But who decides to stop him? -> It is "Judge and Jury" and NOT just "a stronger man"
And who stops him -> again it is "Police" and not any vigilante who decides to.

Quote:

Human rights FIRST International sovereignty SECOND

"Human Rights" here equals "law" in a normal trial "International sovereignty" equals "civil rights".
The strong point is that you cannot enact law while violating civil rights without becoming a felon yourself.
The elected "judge and jury" for world and countries is - for a lack of anything better - the UN who has the power to enlist parts of national armies as its police force (blue-helmets). But you get a judge by common consensus and policemen by hiring NOT by your own choice alone.

Say I suddenly decided that the justice system in my country is doing a bad job and left my house packing an assault rifle and a sawed-off shotgun (which are both illegal in my country but who cares, I did not sing/approve of that law). Then I proceed to hunt down and shoot a man I strongly believe to be a serial killer, a man who is on trial but not yet convicted. I don't think I would or should get away with this because it should not be in ONE man's power to judge. </font>[/QUOTE]The last time I totally lost control and succumbed to mind numbing rage was seven or eight years ago, when I saw a man callously beating his beautiful little blonde curly haired daughter on the grass outside my apartment.

I was on the third floor (that would be the second floor in America), so that prevented me physically intervening, but my subsequent animalist rage filled verbal abuse, meant that he stopped and left the area.

My point being, if the police show an unwillingness or are unable to prevent or repair a situation, there is a moral obligation on those around to do so, and it can be argued, have an innate instinct to act in such circumstances.

But this oes back to my point about the international community. I hold to the opinion, that if Hussein had no friends, if every nation unanimously voted for war, no war would have eventuated. That includes, China, Russia, France, Germany, dissenters in England and America and Australia, and every Muslim nation that stood by and watched a dictator oppress Shiites, Kurds and his own Sunnis in a reign of brutality, repression and fear.

WOMD or not (and I don't believe there are, based on Richard Butler's assesments) the international community had an OBLIGATION to remove Hussein, and miserably failed in it's duty for far to long.

Yep the people against the war are more to blame, Riiiiight. :rolleyes: They are to blame for the 6-8 thousand civilian deaths caused by the coalition. Riiiight :rolleyes:

The idea that either side of the conflict is morally superior than the other is a farce. Justify killing however you want, even if contradicts a rede or rule.

I will die, knowing that evil exists in the world, but my hands are as clean from the evils of war as I can get them.
[ 08-11-2003, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

There probably are no long term efect from napalm , aside from the wounds it causes. Napalm is just a gelled gasoline. You can make it at home by mixing gasoline or kerosine with laundry detergent or egg whites. You can also whip up a batch by disolving styrofoam into the gasoline.


Cluster bombs are a horse of a diffrent color. a 500lb. cluster bomb will pop open and deploy a batch of small grenades over a given blast area. They are the perfect tool for getting rid of large groups of men and mateial. The downside is that any of the grenades that dont go off in the imedeate drop are potential land mines that can kill and maim civilians going through the area.

That is my opinion yes. If refusing to get involved in a situation causes ongoing death, you are part of the problem. If refusing to get involved in a situation, when doing so prevents an escalation of conflict, then you are part of the problem.

Those nations against the war ended up being part of the cause, in my opinion, due to the opposition creating legitimacy for Husseins regime; legitimacy, legality, and support within the international community. I repeat, if he was without international friends, he would have folded long ago.

One side CAN have moral highground. Violence can be a means to a productive end, rather than destructive end. In this sense, though evil is still commited, the one with the more positive END has the moral highground. So it is hardly a 'farce'.

Your hands are as muddy as the rest. Do you purchase products? Are you not part of the capitalist system? By paying taxes, spending money, voting/not voting, you are part of the problem as much as the next person. It is impossible to have you hands clean, much as you would like them to be.

My hands are as clean as I can get them, thats what I said, so dont pretend I said otherwise.

OK - let's start shooting some prisoners :rolleyes:

----------------

Just for clarification. The bombs used are MK 77, mark 5 - which isn't napalm (unlike marks 1-4). The benzen has been replaced by jetfuel. So when Military spokesmen denied the use of napalm, they were technically speaking the truth.

The problem with such weapon is that they by no means are presition weapons - they kill everything nearby. So for me the real question has to bbe: Where they used where civilians could get hit, or purely against military targets?

Hey, i'm not saying that it should be like that, but unfortunately that's the way it is,war brings out the worst in people.

About your shooting comment, i think that's already happening whereever wars are being fought. Welcome to the world.

Hey, i'm not saying that it should be like that, but unfortunately that's the way it is,war brings out the worst in people.</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. Why would we expect otherwise?

My hands are as clean as I can get them, thats what I said, so dont pretend I said otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]But they're not. Are you spending any money on products owned by companies that make weapons? Check and make sure. Otherwise your dollar is helping fund what you're opposing.

Be careful when ask these questions or you may land someone a hefty fine:
<a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/0626-2.html" target="_blank">
<FONT SIZE=+1>Company fined $6,000 for
answering customer's question</FONT>
</a><FONT SIZE=+1>"Is any of this stuff made in Israel?"</FONT>


by Helen &amp; Harry Highwater, Unknown News <NOBR></NOBR> <NOBR>June 27, 2003</NOBR>


A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for answering a customer's question and not reporting to the federal government that the question was asked. The question that's punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?

<FONT COLOR=blue>The Kansas City Star</FONT> reports:<BLOCKQUOTE> The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.</BLOCKQUOTE>