U.s. Suspends Aid To 35 Countries Over New Icc

[myfiles3000]

When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.

what i did was extract the logic of your comment, and applied it to another situation to reveal its flaw.

Your point is that he was morally wrong to do this, you are entitled to that point of view. He obviously disagrees and sees his first priority as being the well-being of his citizens, through out the world.

Yes, thats how shrub sees it. He's a self-proclaimed man of god...apparently the irony of him refusing to comply with a higher secular authority is lost on you.

I have no problem with this position he is taking, indeed I would expect my Government to look after my welfare, wherever in the world I happened to be. I do not wish to be tried using any legal system other than the one my own country subscribes to. I certainly don't wish to be tried by some UN Court

just what is so terrible with the UN all of a sudden? Its creation depended on american support. If being subject to international criminal law is so terrible, why do you think virtually all other advanced, open societies are willing to live under it?

ANYWAY, i was hoping someone might have something intelligent to say in defence of shrub.

[J'Pol]

You wish intelligent replies to your drivel, when you appear to think that cutting edge satire is to call President Bush shrub.

Best of luck, however I can't keep up with this level of debate.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.
[/b]

I think the "kill a child" point was in response to this.

Originally posted by jpaul+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jpaul)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I don´t understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say. [/b]

Again.. the point wasnt about whether Bush is doing what he said he was going to do or not going to do. Its about the morality and consequences of those actions.

Your response seemed to imply that the quality of the action is unimportant as long as the President has said he&#39;s going to do it beforehand. By making the "kill a child" point myfiles was merely pointing out that your argument, when taken to its logical conclusion, would justify "killing a child" as long as the President had promised he was going to do it.

The point of this thread, for those that missed it, is that the USA is attempting to blackmail other countries into bending to its will. Its not just about military aid either. Read the 2nd post on abortion.

Now getting back to the initial post.... Unless the USA wants the right to carry out genocide at some point in the future.. what is it so scared of?

As was pointed out in another thread by oblivion, the legal and technical basis for the ICC has been in place since WW2.

<!--QuoteBegin-jpaul@
My apologies if you picked me up wrong.

I was replying to a specific thing which had been posted and not the topic in general.

However I have to disagree with your overall point. Basically, who decides

a, what is a crime against humanity

b, how is it proven

c, what court has jurisdiction,

d, what judicial system should be used (e.g. inquisatorial or accusatorial)

If the USA does not feel that the way these matters are being dealt with internationally is correct then they have every right (indeed obligation) to protect their citizens from them.

I would certainly hope that my Government would not allow me to be extradited and tried in a country where the penalty, for theft, may be the amputation of my hand. [/quote]

<!--QuoteBegin-oblivion

It&#39;s under UN rule, it doesn&#39;t even have the death penalty.
It has a group of judges who are randomly chosen from all UN countries (also america)whom are well respected for their knowlidge in international law.

You make it sound like someone might be led to the slaughter.

a) since the second world war agreements have been made on this matter.

b ) by evidence and testamony

c) the United Nations (also considerd the institution that&#39;s keeping the world at peace and where the US has veto right) it&#39;s court abide by the agreements made between everyone that were agreed uppon.

d) î look at c î

The agreements have been there since the second world war

If what happend in yugoslavia happend in the us, the us would NOT extradite the head honcho&#33; why?
why do people find this normal [/quote]

Lets try and bear in mind what the ICC is meant to achieve. A consensus that will make sure no one is above the law when it comes to crimes against humanity. What is so terrible about that?

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@2 July 2003 - 16:44


ANYWAY, i was hoping someone might have something intelligent to say in defence of shrub.

Seems to me that you&#39;ve already gotten several responses.
The fact that they disagree with you appears to be the problem here.

[kAb]

all your aid are belong to us

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Seems to me that you&#39;ve already gotten several responses.
The fact that they disagree with you appears to be the problem here. [/b]

Most of the responses did not address the inital point at all.

You addressed it with this..

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
In other threads the US has been castigated because we did provide training and arms to foriegn armies, now we get keelhauled because we aren&#39;t[/quote]

I think it depends on whom you provide training to. The point here is that the US originally thought it was right to provide this aid in the 1st place. Now they have decided that unless those countries refuse to support the ICC they will have all aid removed.

That is blackmail isnt it? This is the point of this thread isnt it?

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 16:55


The point of this thread, for those that missed it, is that the USA is attempting to blackmail other countries into bending to its will. Its not just about military aid either. Read the 2nd post on abortion.

The point of the responses, since you keep missing it, is that those countries are free to join you on the higher moral plane and refuse to accept the conditions.

Our bat, our ball, our rules.

[evilbagpuss]

The point of the responses, since you keep missing it, is that those countries are free to join you on the higher moral plane and refuse to accept the conditions.

Our bat, our ball, our rules.

So basically... they are free to join us on the "higher moral plane" but if they do they will pay the price and face retribution from the US that will have severe effects on the civilians in that country?

"Our bat, our ball, our rules."

Thank you I couldnt have hoped for a better response. For a moment I thought you were going to argue that this US policy is based on ethics.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@3 July 2003 - 00:16


I think it depends on whom you provide training to.

Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by jpaul
Now I see the problem. I had assumed that English was your first language. My apologies.

I love hostility in the face of logic

I was merely pointing out to clocker that the criticism of the US providing military aid is usually when they provide it to guys like Saddam Hussein who they know at the time is a monster. Military aid to &#39;normal&#39; gvts isnt even an issue.

Its not a difficult concept to understand JP although it does take this thread OT quite nicely. You crafty ole devil you