NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.Well no duh!

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

"It might turn some people around if they heard that."

Precisely. They don't think anyone is less than human, but if they made a big deal about their war crimes and non-combatant deaths, general opinion would sway even more against the war.

Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).

Those aren't war crimes. That's strategic bombing and interdiction.

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.
Nah, thats just communist propaganda. Or worse, liberal atheist propaganda!!!!! :shock: The Iraqi's treat their friendly neighboorhood liberators to constant firework shows. BBQ's. You name it!!

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.

People are always dehumanized during wartime. How else can people accept such a horrible and gruesome human phenomenon? Also, the media dehumanizes people in general all the time. It is what happens when you have to notify the public about the deaths of hundreds of people in a 3 minute time slot. Also, consider this, the American public, even the anti-war people, deep down do not really care about the people dying in Iraq, they are just numbers on the TV screen. We care about casualties only when war is more close to home (i.e. WTC).

Sounds like the general opinion is "When one man dies, it's a tragedy; When millions die, it's a statistic."

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?


Both.

Sounds like the general opinion is "When one man dies, it's a tragedy; When millions die, it's a statistic."

I think the general opinion in America is "When a regualr American dies in America and makes me think, 'Oh my God, that could have been me that died!' It's a tragedy. When people die elsewhere, I don't care."

Let's not forget that surreal Jessica Lynch thing...

Is it true she dissappeared from television 2 minutes after she spoke of being raped?

How would Americans feel if someone took over their country?

Thats a false analogy considering we're not under the jackboot of a murderous dictator and we can vote out government officials every 2, 4, and 6 years. (For the House of Representatives, President, and Senate respectively). There's a whole ton of difference between the USA (or any other stable western democracy, really) and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Sounds like the general opinion is "When one man dies, it's a tragedy; When millions die, it's a statistic."

I think the general opinion in America is "When a regualr American dies in America and makes me think, 'Oh my God, that could have been me that died!' It's a tragedy. When people die elsewhere, I don't care."


I live in America and I can safely say that is not true for most of us, note I said MOST of us, some of us really couldn't care less about anybody, but that is the minority.

How would Americans feel if someone took over their country?

Thats a false analogy considering we're not under the jackboot of a murderous dictator and we can vote out government officials every 2, 4, and 6 years. (For the House of Representatives, President, and Senate respectively). There's a whole ton of difference between the USA (or any other stable western democracy, really) and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Iraq isn't any better than it was. It's unstable, and it'll be even more unstab;e when we leave. We threw them in to turmoil- how would we feel if osmeone did it to us?

Sounds like the general opinion is "When one man dies, it's a tragedy; When millions die, it's a statistic."

I think the general opinion in America is "When a regualr American dies in America and makes me think, 'Oh my God, that could have been me that died!' It's a tragedy. When people die elsewhere, I don't care."


I live in America and I can safely say that is not true for most of us, note I said MOST of us, some of us really couldn't care less about anybody, but that is the minority.

I (I) was talking about the government and media.

Sounds like the general opinion is "When one man dies, it's a tragedy; When millions die, it's a statistic."

I think the general opinion in America is "When a regualr American dies in America and makes me think, 'Oh my God, that could have been me that died!' It's a tragedy. When people die elsewhere, I don't care."


I live in America and I can safely say that is not true for most of us, note I said MOST of us, some of us really couldn't care less about anybody, but that is the minority.

I don't mean that Americans do not care in the sense that they are not generally against the killing of innocent people. But there will be no flags hung outside buildings over it. 10 years ago in Rwanda 800,000 people were slaughtered. Remember the constant news coverage and public outcry? Me neither.

People are not dehumanized during war. Wars are the unbinding of men. A true testament of what humans truly are behind all the masks that are worn.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

How would Americans feel if someone took over their country?

Thats a false analogy considering we're not under the jackboot of a murderous dictator and we can vote out government officials every 2, 4, and 6 years. (For the House of Representatives, President, and Senate respectively). There's a whole ton of difference between the USA (or any other stable western democracy, really) and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Apples and Oranges, my friend.

