From: rohan@nmc.cit.cornell.edu (Rohan Oberoi)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: Cornell Network Management Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:28:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.183909.22600@eua.ericsson.se>, etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund) writes:

|> Panama under Noriega wasn't any state. It was a hide out for criminals.

In whose eyes, Mr. Lund?  Yours?  Panama is a sovereign state, and has (or
should have) the same rights as any other.  Whether you, in Sweden, consider
Panama a nest of criminals, or I, in India, consider Sweden a nest of meddling
hypocrites, is neither here nor there.  The fact is that the nations of the 
world have granted neither the US nor the UN the right to militarily intervene 
in the affairs of any nation, unless specifically authorised by the General
Assembly in cases of serious breaches of the UN charter.

|> The same goes for Libya. The former Soviet Union was the only country,
|> that complained seriously about the bombing of Kadaffi and his gang 
|> members. The Soviet Union under the communist system was practically a 
|> state ruled by a maffia.

Much as it may come as a surprise to you, the world is not a large globe filled
with tidy little Scandinavian countries.  The world is sometimes chaotic, and 
usually imperfect; this does not give anyone the right to impose their vision of 
"order" on anyone else.  (Such coercion was last tried in 1939, by Hitler, with 
the result that the UN was set up to prevent anyone else from trying it).  By 
your standards, much of the middle east, much of Asia and all of Africa is a 
"hide out for criminals" and everyone there should be sent to US jails if they 
cannot conform to your vision of order (which, I can assure you, they will not).  
We may have problems you do not have, Mr Lund; that is none of your business.
As long as you live in an imperfect world, you will be faced with problems such
as international crime and drug smuggling.  This cannot be solved by trying
to impose order where none exists; the current situation in the USSR, where 
the artificially imposed Stalinist order has been shown to have no lasting effect,
illustrates this admirably.  Moreover, if your attempts to solve these problems
by force impinge upon the rights of other peoples to decide their own destinies, 
you have no right to try.

|> >Peter Lund (etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se) writes:
|> >Now my friend, watch you keyboard very very closely. If that was
|> >a duty of the US, why didn't they intervene in Chile 1973? In
|> >Greece 1967? In Turkey 1980? 
|> 
|> Just because US some times fails to do its duty, doesn't mean US and the 
|> rest of the democratic world don't have such a duty. 

This pretty little concept of the US "doing its duty" is not new.  It used to 
be called The White Man's Burden.  I think you know what you can do with it.

|> I would like to see, the democratic states forming an global alliance. 
|> Then that alliance could play the role of the world's policeman and not 
|> just the US, which some times fails to fill that role. 

I would not.  I live in a country where the democratic system is in many
ways imperfect, a country which disagrees with the philosophies of people 
like Mr. Lund and the government of the United States.  (For instance, we
refuse to sign such discriminatory treaties as the NPT.)  I have no desire
to have anyone else's world order imposed on me.  

When the world is one society, you will be justified in setting up a police
force for it.  Until then, you have no mandate to do so; if you try, all you
will set up is an empire.  And those who see imperialism as an injustice and 
a crime, as I do, will not cease to oppose it with all the strength at our
command.

|> Peter Lund,     mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
|> Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden

The crux of the matter, Mr Lund (you might be interested to know that "lund"
means "penis" in Punjabi) is this:

That any attempt by a democratic society to impose its will on people outside 
its borders is anti-democratic.  Therefore, any state which does so is just as 
reprehensible as an autocratic state.  In other words, the US holds no moral
high ground over Libya.

If you have a coherent argument to present to this, Mr. Lund, kindly send it
to me at rohan@nmc.cit.cornell.edu.  If you merely wish to restate the 
gibberish you put in your last article, do us both a favour and shut up.

Rohan Oberoi
rohan@nmc.cit.cornell.edu
("Vax Populi, Vax Dei")