I got a bit of an issue with that philosophy (Whay Saddam does in Iraq is
Saddam's business and as long as he keeps it in Iraq we won't interfere)
Has anyone heard of the Good Samaritan Laws? This is a relatively new type
of law (made famous by the final episode of Seinfeld) in which you as a
human being are required to intervene if you see a physical crime being
portrayed against another human being. Of coarse there are caveats such as
if you're a 110 pound weakling and you see a 350 pound monster beating his
woman, well then discretion is the better part of valour, but even the
weakling can call for help. But if you and three of your buddies can do
something about it then you not only should, but hey look there, we got laws
that encourage you to do something. To put it into context, imagine if not
one group of passengers but four got up and tried to stop those bastards on
September 11th because everyone knew it's not just the RIGHT thing to do
it's the LEGALLY required thing to do.
I'm sorry, but if I'm beating my wife in my big bay window facing the street
and you see me doing it and you just shake your head, tssk tssk to yourself,
and keep walking down the street then you do deserve to be locked up! (Not
saying you'd do that) I'm sure my poor wife would agree.
So, scale it up to international Politics. We have Saddam running Iraq. He
gasses a Kurd village killing a bunch of folks that really, regardless of
their accused crimes against the state, deserved better. In the process he
breaks damn near every International law, treaty, or agreement which governs
the treatment of criminals, citizens, enemy troops, and even animals! He
violates about the same number of laws governing the use of chemical
weapons.
International response? "Hey there buddy, ease up on the lady will ya!" When
what should have been the response was a SWAT team kickin the door down
hogtying the bastard and draggin him out by his nutsack. Woulda happened to
you or me in the privacy of our own home if we treated our family half as
bad, and if it wouldn't then it bloody well should!
Sorry to come at ya with both barrels there Joe, but it kills me to think
that, what I can't get away with (nor should I) in the privacy of MY home,
people think Saddam should be able to get away with in the privacy of his.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: joe andress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support
I dont think it has a lot to do with the Iraqi people alone. Its more than
that. Its the negative influence that Iraq has presented in the area and the
world. Also, the fact that Iraq has NOT honored the agreement that he
allowed to be signed.
As much as I deplore what Saddam has done to HIS people, they are HIS
people. If Saddam would keep his actions confined to within his borders, I
personally would be major disagreement to any action against him. But Saddam
has proven that he can not and will not stay within his borders.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Barker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:47 AM
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support
> Hi
>
> Is there anyone on this list that believes George and Tony are going to
war,
> because they care about the people of Iraq.
>
> "Saddam has personally sent his nation to war several times already. At
> least
> two of those occasions were unprovoked attacks against neighbouring
nations
> who had something he wanted. "
>
> Can you tell me about the other five occasions then. Genuine question.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Swanson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 12 March 2003 19:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak
> support
>
>
> Ok, lets get down to brass tacks.
>
> Killing is Bad
> War is Bad
> Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bad
> Oppression is Bad
> Criminal Activity is Bad
> Terrorism is Bad
> Harbouring Criminals or Terrorists is Bad
> You get the point...
>
> Now I'm sure one could argue that damn near every world leader is guilty
of
> some or all of those "Bad things"
>
> Unfortunately it's not quite that simple. It's a matter of degrees of
> badness, if you will.
>
> Saddam Kills folks in joblots. Many of them his own citizens. We are not
> talking about a couple hundred we are talking about hundreds of thousands
> over the coarse of his regime. By your own statement all life is precious.
> Everyone of these people were someone's Father, Mother, brother, son, etc.
> But Saddam doesn't seem bothered by any of that, because he keeps right on
> doing it.
>
> Saddam has personally sent his nation to war several times already. At
least
> two of those occasions were unprovoked attacks against neighbouring
nations
> who had something he wanted. NEVER in the history of Saddam's regime has
he
> asked the United Nations for approval for any campaign he's launched. He
has
> never attempted to use diplomacy as a tool against nations he attacked. He
> has simply acted without regard for ANY law beside his own will.
>
> There are international laws in place which govern the treatment of
> prisoners of war, and which govern the nature of warfare itself. Saddam
has
> repeatedly violated all aspects of these international laws. He has
> tortureed and abused POW's and he has supported terrorist organizations
> which have repeatedly attacked non-military targets.
>
> I'm sorry, but the recipe for a Just War to remove this monster and bring
> him to justice is clear. If this was a Drug dealer or a serial killer we'd
> have scores of agencies hunting him down to take him off the streets. But
> because he's the self-imposed dictator of a foreign nation it's taken
> decades to build up the moral backbone to do what's right for the rest of
> the world and bring justice into Iraq.
