Originally posted by StarValleyWyHey St. Valley,
I can only bow to you sir and say "well done".
Why can you say ten times what I am trying to say?
Anyway. Well said. How are you?
I'm a bit scattered right now. My dad is in town, who I haven't spoken with for years (long familiar story). He is in Seattle for a bone-marrow transplant, so I am going to 'offer the olive branch', as it were. I'm headed down to hospital here in a bit. So, it has been a tough week.
How are you and your family?
Originally posted by steerpikeBBarr says it best. Because we don't and won't have our very brave and dedicated soldiers brought before ANY bar of law for obeying orders that are "legally and lawfully" given.
Actually, I was talking about why the US government is trying to destroy the International Criminal Court and other institutions.
Unilaterally imposing American solutions is the Bush doctrine. And I would like to see the public failure of that approach, and the United States again respecting international law.
"Legally and lawfully" constitutes any and all "wars and actions" declared to be the will of the nation. (See the vote to kill Saddams ass)
Originally posted by steerpikeUnder those circumstances when respecting international law precludes taking action in urgent and large-scale crises, would you still prefer the U.S. to respect international law? I am also an advocate of the rule of law, and of international law generally, but there are times when international law can't work quickly enough (for instance, in Iraq, Haiti, and Darfur). When faced with genocide, would you prefer the U.S. seek to reach international consensus before intervening?
Actually, I was talking about why the US government is trying to destroy the International Criminal Court and other institutions.
Unilaterally imposing American solutions is the Bush doctrine. And I would like to see the public failure of that approach, and the United States again respecting international law.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBen,
Hey St. Valley,
I'm a bit scattered right now. My dad is in town, who I haven't spoken with for years (long familiar story). He is in Seattle for a bone-marrow transplant, so I am going to 'offer the olive branch', as it were. I'm ...[text shortened]... t. So, it has been a tough week.
How are you and your family?
I will pray the prayer of the athiest damned ... for your family.
Not in any hope of intervention with the universe, but in the only true human hope that you recognize that I see your fear and your very real pain.
It is sometime better to have an enemy die. But when that is our loved ones god love... it is hard. Harder than all we can say.
I wish you peace and the ability to scratch your wifes back and give a gift of food. That is all we can ever do. As imperfect beings.
May peace find you and invite you and yours.
Mike
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrSaddam took office in the seventies - and commited chemical warfare twenty years ago. Haiti has been a mess for years - the US Maries invaded and occupied it in 1915. Even Darfur has been simmering for several years.
Under those circumstances when respecting international law precludes taking action in urgent and large-scale crises, would you still prefer the U.S. to respect international law? I am also an advocate of the rule of law, and of internationa ...[text shortened]... he U.S. seek to reach international consensus before intervening?
Conflicts do not erupt overnight.
Originally posted by steerpikeExplain what your wonderful country did to nullify this terrible world condition. Please.
Saddam took office in the seventies - and commited chemical warfare twenty years ago. Haiti has been a mess for years - the US Maries invaded and occupied it in 1915. Even Darfur has been simmering for several years.
Conflicts do not erupt overnight.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe fact the US government is doing everything in its power to protect its citizens from the International Criminal Court illustrates their real opinion of the US soldier.
BBarr says it best. Because we don't and won't have our very brave and dedicated soldiers brought before ANY bar of law for obeying orders that are "legally and lawfully" given.
"Legally and lawfully" constitutes any and all "wars and actions" declared to be the will of the nation. (See the vote to kill Saddams ass)
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeYou are right. We know they are not fodder for fools.
The fact the US government is doing everything in its power to protect its citizens from the International Criminal Court illustrates their real opinion of the US soldier.
Do you really think we would put a single soul before a court of "convicts" like you?
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOf course you wouldn't.
You are right. We know they are not fodder for fools.
Do you really think we would put a single soul before a court of "convicts" like you?
On September 5, 1969, Charlie Company, Americal Division massacred 500 women, children, infants and elderly villagers, comparable to the actions of the Waffen-SS Fourth Panzer Grenadier Regiment (Der Führer) at Oradour-sur-Glane. It took nearly two years for the atrocity in Viet Nam to be uncovered - with twenty six soldiers standing trial, the highest ranked a Captain, in an US court.