Iraq isn't any better than it was. It's unstable, and it'll be even more unstab;e when we leave. We threw them in to turmoil- how would we feel if osmeone did it to us?

Maybe you should ask the Iraqis whether Iraq's better than it was. You might be suprised.

Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).

Those aren't war crimes. That's strategic bombing and interdiction.
It is an illegal war, so people will ultimately draw their own conclusions as to what is and what is not a "war crime".

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?


Both.

This is bullsh*t.. and I know it for a fact.. The military has never put out those numbers to date! So there are a few options..

A) Randy is lying.. or mistaken..

B) Fox is lying.. (they're a news agency.. I won't give them the same benefit of being mistaken)

Steph's right, the US military is not keeping track of casualties. THe only group who is doing so is the Iraqi Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) an independent site run primarily by academics. I trust it more or less, but it's quite clearly anti-war, so make of it as you will.

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.


Maybe people in the US would feel differently regarding an invasion of their country if they lived in constant fear for 20 years under a tyrannical dictatorship that were responsible for the murder of over 1 million Iraqis. Yet whilst I do not agree with the example you cite I do feel that the US media has a tendency to be very egocentric in the manner it reports foreign affairs, often to the discredit of some of the nations involved.

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?


Both.

This is bullsh*t.. and I know it for a fact.. The military has never put out those numbers to date! So there are a few options..

A) Randy is lying.. or mistaken..

B) Fox is lying.. (they're a news agency.. I won't give them the same benefit of being mistaken)

Network news always had civilian casualties, and now they (try to) count up how many militants they tagged, too. Whether it's the military or the embedded reporters figuring this out, I don't know.

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.

People are always dehumanized during wartime. How else can people accept such a horrible and gruesome human phenomenon? Also, the media dehumanizes people in general all the time. It is what happens when you have to notify the public about the deaths of hundreds of people in a 3 minute time slot. Also, consider this, the American public, even the anti-war people, deep down do not really care about the people dying in Iraq, they are just numbers on the TV screen. We care about casualties only when war is more close to home (i.e. WTC).

Certainly that kind of suffering is hard to accept but I think that it is important that news organisations make more of an effort to illustrate to people what the consequences of war really are. Martin Bell (the former BBC war correspondent) was talking about how if you watch news reports about conflicts there are a lot of pictures of soldiers firing weapons but yet they do not show you what is happening at the other end. He argued that by effectively not showing the consequences of war this leads people to believe that war is a perfectly acceptable manner of settling a dispute, which of course it is not.

There are things that human beings cannot see because they simply cannot deal with it but at the same time perhaps by showing some of these pictures we might remind ourselves of the horrific plights of many people around the globe, which western society provides such a shelter from.

I do feel that the US media has a tendency to be very egocentric in the manner it reports foreign affairs, often to the discredit of some of the nations involved.
Including the US? When they rolled out the name "Shock and Awe", to describe the massacre of thousands of defenseless people, I felt revulsion. That is definitely a less than human way to portray the so called "liberation" of the Iraqi people.

Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).

Those aren't war crimes. That's strategic bombing and interdiction.
It is an illegal war, so people will ultimately draw their own conclusions as to what is and what is not a "war crime".

It doesn't matter what conclusions people draw. What matter are the conclusions drawn by the World Court.

Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).

Those aren't war crimes. That's strategic bombing and interdiction.
It is an illegal war, so people will ultimately draw their own conclusions as to what is and what is not a "war crime".

It doesn't matter what conclusions people draw. What matter are the conclusions drawn by the World Court.
I think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN. So far, 92 countries have signed up. Other notable absences Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, and all Arab nations except Jordan. Very interesting company?

http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/statesparties/allregions.php

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?


Both.

This is bullsh*t.. and I know it for a fact.. The military has never put out those numbers to date! So there are a few options..

A) Randy is lying.. or mistaken..

B) Fox is lying.. (they're a news agency.. I won't give them the same benefit of being mistaken)


Notice how she failed to back that up with anything. I have seen them do it. Fox news has pointed out how many Iraqis have died.

