From: garrett@Ingres.COM (WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS)
Subject: Re: What is United States of America like?
Summary: Let's go.  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:10:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.182653.25965@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                                                writes...
>garrett@Ingres.COM (MMMMM...ESSENCE OF GELFLING) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.173821.64@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com                   
>>Not just Isreali law. Also, Isreal doesn't invade countries and kill 
>>thousands of civilians in order to get them.
> 
>It is *ISRAELI* law under which these acts have been carried out, not
>international law, which does not provide for such acts as the abduc-
>tion of Eichmann. Nor raid on Entebbe. Nor aerial bombing of Saddam's
>nuclear plant.

The raid on Saddam's nuclear plant is dabatable, I admit. But Eichmann
and the hostage taking in Entebbe was internationally denounced, before
Isreal acted. That's an important difference to our invasion of Panama
which was internationally denounced. Also, I never said that Isreal wasn't
reacting under it's own laws. I was saying that it was reacting to an
internationally criminal act (as in the cases of Eichmann and Entebbe).
	On the other hand, our invasion of Panama was in reaction to
what was considered a violation of AMERICAN law, not international. That
is in essense, forcing our laws on another soveriegn country. Isreal was
forcing theirs, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, on another country. And even then,
they were in and out of the country, without interfering with the workings
of that country. While we deposed a government, and instituted another that
we liked better. That's colonialism.

>Whether you wish to mark such events as "invasion" is
>up to you.

Kidnapping, yes. Rescue mission, yes. Invasion, not even close.

>I also assume your reference to "thousands" springs from a
>personal claim upon artistic license.

On the contrary. Thousands was not only U.N. numbers, but also
Amnesty International numbers (Panama Invasion issue). Our country is
the only country that estimated the numbers to be so low (big suprise).
Check it out if you don't believe me.
> 
>>>>>Noriega was not tried on the basis of a treaty violation, since none
>>>>>had occurred.
>>>>Then why did we invade Panama at all?
>>> 
>>>Based on the treaty, which provided the U.S. the right to defend the
>>>Canal against hostile threats. In this case, Noriega's gang.
> 
>>But Noriega never did break the treaty.
> 
>That is your judgement, and it may even be that the incoming government
>may choose to consult with you on future decisions about treaty enforce-
>ment. Anything would seem possible.
>But it is not in doubt whether the United States did or did not have the
>treaty right to defend, under arms, the Canal against "threats" (as well
>as outright acts) hostile to Canal security.

I'm not doubting that the U.S. had a right to defend its property against
hostile acts. But THERE WAS NO TREATY VIOLATION! If you can name a single 
treaty violation then name it.
	BTW, if you are going to say the case of the officer and his
wife that were supposedly taken prisoner and beaten, then you should
also know that the Pentagon now says that it was only a rumour. And if
your other example was the firing on security post by the Panamanians,
then you should know that it was started when the U.S. ran a Panamanian
security post and we fired first. Just to let you know.
>-- 
>bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu

-garrett
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,soc.motss,alt.sex