannabee world government organization. Advocates of world government are seen as a threat to the national sovereignty of all nations. The UN should not try to be aspiring to serve for anything more than as an international debating society and as a place for making friends and interchanging ideas. The UN should not be trying to impose its consensus on the individual member nations to enforce conformity with the opinions of the majority. > SH> Neither does the US want to start a war. The US is contemplating > SH> a pre-emptive strike to prevent a war from happening. > a preemptive strike is a war. A pre-emptive strike is an anti-war measure. > so you say: > us does not want to start war, it wants to start war. > International law does not contain preemptive strikes. Pre-emptive strikes have been conducted before and the UN didn't care. In 1981 the Israeli Air Force conducted a pre-emptive strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor. The facility was totally destroyed. The Israelis destroyed the reactor because they knew that Saddam was trying to develop weapons grade nuclear materials there so that they could make a nuclear bomb to use against them. Should they have waited for Saddam to strike first? I don't think so. > What if Hussein starts a preemptive strike against kuweit. > Why is america allowed to do so, and Iraq not ?? > I say that neither has the right to do so. A pre-emptive strike can be conducted only by the party being threatened, not by the party making the threat. Here is an analogy for you: In the cowboy movies, and according to the Code of the West, you have to wait for the other guy to draw first, but you don't have to wait for him to shoot first. After he goes for his, you are supposed to go for yours and whip it out and shoot him before he shoots you. It is much better to be quick than dead. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