Civilian death tolls are always counted when at war. Fox News does give civilian casuality numbers for almost every report coming from Iraq. They go as far as saying how many American military, Iraqi civilians, Persons known to be linked to terrorism, American civilians are killed and by what kind of attack. Suicide bombers... Fire fights.... Terrorist attacks... all sides of the war.
As for the showing of the consequences of the firing of weapons. I don't think that has any more place on our televisions than the execution of criminals does. Doesn't the FCC still have a ban on the showing of an actual death on our televisions? Anyone remember the national outrage at the release of that picture of the Asian girl running naked down the street after the Napalm attack. Is this the type of thing you want your children watching on the nightly news?

Civilian death tolls are always counted when at war. Fox News does give civilian casuality numbers for almost every report coming from Iraq. They go as far as saying how many American military, Iraqi civilians, Persons known to be linked to terrorism, American civilians are killed and by what kind of attack. Suicide bombers... Fire fights.... Terrorist attacks... all sides of the war.
As for the showing of the consequences of the firing of weapons. I don't think that has any more place on our televisions than the execution of criminals does. Doesn't the FCC still have a ban on the showing of an actual death on our televisions? Anyone remember the national outrage at the release of that picture of the Asian girl running naked down the street after the Napalm attack. Is this the type of thing you want your children watching on the nightly news?


Wait....did you say Naked Asian girl? When you mean girl...how old is that implying? :twisted:

Civilian death tolls are always counted when at war. Fox News does give civilian casuality numbers for almost every report coming from Iraq. They go as far as saying how many American military, Iraqi civilians, Persons known to be linked to terrorism, American civilians are killed and by what kind of attack. Suicide bombers... Fire fights.... Terrorist attacks... all sides of the war.
As for the showing of the consequences of the firing of weapons. I don't think that has any more place on our televisions than the execution of criminals does. Doesn't the FCC still have a ban on the showing of an actual death on our televisions? Anyone remember the national outrage at the release of that picture of the Asian girl running naked down the street after the Napalm attack. Is this the type of thing you want your children watching on the nightly news?


There is a slight difference between showing a naked girl half burned to death running through the streets and being a little less secretive in what actually happens in war. People are insulated enough in their little Western bubble, with living standards that are beyond comparison with the outside world and very little in terms of a window by which to view the suffering of the rest of the world. War is an ugly business that you can't really sanitise without lying to a degree, and the type of coverage we receive on our nightly news masks this truth and makes us ignorant and detatched from the suffering of millions of people around the globe.

I think it's a sad indictment of our society when if we see a child dying on TV, instead of feeling incredible empathy and sorrow for that child we immediately rush to send letters to the TV company who showed it for bringing this ugly truth into the sanctity of our own home.

think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN.
Thats because we don't want our leaders to show up on that court, buddy. The initial apointee's might be unbiased, but if Schroeder's appointing someone and his approval ratings are as dismal as they are now, he can just stroke up the ol' anti-american feelings and appoint someone crazy enough to actually believe the anti-american propoganda.

think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN.
Thats because we don't want our leaders to show up on that court, buddy. The initial apointee's might be unbiased, but if Schroeder's appointing someone and his approval ratings are as dismal as they are now, he can just stroke up the ol' anti-american feelings and appoint someone crazy enough to actually believe the anti-american propoganda.
This has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. If the US is acting on behalf of the world community, and is sanctioned by the UN, then there would be no fears of the US leaders ending up in the International Court. However, if a nation takes it upon itself to enter another nation militarilywithout just cause, then they are in fact performing an illegal operation and should be made accountable.

Whether you like Saddam or not, whether you believe his people were oppressed or not, does not give the US or any other nation the right to violate that nations' sovereignty. I had a lot of admiration for the US until they crossed this new "line in the sand". This war makes absolutely no sense whatever. Is it criminal? Yes I believe it is. I am saddened and I am not alone.

Other countries cant say anything cus they treat Americans as if they arent even human.

