Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Unbelivable !!!!!!!
In Between
The Ultimate Lurker
in Zocalo v2.0
This is insane
[url="http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm"]http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm[/url]
Your thoughts
[url="http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm"]http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm[/url]
Your thoughts
Comments
Unlike some countrys, we Americans belive in freedoms. This bill looks like it would severly inflict upon those freedoms. (OK, the national court thing...I'm actually FOR an international "get 'em" policy, meaning a mass merderer can't just skip country and be immune from trial, etc).
as for the peackeeping thingy, I never liked that anyway. If its a matter of international interest, yes, lets team up and get em! if its "Oh, I don't like that country...lets send in forces from all over the world to destroy it, even though that they arnt a threat to any nation then our own, and the soldiers won't be defending their own nation [which is why they signed up in the first place], I just don't like them. KILL."
I hope Bush has the backbone to not back down on this.
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[b]what makes us any better than any other country? If a soldier massacres civilians or carries out some other heinous crime he damn well should be tried in a world court.[/b][/quote]
The U.S already has a clear and defined system to deal with sodiers that violate the rules of engagement and purposely kill civilians. Futhermore, acts such as genocide and crimes against humanity would never be sanctioned by the US government or its people, and so it is very unlikely that the US would ever do something that would warrant an ICC intervention. While many of you may disagree with U.S foreign policy, I don't think any reasoning person can suggest that the U.S in its present form could be capable of crimes against humanity such as genocide.
While it seems a bit stupid for Bush to go to such lengths, I understand why the administration would want to protect U.S sodiers. As you all know there are many out there who are sick of U.S unilateralism and its superpower status, many would love to give the U.S a black eye in on the international stage by accusing its soldiers of war crimes. In addition the fact that many nations who you could hardly call champions of human rights are members of the ICC and hold influencial positions on it, it seems to me that this undermines the ICC's credibility and status as a protector of human rights.
In any case I don't think the ICC can function effectivley without some international force that can actualy bring people to justice. It took two years for Milosevich to be handed over to the Hauge and that was only after his own people deposed him from power. It seems to me rather ineffective to let these dictators conduct their war crimes, and then only stop and capture them once the damage has already been done.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
I'm trying to think of an analogy:
Let’s say I don't like the politics of rcmodels. I run down to my nearest "Operation TIPS" reporting station, and inform them of your "Un-American" comments online and that I think you are suspicious. The police and Fed. invade your privacy, watch your e-mails, tap your phone, interview you, family friends, co-workers. You know have to explain to all of them that no; You are not "un-American." Your reputation has now been tarnished, and it's been a pain in the ass dealing with all the legal threats and questioning. I've abused the system.
I'm in Taiwan with US forces defending the local population from a hostile annexing of the island by the PRC. China's government doesn’t like what I'm up to. So they run to their nearest "War Crime" reporting station in the Netherlands. They tie me down in legal crap, I have to bring troops in to testify etc. Meanwhile resources that could have gone to winning the action on Taiwan are diverted to legal defense. It's been a pain in the ass dealing with all the legal threats and questioning. China has abused the system.
You might say that the world could just dismiss the allegations by the Chinese, but that would take all the teeth and respect away from the court, isn’t the opinion of China just as relevant as say the Netherlands?
The court is a joke, and prone to abuse. As long as there are different cultural standards and different Nations world government systems are a farce or dangerous.
Plenty of comments have been made on this board that could be taken, if twisted just a little, as threats on President Bush’s life. I’m walking to the telephone… FBI, TIPS, NSA, Secret Service… where are those phone numbers?
------------------
[b]Penn State Proud[/b]
No matter which way you slice it metaphorically speaking :
Australia - 110lb, 5'2'', wiry and fairly active
England - 120lb fella, 5' 6'', stocky
Fiji - 85lb of tiny tiny guy 4'6''
USA - 350lb, 9ft tall, built like a slightly outof shape heavyweight Olympic weight lifter
Rule of nature...
big guy wins
No matter which way the human race progresses it will have a distinctly United States flavour. I'm all for Turtledove's alternative future where the US is TWO countries. North and South.
Divide the US and the rest of us have half a change of not being squashed like bugs when the US either inadvertantly, deliberately, or in the course of protecting its own ass... sits on us.
[b]
No matter which way the human race progresses it will have a distinctly United States flavour.
[/b][/quote]
Thats 'cause its ouw money thats paying for it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
the AU GNP ?
FIJI's GNP ?
precisely Ahash...
are you saying thats a good thing ?
