-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Op woensdag 26 februari 2003 06:41, schreef Samuel W. Heywood:
>
> The US says that it would not be a case of aggression. If the UN should
> think otherwise, they would be thinking wrong.
This is exactly why Americans are becoming less popular in the world. Your
attitude of "If you disagree with us, you must be wrong" is highly irritating
to anybody who has to deal with you.
>
> 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?
The same law (or lack there of) that the US are using to attack Iraq.
>
> > 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?
>
With the support of the UN.
>
> However we do it the US will defend it as being legal.
>
Ofcourse, but that doesn't make it right.
> >>> 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.
Currently most people think it's wrong to use humans for slaves, the ancient
Romans thought very different about that. In many countries prostitution is
considered illegal, in even more, smoking marihuana is considered a
punishable offence.
>
> > 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.
So if I come to your home, and arrest you, even though my authority to do so
has not been recognized by the US, I'm free to judge and punish you, for
whatever crimes I can come up with.
> > 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.
I'm stunned by this statement. IMHO no situation ever is only black and white.
Any conflict will consist of various shades of gray.
> > 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.
We could try to get as close as possible. But before arresting & judging,
shouldn't there be some sort of proof?
>
> 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.
>
Yet the US are acting like they are the world governement. To the rest of the
world, this is even more repulsive than a real world wide governement.
Allthough you consider freedom and independence very important, you do listen
to your local governement. Why?
>
> 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.
And you wonder how it comes the world calls Bush a cowboy.
- --
Casper Gielen
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- --
No weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq? No
problem, we'll bring them some of our own.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+XI77IhQIPPgOSvcRAngQAJ47pfryeDdwMKkjjHpMSyzX71ootACfcSCK
atKHMRcmBHIAbD4iDDos6wM=
=ssLT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