....Martin Bell (the former BBC war correspondent) was talking about how if you watch news reports about conflicts there are a lot of pictures of soldiers firing weapons but yet they do not show you what is happening at the other end. He argued that by effectively not showing the consequences of war this leads people to believe that war is a perfectly acceptable manner of settling a dispute, which of course it is not.

There are things that human beings cannot see because they simply cannot deal with it but at the same time perhaps by showing some of these pictures we might remind ourselves of the horrific plights of many people around the globe, which western society provides such a shelter from.
I have found that MSNBC News is giving a more subjective look at what is going behind the scenes in Iraq, be giving detailed reports from some of the victims. It clearly shows the Iraqui sentiment to their American captors, and it paints of picture of the hardships that are being endured, such as:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4672266/

"When the Americans came, we applauded. We were giving the thumbs-up. We were jumping and shouting. I took a picture of Saddam Hussein and stomped on it," said Iqbal Jabbar, 38.

She lifted a foot to demonstrate on the dirty tile floor beside the hospital bed of her husband, a burly man flat on his back and groaning from bullet wounds in the stomach, arm, legs and feet. The fire that Americans returned into the suddenly mean streets of Sadr City caught Sabri Sharrati Badr behind the wheel of the family car. It caught 10-year-old Weaam Abdulatif Walhan in the doorway of her house, and Ali Sagheer Kherallah walking home from work.

"Why do they do like this to us?" Jabbar asked.

The question was asked in a dozen different ways Monday at Chawadir Hospital, a Sadr City fixture that received 96 people wounded in the chaos that left at least 43 Iraqis dead and opened a chasm between a community and its occupiers.

Further on the article states:

[i]At one point, U.S. fire tore into an ambulance driven by Raad Diaheer Lazem, who took a bullet in the abdomen. Rounds from a .50-caliber machine gun punctured the vehicle 100 yards from the entrance to Chawadir Hospital, killing a pregnant woman with a leg wound and the 6-year-old son riding with her to the hospital.

"The lights were on, the siren -- all the things an ambulance should use in a battle zone," Lazem said. "I don't know why they shot at me. When I left the hospital they saw me. I was shuttling patients back and forth all night."
I guess this is just more "collateral" damage? Even that term is less than human.

think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN.
Thats because we don't want our leaders to show up on that court, buddy. The initial apointee's might be unbiased, but if Schroeder's appointing someone and his approval ratings are as dismal as they are now, he can just stroke up the ol' anti-american feelings and appoint someone crazy enough to actually believe the anti-american propoganda.
This has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. If the US is acting on behalf of the world community, and is sanctioned by the UN, then there would be no fears of the US leaders ending up in the International Court. However, if a nation takes it upon itself to enter another nation militarilywithout just cause, then they are in fact performing an illegal operation and should be made accountable.

Whether you like Saddam or not, whether you believe his people were oppressed or not, does not give the US or any other nation the right to violate that nations' sovereignty. I had a lot of admiration for the US until they crossed this new "line in the sand". This war makes absolutely no sense whatever. Is it criminal? Yes I believe it is. I am saddened and I am not alone.

Here's the thing. The rest of the world can care all they want about international law, but if taking out a guy like Saddam or Slobidan (without UN sanction) means that we're violating it, then we don't want a part of the court. Here in the US, we have good samaritan laws. If you're giving someone CPR, and you accidentally break one of their ribs, you can't get sued for it a lot of the time, because it was a necessary damage in order to save someone's life. I doubt we'll find that in the international court.

I don't know what networks you watch, But Fox News has always said how many Iraqis have died.

Is that military or civilians?


Both.

This is bullsh*t.. and I know it for a fact.. The military has never put out those numbers to date! So there are a few options..

A) Randy is lying.. or mistaken..

B) Fox is lying.. (they're a news agency.. I won't give them the same benefit of being mistaken)


Notice how she failed to back that up with anything. I have seen them do it. Fox news has pointed out how many Iraqis have died.