Not everyone prescribes to everything the US is, some of us would like to retain some of our own culture in the 'New World Order'.
There are plenty of good things that the Us brings the world, other things are abysmal.
Homegenation, dumbing down, sanitisation, sterilization... all unfortunate and terrible things visited on too many of the worlds people by the US. In the most part it's not deliberate, nor malicious... but neither is a truck driver behind the wheel of the truck that turns you into wormfood in an accident.
[b] Thats 'cause its ouw money thats paying for it. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
An ecologist called Garret Hardin used the analogy of the Titanic lifeboats contemplating going back to pick up survivors in the water and how many to take in to describe the division between North and South (North = 1st, developed world; South = 3rd, developing world). The question of how to choose, what criteria, and who to take in were seen as important. The people in the boats would throw lifejackets and lifelines to those in the water so they could stay afloat a little longer. The survival expectancy of those in the water is less. Now, guess who's in the lifeboats and who's in the water. Only in this case, everyone works in the same way. Promises of food and aid are the lifelines thrown to the south by the north. Immigration debates in places such as Australia and New Zealand, among others, are those in the water trying to get into the lifeboats.
The fact is that we live in a privileged society. After 50 years of incredible economic development since the end of WWII, the gap between the rich and poor has widened considerably. The division between the 1st and the 3rd world is the result of history. The 3rd world is even more dependant now than it ever has been, despite its "independence".
In 1949, in his inaugural speech to congress, US President Truman coined the word "underdeveloped". He saw all people on Earth as being on the same track, just at different speeds. He decreed that the level of developedness and civilisation of a country should be measured by the north's own measure, GNP. His assumption was that by injecting cash into a country, it would catch up to the north's level of development. His intentions were good, but he was completly wrong. The culture of Europe and North America was imposed upon the rest of the world.
The result of this policy of providing "aid" to the south, aid upon which they have to pay interest levels they will never afford even if they do reach the north's level (foreign debt grew by $US1.2 trillion between 1972 and 1992), is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, the north and the south. The 3rd world, with 2/3 of the world's population, has 15% of the world total GNP. Only 8% of the world is middle classed, and the larger proportion of the rest sure as hell arn't upper. By 1990, 1.2 billion people were in absolute poverty as defined by Robert McNamara in 1978: "a condition of life so limited by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, squalid surroundings, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency."
The south has been pushed into the global market on a drastically uneven playing field, known as the global market. They have to borrow money to survive in this economic environment, and are told by the north that they can't survive without being a part of it. After 50 years this view is so ingrained into them that they can't get away from it. Those in the 3rd world who are rich and who are controlling wouldn't want to. They would lose their income, even though it is destroying the rest of the people in those countries. Rather than improving economic development in the 3rd world, foreign aid has destroyed it. Countries are being pushed out of and down from development, a process known as "abjection". Look at the economic crisis in Argentinia, the problems in Latin America and Africa.
It is ludicrous to expect that if you poor money into a country, they will grow up to be just like you and then pay you back (with interest), thanking you for your help. The countries who are now 3rd world (or worse, in many cases) had different cultures. They worked in different ways. And yet they were forced to work in the western way.
To sum up, and explain the reason for the quote, it damn well shouldn't be our money that is paying for it. It's one thing to provide food, clothing and health care to those stricken by famine and disease. It's another to expect them to pay for it.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
yeah...
wot he said.
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
What bugs me is our refusal to sign an international treaty against [i]torture[/i]. Assuming we aren't actively engaged in torturing people, there is nothing to lose. We get high marks for being part of the international community, and we get the high ground with pissants who don't want to sign the treaty because (whoops!) [i]they're[/i] actively engaged in torturing people!
"Oh, but, if we, the United States, the Embodiment of Evil on this world, can sign this anti-torture treaty, surely a virtueus country like yourselves can as well!"
The UN is solely a forum for all countries that make up is council to discuss and debate issues of the world.
The UN does NOT carry out any actions, it only suggest actions that the member states should carry out. The UN is not a peace keeping force, it only helps coordinate the member countries into a peacekeeping force.
The combined budget of all the UN agencies, this includes UNICEF is a fifth of that provided to run the european parliament!
What you don't seem to understand is the UN [i]is[/i] the member states. When you say the UN should do something about situation A what you are actually saying is let the member states of the UN discuss and formulate a plan of action on situation A and then the member staes carry out the plan.
