Hi Bastiaan, I wasn't meaning to suggest that I'm in favor of (or opposed to) the American plans. I was just attempting to ascertain where our differences might be and how to reach mutual understanding.
Under American law, an arrangement made with a living person to pay a sum to their family IF they commit a crime which leads to death is, de facto, a contract negotiated as payment for the commission of the crime. Since payment is based only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions (the crime) and the contractor has free will to accept or reject the conditions, this qualifies as a business contract. It also qualifies as a conspiracy commit the crime (which is an additional crime). Europe has similar laws, although I won't pretend to know the parameters. Payment for killing is a crime. Planning together any of the circumstances of the crime is conspiracy. Are not both considered acts of aggression? Saddam's payment is differentiated from general humanitarian assistance because payment is made only to the suicide attackers' families, and only after the attackers have fulfilled the previously negotiated conditions. Al Capone also showed similar *solidarity* when his *friends* died under similar conditions. Propaganda aside, the critical element is the negotiated payment associated with only the specific actions AND exclusive of other actions. This is the basis of a simple business "personal services" contract. The only other requirements are *the offer* and *acceptance of the offer*. Whether stopping Saddam will affect any actions of any other individual is a moot point. Police arrest criminals, yet realize that the single arrest will not, in and of itself, put an end to crime. Whether Saddam is the "main cause of these crimes" is another moot point. If he is involved, he is guilty of involvement. Whether Saddam committed crimes today or hasn't committed crimes for "about 5 years" is yet another moot point. Police routinely focus upon the most serious situations first, prioritizing (by their own judgement) their response to meet the immediate requirements. Prioritization is not indicative of guilt or innocence. It merely indicates a methodical process. Saddam has demonstrated a pattern of aggression (and has for over 30 years - nonstop). While some might claim that it is desirable to hope for a change in Saddam's actions, it is not beyond comprehension that others might say "enough is enough". It's not that the Americans are NOT listening to the Europeans, it's just that we are ALSO listening to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Having said all of that ... I don't like the current process and I'm not happy with the results. Not because the Bush methodology is WRONG, but because it is shortsighted and counterproductive to how I think peace should be built. I think other ways would be BETTER. But, given the options, I'll focus on doing those things that I, personally, can do to make a better world and hold onto the dream that one day it might make a difference. (See my email titled "Virtual Volunteers".) BTW, I found a round-trip airfare between Arizona and NL for less that $300. I was thinking of coming to visit you (and reenacting the great Marxist pro-and-con debates of the Vienna coffee houses) but, given the timing in world events, decided that traveling internationally for pleasure wasn't a recommended activity for the month of March. But, maybe I'll pass through on the way to *the front*. CU2, Bob --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:45:46 +00 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:45:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi Bastiaan, > > > Just some questions ... > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> <snip> > >> To tell the world that the US have been attacked or will be > attacked > >> by Saddam is "bull shit". A preemtive strike on a country that > is > >> not even threatening is ridiculous and a thread to all nations. > > > By his own admission, Saddam pays the family of each Palestinian > *martyr* > > who dies in a suicide attack against Israel. Under American law, > someone > > who pays another to commit a crime is also guilty of the crime > (and also > > guilty of conspiracy). > > Sadam shows solidarity to the ones 'left behind'... he does not pay > to > commit or order for a crime. For propaganda purposes, to Arabs, he > shows > compassion to the families and supports them in their needs (for > foot > , etc.) > > > Do you consider these suicide attacks to be crimes? > Yes, I do... very serious crimes!! > > But stopping Sadam will not end these terrorist attacks, not in > Israel, > not in Ireland, not in Colombia, not in Bask Spain, not on Corsica, > not > in Korean underground, not in the Philipines... > > > If so, would you consider it understandable for the Israeli > government to > > consider this payment from Saddam to be *aiding and assisting in > the > > commitment of a crime*? > Yes, I do understand that! But Sadam is defenitely not the main > cause of > these crimes. > > > Would those attacks qualify as *aggression*? > They sure are! > > > Would it be acceptable if, given knowledge that another attack > were > > scheduled for tomorrow, the government of Israel staged a > *pre-emptive > > strike* against the attackers? > Yes and they have done that and will continue to do like. > > > How about a *pre-emptive strike* against Saddam? > The future of Israel is at stake... so much is allowed. But they > better > launch an attack on someone else... some organisation that is far > more > involved in terrorist attacks. > > > Why are some arguing that Saddam has never shown aggression, when > > - it is his claim (from his own lips in a public forum) that he > > financially supports suicide bombers > > - has previously sheltered known terrorists (not including > Al-Qaida) > > - has invaded two neighboring countries > > - has used weapons of mass destructions on multiple occasions > > For about 5 years Sadam is quiet... why attack Iraq now? > Gadaffi is quiet also for some time... attack Libia next? > > > I agree that a "pre-emptive strike on a country that is not even > > threatening is ridiculous and a threat to all nations". But, isn't > it > > possible that someone might examine the above facts and conclude > that > > Saddam is, in fact, an imminent threat? > > > Not to say that all the propaganda is completely truthful, but > Saddam IS > > a cancer in the middle east. In medicine, cancer must be removed > before > > it spreads and destroys the body. Why is it different in > politics? > > > <snip> > >> Why is George Bush so eager to attack Muslim fundamentalists? > >> GW is a fundamentalist... Christian though. All fundamentalists > want > >> to wipe out devils, Satan and have their "axes of evil". > >> This is a crusade... Christians against Muslims... we are going > back > >> to the middle ages. > > > Sorry, Bastiaan, but you've been misled on this point. Bush isn't > a > > fundamentalist. > > > If you were a Christian, you would know that and wouldn't believe > this > > for a minute. Whatever Bush is doing, he's not doing it based > upon > > Christianity. (Maybe oil, but not religion). <grin> > > If I see and hear GW... I see a very religious man and a sincere > man. > He often mentions God, never oil. (This does not mean he is not > interested in oil, we know he does.) > > > Your comments simply don't line up with the reality of other > alliances in > > the middle east (or other parts of the world). Don't forget that > the USA > > was allied with the (Muslim) Kosovars against the (Christian) > Serbs. > You have some point here. > > > See you. > > > Bob Dohse > > CU Bastiaan > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > > Only $9.95 per month! > > Visit www.juno.com > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