Ok, you say Fox news has put these numbers out.. prove it. I don't see you backing any thing up. It's freaking common knowledge that America was not keeping track of the dead Iraqi's. Sure now as people get killed the media is trying to keep up. However no numbers were ever given out on Iraqi military deaths and there is no way of knowing of many were killed in the first few weeks of the war. .. sheesh :roll:

Maybe you should ask the Iraqis whether Iraq's better than it was. You might be suprised.

I might, as soon as the fighting subsides. Provided U.S. troops leave some adult Iraqi alive, that is.

It seems to me the media and government of the U.S treats foreigners (especially those in the third world) as less than human.
The goverment seemed (or said) to think that the Iraqis would be happy when we came. How would Americans feel if someone took over their country? Not to mention the U.S's war crimes (bombing electrical and infastructure targets).
And the media always says when soldiers are killed, but they don't say how many civilians died from the war. It might turn some people around if they heard that.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING!

Maybe you should ask the Iraqis whether Iraq's better than it was. You might be suprised.

I might, as soon as the fighting subsides. Provided U.S. troops leave some adult Iraqi alive, that is.

Trolling satchel charge fails to detonate.

Take a look here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm

Imporant Exceprts :

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war.

This isn't a unique situation to the US. Every mighty nation has, at the peak of it's influence, looked on other nations as sources of service rather that collections of individual people. Colonial England was just as bad as current United States. You can trace it back through recorded history.

Not saying we're not doing bad things, just saying we're not the only ones who have ever done them and it's not a unique United States phenomenon.

think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN.
Thats because we don't want our leaders to show up on that court, buddy. The initial apointee's might be unbiased, but if Schroeder's appointing someone and his approval ratings are as dismal as they are now, he can just stroke up the ol' anti-american feelings and appoint someone crazy enough to actually believe the anti-american propoganda.
This has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. If the US is acting on behalf of the world community, and is sanctioned by the UN, then there would be no fears of the US leaders ending up in the International Court. However, if a nation takes it upon itself to enter another nation militarilywithout just cause, then they are in fact performing an illegal operation and should be made accountable.

Whether you like Saddam or not, whether you believe his people were oppressed or not, does not give the US or any other nation the right to violate that nations' sovereignty. I had a lot of admiration for the US until they crossed this new "line in the sand". This war makes absolutely no sense whatever. Is it criminal? Yes I believe it is. I am saddened and I am not alone.

Here's the thing. The rest of the world can care all they want about international law, but if taking out a guy like Saddam or Slobidan (without UN sanction) means that we're violating it, then we don't want a part of the court. Here in the US, we have good samaritan laws. If you're giving someone CPR, and you accidentally break one of their ribs, you can't get sued for it a lot of the time, because it was a necessary damage in order to save someone's life. I doubt we'll find that in the international court.
Judging by the worldwide peace demonstrations against this war before it began, I doubt the international community looks upon the invasion of Iraq as a "good Samaritan" gesture. Also, while you are saving "someone's life", you don't pull out a gun and shoot the onlookers, or do you?

think it is kind of ironic that the US wants to chase down terrorists, yet it doesn't want to join the International Court of Law as sanctioned by the UN.
Thats because we don't want our leaders to show up on that court, buddy. The initial apointee's might be unbiased, but if Schroeder's appointing someone and his approval ratings are as dismal as they are now, he can just stroke up the ol' anti-american feelings and appoint someone crazy enough to actually believe the anti-american propoganda.
This has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment. If the US is acting on behalf of the world community, and is sanctioned by the UN, then there would be no fears of the US leaders ending up in the International Court. However, if a nation takes it upon itself to enter another nation militarilywithout just cause, then they are in fact performing an illegal operation and should be made accountable.

Whether you like Saddam or not, whether you believe his people were oppressed or not, does not give the US or any other nation the right to violate that nations' sovereignty. I had a lot of admiration for the US until they crossed this new "line in the sand". This war makes absolutely no sense whatever. Is it criminal? Yes I believe it is. I am saddened and I am not alone.

