![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote: Alan Minyard wrote in : On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar" wrote: (BUFDRVR) wrote in : Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about intellectual laziness. Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation. Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter. Regards... You mean the europeans who supported Saddam????? Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam? I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up wasn't very wise. In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans) displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter. He actually called me a Saddam supporter once. Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here. Regards, Ralph Savelsberg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() You mean the europeans who supported Saddam????? Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam? Chirac, Schroeder, etc. as well as the majority of "european" individuals (who elected and support the above mentioned cowards). Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the Country that has saved them on several occasions. I guess ones does what any critic would and should do in the face of manipulation, express a voice against it. It takes courage, No, it takes cowardice and duplicity. and I know for a fact that many americans are doing that as well. But "europeans"? You might wan't to rethink that. Why? It is perfectly valid. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions, as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the point of Civil War. I get the sense from reading your posts that see Europe as representing "Kultur" while America represents "Zivilisation." Now you speak of a Civil War of the West, presumably between Europe and America. The fact that an educated person would seriously raise this as a possibility is too depressing to comment on. I thought this was 2003, not some writ large version of 1903. Chris Mark |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
larger navy? The ones with coastlines. Even if they couldn't take part in the fairly obvious upcoming ground war, they could help support the rest of the world in shutting down Germany's navies and make it easier to retake the continent. Most of Europe's complete lack of preparation for WWII is plainly documented and bloody obvious to the rest of us... I wrote a long and detailed reply and then my comp crashed and the reply went with it..The comp is still acting kinda funny so I'll give a short answer then.Some European countries were allied with germany, many were neutral andthose that took part were could have used better airforce and army to preventGermany ever achieving such a victory. For example if Benelux-countries couldhave halted German advance enough to buy more time BEF and Frances defence mighthave better. French had a strong navy and for what purpose ... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism. Then why give Saddam a pass? Literally no one argued he was being deceptive and no one could argue his ties to international terrorism. So why did France, Germany and Belgium jump off the ship at that point? Elect someone to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy actually matters You're a fool if you think this administration doesn't have a thought-out policy. I realize GWB isn't a liberal, and you Europeans can't stand that, but it tends to blind you. It would help more if they could actually formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing even their friends in Iraq. And its your informed opinion that they're not doing that? Great, whats the last cabnit meeting you sat in on? Last Pentagon "Tank"? I thought so. Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT "indict Tommy Franks" snip a bunch of legalistic crap Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same. The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings, even Belgians it appears. Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court". What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity, regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator. Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush Europeans continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the same things Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton refused to sign it for the reason I stated above, I haven't heard Bush comment on it, but its my guess he feels the same way. Clinton and NATO *unilaterally*, without UN approval, bomb Yugoslavia and eventually send ground forces in to occupy Kosovo. This is acceptable. Bush and the UK, along with dozens of other nations, invades and removes Hussain from power with *several* UN resolutions that threaten military action and France, Germany, Belgium and Russia have a fit. The only country listed there with any consistancy is Russia, the rest are hipocrits. Unfortunately, the Bush government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal immunity from prosecution. Clinton too...oh forget it.... BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bjørnar" wrote in message ... (BUFDRVR) wrote in : Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court". Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than amusing. You never answered the questions. Why? Because that would be the case and that is the reason why the US rightly declines to join a system that would unjustly target it. We may be stuck with the current legal system, but why join something equally as ridiculous? MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases against U.S. citizens or soldiers. FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC will cover only the most egregious international crimes, defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies its treaty. No myth here. This is how it would start but it would morph into an anti US (when the correct party was not in power) body. And who defines egregious international crimes? The simply truth is we don't have to join. Why should we? I would agree to it only if there was a clause that said, "if the ICC pursued a case that is purely political in natural, we don't have to submit anymore." Sounds ridiculous doesn't it. About as ridiculous as "Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases." Well I don't trust it. And neither do most Americans. Make it iron clad and the US would probably take another look. MG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bjørnar" wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same. The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings, I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start to address that and ask themselves "why". The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches of international human rights and justice. That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice. Just look at what a Presidential visit does. It becomes the focal point for all the lefties/fascists/anarchists/greens to strut their stuff in front of a TV camera. Same with IMF/World Bank meetings, or G7 meetings, etc. I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political persons would be spending all their time defending themselves in "court". Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value just providing images of American Presidents or generals being hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions. It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US thought it prudent that the President should not be personally liable for his official actions in a court of law. He'd spend all his time there if this were not so. SMH |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stephen Harding wrote in
: I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political persons would be spending all their time defending themselves in "court". Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value just providing images of American Presidents or generals being hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions. It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US thought it prudent that the President should not be personally liable for his official actions in a court of law. He'd spend all his time there if this were not so. There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it. It's for the benefit of human rights all accross the world. It's something the entire civilized world has signed, 139 nations all in all. Even Israel and Iran followed in the wake of Clinton, echoing the significance of this treaty and that the world stands by it and what it represents. The US is a big player in international affairs, it probably wants to keep it like that, but how can it expect gain support and respect in the minds of people if it only wants to play by its own rules? Openly displaying a mistrust in rest of the world? Was Clinton wrong when he acted "to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity"? Didn't Bush, bombing into Afghanistan, fanfare that the war on terrorism was a "war to save civilization itself"? Where is the US in this, apart from swinging swords that is. ICC is important. By not endorcing the treaty the US is showing a dibelief for international cooperation on such a funtamental issue as human rigths. You say that people look to the US for all kinds of "wrongs", well it probalby mans people look to the US for all kinds of "goods" as well -- not accepting the treaty is sending the wrong kind of signals to the world while a US commitment would instead act as a deterrent of human rights abuse. Simply put, if growing up has taught me one thing it's that we all need role models, good role models. Everything we humans do between eachother is ultimately built on trust. It's my oppinon that you have to take risk to make progress, in particular when the rest of the players is openly signalling its will to share the risk as well. That's part of how we build confidence and trust. It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming as a world unified treaty on international justice. Regards... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bjørnar" wrote:
It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming as a world unified treaty on international justice. Sounds like a good reason for sending President Bush to prison for 20 years, no? Surely *someone* with a law degree *somewhere* would think so. And the ICC is just the ticket to accomplish that! SMH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |