To: Nikole Wollerstein who wrote (20430 ) 3/20/2004 1:26:18 PM From: sea_urchin Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 80935 Nikita > I would be long dead in on of the labor camps and would not enjoy the opportunity to have this lovely discussion with you. Thank you, and I certainly do appreciate that, after the tyranny and oppression which you experienced in the old USSR, the US must be like paradise. However, what we are talking about here are "degrees" of freedom rather than communism (no freedom) versus democracy (maximum freedom). And, as you correctly imply, it is only because of the freedom of speech that we both have that the discussion is even possible. Of course, the US is not the way it is/was by accident. The American people fought for their rights and established a Constitution where various "freedoms" of the individual were entrenched. (Likewise South Africa). Unfortunately, with time, and largely because companies were treated as "individuals", the democratic basis of US government was slowly whittled away in favor of rule by lobbies and big corporations. Increasingly, we see the "ugly" face of capitalism, where the end, particularly the acquisition of wealth, justifies the means, rather than the "softer" face of democracy, where people and human rights are of importance. > And what Law are you talking about? It's difficult to find a precise law because there is no international policeman who maintains any particular law. Rather, international law is a series of agreements between nations. These agreements stem from the old Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Trials and are embodied in the Founding Statements at the United Nations which followed. The US was a founding member of the UN and therefore party to all agreements. As I understand it, the idea that any nation can decide, unilaterally, that any other nation is a threat to it, and without any substantive evidence or even a declaration of war, invade that country, is in violation of the precepts embodied in these Agreements. And this is, in fact, what the US did on two separate occasions, in Afghanistan and Iraq, both sovereign nations and both members of the UN. The US claimed that it was acting as a proxy for the UN because Iraq violated certain UN Resolutions, but without UN permission or approval for its actions. Furthermore the US also claimed that Iraq was a serious threat to it because of WMDs and long-range rockets which, as you know, have not been found. Since the US does not subscribe to the International Court at the Hague no-one can charge it with war crimes, so the matter is still in abeyance. Furthermore, clearly in pursuit of the PNAC agenda, the US is agitating against both Iran and Syria, neither of which have threatened the US, or will. In fact, sanctions against Syria are imminent and for reasons known only to the US (and Israel).