I just don't see where all this talk accomplishes much. If the USA is as bad as you say then I think the proper course of action would be for all of you, inside the USA and out, to dismantle us as quickly as you can. In fact, seems like you have a moral obligation to do just that. We're easy to find. If you're outside the USA just stay north of the equator and travel east or west, you'll find us. We'll be waiting.
Originally posted by RosieMonsterUm, the U.S. has called the situation in Darfur genocide. So I don't know what you are going on about in this post.
Firstly, 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 del ...[text shortened]... has no idea what genocide means anyway)
Now that's my opinion. Hope I got my point across.
Originally posted by ivanhoe24 March 2005 – The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously today to send 10,000 troops and more than 700 civilian police to southern Sudan for an initial period of six months to support the peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), which ended more than two decades of civil strife.
I would like to know more about the role the French and the Chinese are playing in Sudan.
Does anybody have any interesting links ?
I would imagine the French and Chinese might provide forces under the UN Banner. The US will not,
The Security Council has decided to refer perpetrators of human rights abuse in Sudan’s Darfur region to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
The US abstained - they are not in favour of the Darfur killers facing justice.
So there are two areas to stop the Darfur atrocities by the UN - supported by France and China.
The questions is not what France and China are doing - it is why the US lets the world's warlords and genocidaires off the hook by opposing the International Criminal Court.
Originally posted by DelmerWe don't need to, the global savings pool is doing a good enough job of that already.
I just don't see where all this talk accomplishes much. If the USA is as bad as you say then I think the proper course of action would be for all of you, inside the USA and out, to dismantle us as quickly as you can.
Since it's perfectly obvious that the ICC is meant as merely another tool to impose the will of stronger nations on the weaker, I oppose it. We all know that the people who were involved in the Sudan civil war would be tried under it, but not the people who invaded and occupied Iraq. It would be used like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is; as a hammer against the non-nuclear countries whiile the nuclear powers have freely violated their reciprocal obligation to negotiate a total disarmament of nuclear weapons. The ICC is a nice idea in theory, but the harsh reality of international politics is that only those killers the Western powers think should be prosecuted for ideological reasons will get prosecuted; others will get a free pass. If the government of Sudan wasn't a fundamentalist Islamic one which once harbored Osama Bin Laden the US government wouldn't be bitching about a "genocide" there now since this civil war's been going on for over 20 years. It's power politics pure and simple.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is this so obvious?
Since it's perfectly obvious that the ICC is meant as merely another tool to impose the will of stronger nations on the weaker, I oppose it. We all know that the people who were involved in the Sudan civil war would be tried under it, but not the people who invaded and occupied Iraq. It would be used like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ...[text shortened]... w since this civil war's been going on for over 20 years. It's power politics pure and simple.
I see no reason why the invaders of Iraq could not be indicted under the International Criminal Court for any war crimes committed.The Bush regime thinks likewise - why else are they fighting so hard to undermine the court and make themselves immune from prosecution?
When opposing the ICC, what are your plans for the situation in Darfur? Are you happy to let them continue murdering civilians?
Originally posted by steerpikei do not know much about it's structure: would it be run in an open honest and fair fashion?
Why is this so obvious?
I see no reason why the invaders of Iraq could not be indicted under the International Criminal Court for any war crimes committed.The Bush regime thinks likewise - why else are they fighting so hard to undermin ...[text shortened]... in Darfur? Are you happy to let them continue murdering civilians?
is there provision for anyone to have a power of veto, or some other impunity to allow criminals to avoid prosecution in the International Criminal Court ?
another way people could avoid prosecution is simply not being chosen as targets for prosecution ... who would choose the people to be tried by the International Criminal Court ?
sadly, as you suggest above that the u.n. refers people to the ICC for prosecution, it would seem likely that the power of veto inside the un would allow war criminals to find safe haven ... haven through the support of any of the veto countries: france, china, britain, u.s. or russia.
of course it would be embarrassing for one of these countries to have to publicly veto the trying of their "good honest" military, political or coorporate personel ... for crimes against humanity.
Originally posted by bbarr"(for instance, in Iraq, Haiti, and Darfur). "
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?
just wondering what you are referring to here regarding iraq .... when was the international community too slow?
(i would say: it was too slow when the gassings happened decades ago ... but against w.m.d. it was on the money)
Steerpike we have a feeling over here in the good ole U.S.A. that its time to enforce our will upon the world for the benefit of our own interests. In our view (americancentric as it is) the kiddies are acting up and acting up in a bad way. Not like little kids crying because they didnt get jam on there sandwich but more like teenagers goofing around making pipe bombs for fun out of boredom.
These older bad kiddies will need much more of a "smackdown" then then the little tarts crying about not enough jammy.
And that is pretty much the way it will be from 9/11 onward.
Get used to it.
Originally posted by Weadley
Steerpike we have a feeling over here in the good ole U.S.A. that its time to enforce our will upon the world for the benefit of our own interests. In our view (americancentric as it is) the kiddies are acting up and acting up in a bad way. Not like little kids crying because they didnt get jam on there sandwich but more like teenagers goofing around making ...[text shortened]... t enough jammy.
And that is pretty much the way it will be from 9/11 onward.
Get used to it.
temporary insanity is an excuse used by many criminals.
but the excuse rapidly loses credibility as time goes by.
Originally posted by WeadleyOf course. But in your pursuit of the pipe bomb makers in your neighbourhood, you are not just ignoring the local murdererrs, rapists and drug dealers, you are obstructing your neighbour's efforts to bring them to justice.
Steerpike we have a feeling over here in the good ole U.S.A. that its time to enforce our will upon the world for the benefit of our own interests. In our view (americancentric as it is) the kiddies are acting up and acting up in a bad way. Not like little kids crying because they didnt get jam on there sandwich but more like teenagers goofing around making ...[text shortened]... t enough jammy.
And that is pretty much the way it will be from 9/11 onward.
Get used to it.
Hopefully, this can sum some things up....
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is the 5th amendment to my nations constitution. We ARE a sovereign nation and will remain that way. As other countries, expecially Europe, struggle with this, we do not. We only become more united and determined to keep our freedom. I expect to see conversations like this become more frequent in Europe as Europian nations continue to lose their independence. Good luck and my country will always support your right to be free...
Originally posted by steerpikeIt is the height of naivete to believe that the most powerful nations will EVER allow their leaders to be tried as war criminals unless the country is defeated in war. The ICC would never even try it; they will concentrate on weaker countries like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Sudan, etc. etc. etc. That's why it is worse than useless; it will simply be another tool to enforce the Western powers will on the entire world. How's that working out so far?
Why is this so obvious?
I see no reason why the invaders of Iraq could not be indicted under the International Criminal Court for any war crimes committed.The Bush regime thinks likewise - why else are they fighting so hard to undermin ...[text shortened]... in Darfur? Are you happy to let them continue murdering civilians?
My plan for the situation in Darfur as been already stated: no outside intervention without the consent of the parties. While there may be extreme situations where interference in a country's internal affairs may be justified (Rwanda and Cambodia perhaps), simply labelling every civil war a "genocide" so outside forces can intervene and dictate the political situation inside a country is unjustified. Adoption of this principle of interference first, will lead to far more bloodshed in the long run. There is little evidence of "genocide" in Sudan; forces on both sides have committed atrocities, as they do in all wars, but considering the war has lasted over 20 years it has not been remarkably bloody. The biggest problem in the Sudan is drought and famine and that can't be solved by sending in the troops.