Only Lt Calley was convicted - on March 29, 1971 for six specifications of premeditated murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians. On March 31, 1971 he was sentenced to life in prison. On April 1, only a day after Calley was sentenced, President Richard Nixon ordered him released from prison, and he served only three years of house arrest confined to quarters.
I think we understand why the US would not allow their war criminals to face a International Court.
Originally posted by bbarri would.
Under those circumstances when respecting international law precludes taking action in urgent and large-scale crises, would you still prefer the U.S. to respect international law? I am also an advocate of the rule of law, and of international law generally, but there are times when international law can't work quickly enough (for instance, in Iraq, Haiti, an ...[text shortened]... h genocide, would you prefer the U.S. seek to reach international consensus before intervening?
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarr... good luck ... for you, your dad, and you and your dad.
Hey St. Valley,
I'm a bit scattered right now. My dad is in town, who I haven't spoken with for years (long familiar story). He is in Seattle for a bone-marrow transplant, so I am going to 'offer the olive branch', as it were. I'm ...[text shortened]... t. So, it has been a tough week.
How are you and your family?
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeSpot on, steerpike. The horrible thing is, it was common knowledge that My Lai-type massacres were going on all the time - and Nixon also went on to try and smear the whistle-blower, Ronald Ridenhour. The story only really broke thanks to Seymour Hersh because the military hierarchs attempted to hush it up from the very beginning.
Of course you wouldn't.
On September 5, 1969, Charlie Company, Americal Division massacred 500 women, children, infants and elderly villagers, comparable to the actions of the Waffen-SS Fourth Panzer Grenadier Regiment (Der Führer ...[text shortened]... iers standing trial, the highest ranked a Captain, in an US court.
I'm not really bothered whether the US signs up or not, though: the way the global savings pool is going, American politicians are going to face some tough choices about their overblown military expenditure over the next few years.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrif i trusted the decision making at the helm to prioritise human rights issues with all humans valued equally, then of course i would want intervention ASAP.
Why so? Thanks for the well-wishing, by the way, I appreciate it.
but
i do not trust the leadership of the u.s. to do any such thing.
i would expect them to act with a set of values not prioritising the local vulnerable innocent lives at stake.
i would expect self interest to be the priority.
i would (unfortunately) expect any individual country or organisation to act with such a selfish priority.
much like a tyrant dictator will rule a country with their own self interest as priority, i would expect any individual country to act prioritising their own self interest.
an organisation of all governments representing all peoples is required.
the un is the closest we have so far ... sadly ... we have no better yet.
hopefully soon it will expand, or be replaced by better.
Originally posted by bbarrFirstly, as to why the U.S. will not call it genocide that is truly quite simple... admitting to a type of public opinion correct or not carries the same stigma as being guilty. In other words agreeing with that word would mean to carry all of the stigma, negative in this case, that the meaning or any inference of it, has to offer. It is easier to delude your people into thinking everything is fine if you just don't admit to what other persons are saying... and eventually it will all just go away. Admit nothing, say nothing and just smile and nod. That seems to be the way to go in U.S. politicking especially since we don't have much of an attention span to begin with and world civics is not our forte... where is Iraq again? If it doesn't blow over for the rest of the world, guarantee to you that we Americans will have forgotten or rather moved on to the next shiny thing(... look at the monkey....hahaha)
The U.S. cogress, as well as the administration, has consistently referred to the situation in Darfur as 'genocide'. Consider this question: Why didn't the U.N. also call it genocide? The answer is that declaring the situation in Darfur genocide would have thereby required the UN to take action, which seems to be something they have a problem doing. In ...[text shortened]... tatute and never have to face the prospect of a U.S. citizen being tried in a foreign court. ).
Second, and this goes along with the idea that I posted just above, the U.S. will currently not ratify a law that another country has implemented... especially not in this case. Again, agreeing to any law that another country has used and adopting it under the same or similar standards would imply agreement with the governing body (If nothing else in the court of public opinion here it seems that the U.N. is not taken seriously... not even just a teeny bit) and the U.S. although no politician would ever publicly admit it, will never bow down to anyone else's authority (even if it is supposed to be the world governing body). We aren't known for being the biggest bully for nothin'. We don't need your laws, we got our own... and were better than ya. (hahaha, with that attitude as a whole and with it under the guise of patriotism... it is patriotic to be ignorant, heck most of the populous has no idea what genocide means anyway)
Now that's my opinion. Hope I got my point across.