So to the people who winge and moan that their country is doing something the UN should do really haven't got the foggiest idea, your nation (with the other countries) [i]is[/i] the UN.
Without the UN there would be no international forum, no simple place for the nations of the world to work out their differences and organise themselves.
This should also make it clear why the USA is so damn stupid to be holding back the money it owes in upkeep of the UN, all they are doing is putting the world forum at danger of collapse (and restricting the UNs humanitarian agencies). A little insight there into another reason other countries of this world are pissed at the american government.
To be anti-UN is to be anti world discussion on issues which to me is possibly the most stupid view point to take. We are all on this rock together.
CnlPepper - Irritated rant mode off...
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
but when the nations of the world come up with some stupid idea. For example "Child Rights" or "Womens rights" Example included in this bill: if a women WANTS to stay home, her spouse has to PAY her? get real! And other items to the same tune. I'm glad when we say NO to stupid ideas like that. Isolationist? no. Using our brains and relizing that what some beurocrats THINK are good isnt - thats just sence.
Frankly, If I sign up in the US army, I did NOT sign up for the UN peacekeeping force. if I sign up in OUR army, I signed up because I want to DEFEND my nation, my family,my friends and my allys. I didn't sign up to be sent to some warzone that has nothing to do with protecting my family or my nation.
also, if one of our sodiers acts out of line, goes on some shooting spree, and by some twist of fate, is captured alive, heshould be courtmarshled, sentenced, and appropriate measures taken in punishment (IMO, if he killed an innocent on purpose, he should die himself), BUT THOUGH OUR COURT SYSTEM. same for every other nation. They punish their own soldiers.
The only bit on that bill that I'm not in 100% agreement with is the one authorizing military force to free a citizen from the court system of another country. I can see that ONLY if they are being held without just cause. otherwise, I'd say that citizen should be subject to that nations laws.
Frankly, the site listen in the first post is obviously a "Hate America" site. Whats with the people that hate America huh? (From what I hear on the news, "Hate America" books are top selling in the UK, WHAT?!?!? We came to your rescue in BOTH World wars as allies, and as friends, and now suddenly we are some horrible, dispicable nation? WHY? because we dont want to do what other people tell us to? we are over here because we want to rule ourselves (Note, ever here of the "declaration of INDEPENDENCE")?
To quote (Dunno who said it first):
"Don't hate me because I am Beu-ti-ful."
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
[This message has been edited by A2597 (edited 08-08-2002).]
[b]
Frankly, If I sign up in the US army, I did NOT sign up for the UN peacekeeping force. if I sign up in OUR army, I signed up because I want to DEFEND my nation, my family,my friends and my allys. I didn't sign up to be sent to some warzone that has nothing to do with protecting my family or my nation.
[/b][/quote]
I agree with you to a point. However, as Americans we have to realize that almost everything that happens in the world effects us all. We live so far away from everyone else that it's easy to ignore the suffering of a people 5000 miles away. We are so complacent over here that we just change the channel form CNN to the Cartoon Network when we can't take any more suffering.
Other parts of the world don't have that luxury. Many see it firsthand and wonder why someone can't stop it. That's where the UN comes in. They CAN. Unlike the League of Nations who had no power to enforce peace and human rights, the UN was made so that it could. If that means some US troops have to go into somewhere that doesn't DIRECTLY effect us, i'm ok with that. By defending other people I'd like to think we are helping to make the entire planet a better place. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Should we be getting our nose in EVERYBODY'S business? No. But IMHO we have to slowly realize that we are part of a greater community.
------------------
[b]Penn State Proud[/b]
[b]we are over here because we want to rule ourselves (Note, ever here of the "declaration of INDEPENDENCE")?[/b][/quote]
I can think of a lot of other countries who want something similar.
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Regarding isolationism - you can be isolationist if you want but to be you'll have no trade, so I hope you don't like bannanas, kiwi fruit, cheap electronics. Also how long do you think the rest of the world would stand for you destroying all [i]our[/i] environment to keep up your "standard" of living?
You wonder why people in the uk get irritated by the americans (we don't hate you, just sometimes are damn infuriated by your stubborn and non-well thought out actions - god knows where you got that rubbish about "hate american" books...it is just rubbish) well the following statement is a good example:
[quote]We came to your rescue in BOTH World wars as allies, and as friends, and now suddenly we are some horrible, dispicable nation?[/quote]
You entered the war because you realised that if britian and other nations fell then
the Nazi's and Japan would just walk over you with the combined industrial and military might of Europe, Africa and Asia behind them. I wouldn't believe everything your government tells you. We in the UK are very thankful that you did join to help and you were (and still are) our greatest ally but to believe yourselfs to be totally altruistic in your actions is very nieve and also very insulting.