Here's the thing. The rest of the world can care all they want about international law, but if taking out a guy like Saddam or Slobidan (without UN sanction) means that we're violating it, then we don't want a part of the court. Here in the US, we have good samaritan laws. If you're giving someone CPR, and you accidentally break one of their ribs, you can't get sued for it a lot of the time, because it was a necessary damage in order to save someone's life. I doubt we'll find that in the international court.
Judging by the worldwide peace demonstrations against this war before it began, I doubt the international community looks upon the invasion of Iraq as a "good Samaritan" gesture. Also, while you are saving "someone's life", you don't pull out a gun and shoot the onlookers, or do you?

This is the arrogance of some Americans.. they're under the delusion that American law trumps International law, which it does, if they stay within their own borders. As soon as they step outside of their borders, International law trumps American law. American law means nothing outside of their borders. Why do they have such a hard time understanding that fact?

This is the arrogance of some Americans.. they're under the delusion that American law trumps International law, which it does, if they stay within their own borders. As soon as they step outside of their borders, International law trumps American law. American law means nothing outside of their borders. Why do they have such a hard time understanding that fact?
Who enforces international law? The French who swear to veto resolutions even though Hans Blix says Iraq is in material breech? The Russians who would have vetoed the Serbian bombing so we had to go in with NATO? I'll take Vigiliante (IE : USA, UK, Australia) justice over none at all.

This is the arrogance of some Americans.. they're under the delusion that American law trumps International law, which it does, if they stay within their own borders. As soon as they step outside of their borders, International law trumps American law. American law means nothing outside of their borders. Why do they have such a hard time understanding that fact?
Who enforces international law? The French who swear to veto resolutions even though Hans Blix says Iraq is in material breech? The Russians who would have vetoed the Serbian bombing so we had to go in with NATO? I'll take Vigiliante (IE : USA, UK, Australia) justice over none at all.

Oh riiiiight, because you have a gun to the worlds head that basically means you can do as you please.. I forgot.. :roll:

Yep, international law has failed horrendously since 1946.

This is the arrogance of some Americans.. they're under the delusion that American law trumps International law, which it does, if they stay within their own borders. As soon as they step outside of their borders, International law trumps American law. American law means nothing outside of their borders. Why do they have such a hard time understanding that fact?
Who enforces international law? The French who swear to veto resolutions even though Hans Blix says Iraq is in material breech? The Russians who would have vetoed the Serbian bombing so we had to go in with NATO? I'll take Vigiliante (IE : USA, UK, Australia) justice over none at all.
Lets see what Blix had to say:

According to the jacket flap of Hans Blix's new book, Mr. Blix is arguably the only key player to emerge from the Iraq crisis "with his integrity intact." Whether or not that is true, this is a good book and a useful memoir, clearly describing the process leading up to last March's invasion of Iraq from the perspective of the United Nations employee charged with trying to verifiably disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.

As is well known, Mr. Blix was not happy with the United States and Britain's decision to go to war, seeing the invasion as premature and perhaps unnecessary. Unlike his former colleague David Kay, he does not place primary blame for the rush to war on the world's intelligence services. Rather, he convincingly places the responsibility where it belongs, squarely on the backs of political leaders.

"I am not suggesting that Blair and Bush spoke in bad faith," he writes, "but I am suggesting that it would not have taken much critical thinking on their own part or the part of their close advisers to prevent statements that misled the public." Continuing his critique of Washington's and London's prewar diplomacy, he writes, "It is an interesting notion that when a small minority has been rebuffed by a strong majority, it is the majority that has failed the test."

Whether Iraq was in "material breach" or not, the UN did NOT sanction an invasion period!!

It's not just third world people who get our self-centered ignorant disrespect.

"Ferry sinks in English Channel; Four Americans feared dead"

"Train derails in Alps; Three Americans on board, fate unknoen"

Etc.

Like nobody else in the world matters; like we only care what happens to Yankees. Like there's no possibility any American might even have non-Americn friends or even family (in-laws etc) in Europe!

Then if, heaven forbid, some Yankees actually do die, the media get to shove their sensitive mic in the face of the next of kin and yell: "Your family just drowned in the English Channel! What are your feelings about that?"