>
> I also think the world is mature enough not to go on a "rogue state hunt"
> and target nations of opportunity no matter WHAT the USA wants to do. It
> won't happen that way. But, I think this process will lay the groundwork
for
> a very important part of International Law. It will draw a line in the
sand
> which says, a nation is free to do what it will inside its own borders as
> long as it follows the internationally created laws. A violent regime such
> as Saddam's will not be allowed to build up indefinately. Eventually a
> nation will be held accountable for it's actions by an international body.
I
> think in Law they call this sort of thing "Precedence" which is used as
the
> foundation of Law. Law that will bring us a little closer to that Perfect
> World.
>
> Dave Swanson
>
> PS: I'm Canadian, we are the inventors of Peacekeeping and we take Peace
> really kinda seriously up here. We also make it a habit not to immediately
> agree with everything our big southern friends say. Just adding that
because
> I've actually given my opinion considerable thought before signing up with
> the view that Saddam must go, despite the heavy price-tag that goes with
> that view.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James B. Byrne [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:32 PM
> To: Dave Swanson
> Cc: HP-3000 Systems Discussion
> Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT : US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support
>
>
> On 12 Mar 2003 at 11:38, Dave Swanson wrote:
>
> > "War is just the exercise of Diplomacy by other means"
>
> Clauswitz. "War is the continuation of policy by other means.",
> often misinterpreted from the German as politics and sometimes
> rendered "diplomacy" as a more appropriate synonym. However,
> the actual word used is politick and and policy is an appropriate,
> and perhaps more accurate rendering of the author's intent.
>
> The world is not perfect, and adding to its imperfections out of
> visceral fear is no course for a rational being to take, much less a
> powerful state. The law is not perfect, but we do not shoot people
> down in the streets because it frequently fails.
>
> Does anyone actually have the right to possess a particular
> emotional state? Is this sufficient cause to kill? How can one
> guarantee the mind of another? After Iraq, who next will you fear?
> Is the world required to render all American fears quiescent in order
> to live themselves without fear of American attack? Whom will you
> turn against next? France, because they defy your insistence to
> conform? Pakistan? China? Russia? Korea? Japan? Libya?
> Who? Where does your need to feel secure end? Who else must
> surrender their right to live without fear to satisfy your parochial
> interest?
>
> This is why the law exists. This is why the strong must bend to its
> yoke. Because there is NO security without the law, for anyone.
> You cannot destroy all your enemies by force, but you can make
> their number legion. Bismarck put it pithily when he said, "You can
> do everything with bayonets, except sit on them." even Genghis
> Khan recognized the truth of such statements, for he held that one
> "Cannot rule from horseback."
>
> You cannot make peace by sowing war. The plant the grows from
> the seed cannot be other than its own kind. Diplomacy is only
> exhausted when men tire of compromise and grow lazy, seeking
> though violence a quick answer to questions that have no easy
> explanation much less resolution. There is no point at which a
> peaceful nation is compelled to attack another, ever. Such beliefs
> have no more basis in reality than the idea that a man can be
> convicted of a crime and executed for something he might do in the
> future. No person, nor state, can presume to judge when it may kill
> in a premeditated fashion, those that it suspects of planning an
> injury. To admit such an idea into the 21st century is to revisit the
> horrors of the 20th. We must get beyond this, and self-discipline is
> the only way.
>
> What will the United States, enfeebled and alone years from now,
> cry to the world when some other power arises and mets out the
> same rough justice because they fear the United States may try to
> do to them what the United States once did to Iraq? Can you say
> that they would not be justified? Are you not claiming that ready
> access to the means and fear itself are the only measures of
> justifiable violence? Can anyone else live without fear when one
> person alone decides what is permissible and what is not, and kills
> to enforce their opinion? Can the world live in peace when one
> nation adopts the same position?
>
> If the United States goes to war over this, then I do not see this as
> the end of the United Nations, far from it. But it may very well be
> the beginning of the end for the United States. The world cannot
> long stand a bully in its midst, for there is no longer any place for
> such. You may take pride in your strength and exult in your pre-
> eminence, but all things ultimately fail. Britain was once thus.
> Austria, Spain, even Italy had their day in the sun. All dust. Can
> you see tomorrow? What will be the legacy the United States
> leaves to their successors; justice, restraint, compromise, law? Or
> arbitrary violence and self-interested conquest?
>
> Turn from this willful path of self-destruction before it consumes all
> that you hold dear.
>
> It is ended. I will speak no more.
>
> Regards,
> Jim
>
>
> --- e-mail is NOT a secure channel
> James B. Byrne mailto:[log in to unmask]
> Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
> 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
> Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
> Canada L8E 3C3
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> ==================================
> This message contains confidential information and is intended solely for
> the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are
not
> the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
> email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this
e-mail
> by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission
cannot
> be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete. The
> sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
> the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
contracts
> may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
> communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability
> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> ==================================
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