A lot of the time the USA does things which it passes off as altruistic acts to help the world however it is plainly obvious that those acts are solely for its own benefit! It its insulting to believe that you consider the peoples of the world so nieve, wouldn't you be irritated if we did the same (not to say we don't but it isn't so damn obvious!).
Sorry but I hear the same rants about how "unfair" the world is to the grossly rich, well fed and generally spoilt american nation all the time. You nation is great yes and you do perform and do some incredible things that benefit us all however you are equally selfish and arrogant.
All countries act pretty much similarly but the difference is that the peoples of most of those countries realise it.
I'm just stating things how I see them, don't take it personally... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
CnlPepper - Who needs to write out an essay to post at times like these...
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
[This message has been edited by CnlPepper (edited 08-08-2002).]
[b]I'm saying that if the UN wants to do something, typically the U.S. foots the bill. Just because we (United States) don't want to do something that the UN wants, mainly because it would infringe upon our freedoms, don't get mad at us. Your acting like we should do everything that the UN wants, and frankly, many of the UNs ideas are a load of BS (IMHO).[/b][/quote]It would be good to remember that most of the UN is made of third world dictatorships.
What is the source of this info....why its the good old american CIA world fact book 2001 - [url="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/"]http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/[/url]
You can count them yourself if you want.
Get your facts straight.
CnlPepper - Wonders where people get this crap from...
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
[This message has been edited by CnlPepper (edited 08-08-2002).]
[b]Dictatorships make up the such a large portion of the UN don't they, a whole ~6% of the 190 member states. The rest consisting of good old democracies.[/b][/quote]Rubbish. Arab states alone take greater probortion than that, and none of them are really true democracies honoring the human rights or political freedom. Then you have most of Africa and Asia. OK, I suppose Latin America isn't as bad it used to be.
[This message has been edited by The Merciful (edited 08-08-2002).]
I agree with you that a lot of the arab states are not democracies but their numbers are not as great as you seem to believe. There arn't that many arab states!
You don't really have a clue do you, look at a map and count the democratic states you know about.... look at europe, south america, america, countries of the former-USSR, south pacific countries (australia).
Something you really don't understand is that even though a number of countries arn't what we consider democratic they are far from dictatorships.
Just because a country is not a democracy do you consider it to be an "unwise" state that should participate the UN?
Well that destroys the whole point of the UN - countries helping other countries, rich helping the poor.
You have been reading too much american propaganda.
Ever looked at the UN website? [url="http://www.un.org"]www.un.org[/url]
CnlPepper - Enlightenment comes though opeing ones eyes...
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
An international court is independent and accountable.
[/quote]
CnlPepper, I haven't seen the details of the plan. How would the appointed court be accountable, and to whom is it accountable?
As background, I am American. My definition of accountable infers that the judges are people from the same population that will be judged, and that if a majority of this population concludes that the court is not unbiased in its decisions, then the population may remove the judges or change the mechanisms of the court. If your definition is different, please let me know.
------------------
bobo
<*>
B5:ITF
The international court would be accountable to all the worlds people, if the majority (or a certain percentage...I'm not sure of the fine details) of the countries who are part of the treaty consider the judges to be biased then their verdict would not be accepted and the judges replaced. I believe thats right... I'll have to check.
CnlPepper - Posts accountable to society [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
[quote][b]Where will it be and who will be in charge?[/b] The Ccourt will be in The Hague, with a panel of 18 judges who, though elected by all the States which rafity the Statute from all the regions and legal systems of the world, will operate only according to ICC's Statutes. They must be widely experienced in trying the Court's crimes (including gender related crimes) and will be able to pass down sentances of imprisonment (including for life) and order confiscation of assest to pay reparations to victims of the crimes. There will be no capital punishment as that is contrary to UN human rights decisions, even though several countries continue to use it.[/quote]
Unfortunately the document does not go into what would happen if the verdict was disputed... I'll have to look at the treaty itself when I get time.
CnlPepper - Erk legal jargon wading time...
------------------
[b]HW:B5TC Dev. Team Member and B5TC Board Moderator.[/b]
[url="http://www.geocities.com/cnlpepperplanet"]CnlPepper's B5 Mod Resources[/url]
[This message has been edited by CnlPepper (edited 08-08-2002).]