Illegal according to international law? What international law? Where is international law in Sudan, the Congo, China, and dozens of similar sh1tholes all over the world? When China is no longer a member of the UN human rights commission, when Algeria is no longer a member of the security council, when there are no vetoes, when only liberal democracies accountable to their people have a vote at the UN, that's when you can talk to me about "international law". By default the U.S. has become the policeman of the world, and I think they are as close to a 'benevolent' superpower as can exist in the world. You should be thankful that they have assumed this mantle instead of Iran, or China.
US Guilty of Starting Not One, but Three Illegal Wars
- Thread starter Vanni Fucci
- Start date
Who stood to gain Jay certainly not the Arabs!You might want to go read the PNAC documents.They pretty much spell out what Chenney and Wolfowitz wanted and lo and behold it happens .How did Osama get Norad to stand down?How come a couple of the so called highjackers showed up alive?Once again i could go on and on!
Nobody absolved him. In fact he was in charge during Rwanda.
Do you think he would have gone ahead if he thought the US would bring their war machine to bear on him? Give your head a shake...he's a brutal dictator, not an idiot.
Cut the crap and lies that anybody who points out what the US does wrong is supporting Hussein or bin Laden. It's a stupid, nasty lie that is told by people who don't have enough of a grasp of the situation to argue coherently.
The laws that the United States helped to write. The attitude that these laws are being forced on the US from outside is ridiculous and wrong. They were there at the table. They were instrumental in formulating the laws.
The US, because of their opposition to the ICC, have blocked propositions that the leaders of Sudan and members of the Janjaweed militia be tried at the ICC. Where is the international law? It's being subverted by George Bush while people die.
Are you even vaguely aware of the reforms that Kofi Annan is trying to bring in? Those reforms would address many of your concerns. The Bush White House is widely expected to oppose those reforms because they would have to work within the rule of law.
As for
...it's called the United Nations, not the old boys club of countries that MMMike approves of.
They are far from benevolent...haven't you been paying attention.
No it doesn't depend, Jay. Vigilantism is mob rule...might makes right. It's what gets innocent people lynched so that the wealthy can commit crimes with impunity.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG502A.html
Heres an article saying where Bush and the boys might be going next and why
Heres an article saying where Bush and the boys might be going next and why
Here's another article with the Russians complaining about what Bush and the oil gang are up to
http://infowars.com/articles/iraq/us_using_antiterror_gain_oil_resources.htm
http://infowars.com/articles/iraq/us_using_antiterror_gain_oil_resources.htm
Rev, I am aware of the 'reforms' Annan is pushing, one of the most significant being more power to the General Assembly. The majority of countries that sit in the General Assembly are not democracies. They are not accountable to the people of their country. Many are brutal, corrupt, murderous tyrants. You want these people forming the "new world government"? You expect the U.S. do cede sovereignty or power to these clowns?
The ICC is just an arm of the UN with many of the same problems. The present composition of the Court is as follows: President Shi Jiuyong (China); Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar); Judges Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) ; Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation); Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan); Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America); Nabil Elaraby (Egypt); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany); Peter Tomka (Slovakia) and Ronny Abraham (France). You trust all of these people and the countries they represent to respect the rule of law, and basic human rights?
It has nothing to do with 'old boys club'. It is a simple matter of common sense.
The ICC is just an arm of the UN with many of the same problems. The present composition of the Court is as follows: President Shi Jiuyong (China); Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar); Judges Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) ; Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation); Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan); Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America); Nabil Elaraby (Egypt); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany); Peter Tomka (Slovakia) and Ronny Abraham (France). You trust all of these people and the countries they represent to respect the rule of law, and basic human rights?
It has nothing to do with 'old boys club'. It is a simple matter of common sense.
It's called the United Nations, MMMike...not the group of countries that MMMike approves of. I know I said that before, but it is worth repeating. The definition of nation is not dependent on the form of government.
The UN has also done more to promote and encourage fledgling democracies than any other institution and more than any nation.
The ICC is a court to try international criminals, MMMikey. As such you don't get to pick the judges, they are chosen because of their knowledge of international law. That, my friend is a matter of common sense. Look at your list...Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom);Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil);Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America);Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany);Ronny Abraham (France).
Eight judges from countries with functioning democracies out of fifteen judges. Better than half. So your complaint is obviously based on your feeling that the US should run the world. Problem is that most of the world doesn't agree with you. That, little buddy, is democracy.
The UN has also done more to promote and encourage fledgling democracies than any other institution and more than any nation.
The ICC is a court to try international criminals, MMMikey. As such you don't get to pick the judges, they are chosen because of their knowledge of international law. That, my friend is a matter of common sense. Look at your list...Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom);Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil);Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America);Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany);Ronny Abraham (France).
Eight judges from countries with functioning democracies out of fifteen judges. Better than half. So your complaint is obviously based on your feeling that the US should run the world. Problem is that most of the world doesn't agree with you. That, little buddy, is democracy.
It has nothing to do with whether I "approve" of a country or not. I'm no fan of the French, but I fully support their membership in the UN and appendages thereof. The important point is that France is a democratic country, and fully accountable to it's people. If decisions by the UN were taken by a collection of countries sharing similar democratic institutions, I would support it fully.
RE: US Guilty of Starting
What would excluding non-democracies achieve? It would alienate them. It would remove them from a forum where they can discuss matter that affect them and other nations. It would remove them from an organization that has worked tirelessly to encourage non-democracies to democratize.
The US doesn;t get to run world, MMMikey. That's appropriate because there is little if any evidence that they have the best interests of the world in mind when they make decisions.
What would excluding non-democracies achieve? It would alienate them. It would remove them from a forum where they can discuss matter that affect them and other nations. It would remove them from an organization that has worked tirelessly to encourage non-democracies to democratize.
The US doesn;t get to run world, MMMikey. That's appropriate because there is little if any evidence that they have the best interests of the world in mind when they make decisions.
That's fine if you want to "include" them, Rev. Just don't give them an equal vote alongside accountable democracies. If reforms are put in place, and permanent seat, vetoes etc... abolished, would you trust decisions on international security to a committee of China, Syria, North Korea and Zimbabwe?
RE: US Guilty of Starting
If they don't get an equal vote, then they aren't included. You are still trying to exclude them. They will not participate under those conditions.
If they don't get an equal vote, then they aren't included. You are still trying to exclude them. They will not participate under those conditions.
RE: US Guilty of Starting
Don't worry...they give George Bush legitimacy there too. I know it seems odd that a war criminal gets that kind of treatment, but there it is.
Don't worry...they give George Bush legitimacy there too. I know it seems odd that a war criminal gets that kind of treatment, but there it is.
