> s,the world over,in the US, please (and I DO hope it's > not true in the US - someone prove me wrong, please, > with evidences). Sorry, but this is not the case in > Europe at all. For one, the Mani Pulite operation in > Italy could never have happened if your claim held true > (No URL - I'll let you find by yourself what this was > all about). Neither would have the lawsuits concerning > many politicians in France or other EU countries. Real > lawmen are impartial. They judge on facts. Which > invalidates your other "argument"
While "good" "lawmen" may tend toward impartiality, it's kind of naive to assume that they're unencumbered by the same societal background and belief systems of those who appoint them, not to mention loyalties to persons and states.
> So, in your opinion, who is able to judge what is wrong > or right? The US alone? Is *this* your conception of > international justice? Does the *word* "international" > mean something to you, apart from "American"?
When there's appropriate "international" participation in the fielding of peacekeeping forces, you might be right. Now, however, the U.S. carries the majority of that burden, and has carried that burden while Europe has tended to its own interests. The countries of Europe, like those of the Middle East, have relied on our military while disdaining us for our superpower status. So, while the general concept behind the idea of the court seems good, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern that it may be abused, and that the U.S. would be the most likely target of such abuse.
Personally, I'd be happy to let Europe field its own peacekeeping forces more often. Bosnia is a lot closer to you than to me. Why did my friends and neighbors have to go there, instead of yours?
> Hint: accused != guilty. Prove yourself right and you're > out of trouble. Simple.
Again, this strikes me as naive. No innocents have been found guilty by any court?
> There is evidence that human activities are involved in > global warming [studyworksonline.com], so again you don't > know what you're talking about.
Evidence isn't proof. You'd not make a good "lawman" with that attitude. While I personally find it likely that global warming is caused partially by human activity, there isn't consensus within the scientific community that this is in fact the case. From the link you posted, you can find this on the NOAA site listed at the bottom:
"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change."
Now, you can counterbalance that with the fact that changing our current behavior will cause economic hardship without guarantee that it'll make a positive difference. Maybe it's the right thing to do (my own opinion), but there's plenty of room for legitimate disagreement.
> First point, the same way there is an anti-semitic trend > in Europe (and I don't deny it, event though things have > curiously calmed down since Le Pen was defeated at the > 2nd turn of French presidential elections), I can say that > there's an anti-arabic trend in the US. And unfortunately > the average US citizen (which a/. reader is not, > fortunately) assumes Arabic == muslim. This is totally > wrong headed. You have catholic people in Afghanistan, > please you or not.
A couple of points worth mentioning:
1. There's no active "nativist" movement in the U.S. The current "anti-arabic trend" is purely reactive in nature to recent events, and will be over while rightist European politicians still lament their "immigrant problems".
2. We haven't killed six million Muslims or persons of Arabic descent in the U.S., and it's highly unlikely that we will. So we have a far better track record on these issues than you'll have for several generations.
> As to "the aggressors that attack their country", you > prove yourself to be TOTALLY UNAWARE OF MIDDLE EAST > RECENT HISTORY. I shall remind you that all the current > trouble between Israel and the Palestine began when > Yitzhak Rabin [israeliscent.com] got murdered. This guy, > and his successor, Shimon Perez, did great to bring > peace in the region. Some sucker with a gun led to the > situation we know today. The problem nowadays in Middle > East are not the Palestinians. The problem in Middle East > today lies in two words: Ariel Sharon. Anyone who has > even loosely observed the situation in these last 7 years > (Rabin was assassinated in 1995) knows that this is true
I'm not sure why everyone tends to oversimplify things like this. I'm AWARE OF MIDDLE EAST RECENT HISTORY, and NOT-SO-RECENT HISTORY for that matter (you might want to brush up a bit on your history, since you seem to have forgotten what happened in the middle of this century in Europe). The "current trouble" isn't anything new, and while I'm no fan of Sharon, it's hardly fair to lay the blame entirely at his feet. Why did the Israeli people elect him? Was it because of the collapse of the peace process. Why did the peace process collapse? Because Arafat thought he could get a better deal by spending the lives of some of his people, or because he couldn't control his people. Sharon is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is the unwillingness of the Palestinians to accept reality - they're never going to get all of Palestine back, and they're going to have to learn to live with Israel, or die with it.
> And please next time don't post anonymously.
I fail to see the relation between the source of a statement and the validity of that statement.
Slashdot Mirror
> s,the world over,in the US, please (and I DO hope it's
/. reader is not,
> not true in the US - someone prove me wrong, please,
> with evidences). Sorry, but this is not the case in
> Europe at all. For one, the Mani Pulite operation in
> Italy could never have happened if your claim held true
> (No URL - I'll let you find by yourself what this was
> all about). Neither would have the lawsuits concerning
> many politicians in France or other EU countries. Real
> lawmen are impartial. They judge on facts. Which
> invalidates your other "argument"
While "good" "lawmen" may tend toward impartiality, it's kind of naive to assume that they're unencumbered by the same societal background and belief systems of those who appoint them, not to mention loyalties to persons and states.
> So, in your opinion, who is able to judge what is wrong
> or right? The US alone? Is *this* your conception of
> international justice? Does the *word* "international"
> mean something to you, apart from "American"?
When there's appropriate "international" participation in the fielding of peacekeeping forces, you might be right. Now, however, the U.S. carries the majority of that burden, and has carried that burden while Europe has tended to its own interests. The countries of Europe, like those of the Middle East, have relied on our military while disdaining us for our superpower status. So, while the general concept behind the idea of the court seems good, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern that it may be abused, and that the U.S. would be the most likely target of such abuse.
Personally, I'd be happy to let Europe field its own peacekeeping forces more often. Bosnia is a lot closer to you than to me. Why did my friends and neighbors have to go there, instead of yours?
> Hint: accused != guilty. Prove yourself right and you're
> out of trouble. Simple.
Again, this strikes me as naive. No innocents have been found guilty by any court?
> There is evidence that human activities are involved in
> global warming [studyworksonline.com], so again you don't
> know what you're talking about.
Evidence isn't proof. You'd not make a good "lawman" with that attitude. While I personally find it likely that global warming is caused partially by human activity, there isn't consensus within the scientific community that this is in fact the case. From the link you posted, you can find this on the NOAA site listed at the bottom:
"There is considerable debate centered on the cause of 20th century climate change."
Now, you can counterbalance that with the fact that changing our current behavior will cause economic hardship without guarantee that it'll make a positive difference. Maybe it's the right thing to do (my own opinion), but there's plenty of room for legitimate disagreement.
> First point, the same way there is an anti-semitic trend
> in Europe (and I don't deny it, event though things have
> curiously calmed down since Le Pen was defeated at the
> 2nd turn of French presidential elections), I can say that
> there's an anti-arabic trend in the US. And unfortunately
> the average US citizen (which a
> fortunately) assumes Arabic == muslim. This is totally
> wrong headed. You have catholic people in Afghanistan,
> please you or not.
A couple of points worth mentioning:
1. There's no active "nativist" movement in the U.S. The current "anti-arabic trend" is purely reactive in nature to recent events, and will be over while rightist European politicians still lament their "immigrant problems".
2. We haven't killed six million Muslims or persons of Arabic descent in the U.S., and it's highly unlikely that we will. So we have a far better track record on these issues than you'll have for several generations.
> As to "the aggressors that attack their country", you
> prove yourself to be TOTALLY UNAWARE OF MIDDLE EAST
> RECENT HISTORY. I shall remind you that all the current
> trouble between Israel and the Palestine began when
> Yitzhak Rabin [israeliscent.com] got murdered. This guy,
> and his successor, Shimon Perez, did great to bring
> peace in the region. Some sucker with a gun led to the
> situation we know today. The problem nowadays in Middle
> East are not the Palestinians. The problem in Middle East
> today lies in two words: Ariel Sharon. Anyone who has
> even loosely observed the situation in these last 7 years
> (Rabin was assassinated in 1995) knows that this is true
I'm not sure why everyone tends to oversimplify things like this. I'm AWARE OF MIDDLE EAST RECENT HISTORY, and NOT-SO-RECENT HISTORY for that matter (you might want to brush up a bit on your history, since you seem to have forgotten what happened in the middle of this century in Europe). The "current trouble" isn't anything new, and while I'm no fan of Sharon, it's hardly fair to lay the blame entirely at his feet. Why did the Israeli people elect him? Was it because of the collapse of the peace process. Why did the peace process collapse? Because Arafat thought he could get a better deal by spending the lives of some of his people, or because he couldn't control his people. Sharon is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is the unwillingness of the Palestinians to accept reality - they're never going to get all of Palestine back, and they're going to have to learn to live with Israel, or die with it.
> And please next time don't post anonymously.
I fail to see the relation between the source of a statement and the validity of that statement.
dtw