NationStates Jolt Archive

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.

Very well put. Whiners.

Your second point needs clarification (mainly concerning circumstances) but other than that, you're on the right track.

It is only when the stream of accusations continaully come of US abmitions for world domination never cease.. or that EVERYTHING is the US's fault..

they even blaim the US for the tsunami deathtoll.. we didn't put enough money into the early alert system, we didn't notify them fast enough..

Whenver there is a problem it is the United States DUTY to help out.. but if everything goes to hell in a hand basket the world quickly turns to rebuke the United states for not doing enough, or acting in our own interest blah blah blah.

EVERYTHING is the US's fault..
Well it is.

Yeah, America has never had it so good, and they still act like a spoiled child, thinking that "everyone hates us! waaah!"

If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. ..

That is what it's all about.
The rest to is well put.

Very well put. Whiners.

I wouldn't talk there miss bitchy! ;)

I don't there has been one day where you didn't have some complaint about the US......

In fact.. Sure the US pokes its nose where it shouldn't, i would like to have seen how long it would have taken for the EU to actually do something in Bosnia had the US not have HAD to step in.

I wouldn't talk there miss bitchy! ;)

I don't there has been one day where you didn't have some complaint about the US......
You don't hear me whine about how everything is unfair about everything directed at my country. Or continent for that matter.

Originally Posted by Smeagol-Gollum
If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. ..

probably cause thats allt he UN is good for.. beyond a rubber stamp its powerless without the US

I blame it on Bush

probably cause thats allt he UN is good for.. beyond a rubber stamp its powerless without the US


and being one of the largest employers for Americans.

Funny, isn't it--right wingers like Limbaugh consistently criticize the left as being filled with "victims," and yet they're the biggest whiners in the world. I can hear them: The UN is being mean; atheists and leftists are persecuting us because we're christian; they hate us for our freedoms. Give me the biggest break.

Well I am not going to defend my brothern but a few observations.

I have not heard anybody say the Geneva convention was unfair. If it came up here then all I can say to the poster :rolleyes:

As to the hague? Well before gitmo I would argue our rule of law handles things quite well. But that has changed. It is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty that is unless you are not an american.

On the other hand, there is the question of the "integrity" of the Hague in regards to the US. Could it be said that it would never be politically motivated? Again, I only know so much about it.....

Kyoto? How many countries are actually working on it? How do you prove it? I don't know myself. We are making changes slowly. For one thing, I see many more electrical and hybrid cars lately. Somebody told me there is a hybrid truck and SUV coming out. So we are not completly screw you, we are going to pollute at will.

The UN crap? I don't get the bitching about it. I guess the forces of morality listen to the shrub so it must be bad because he says so.

But I can see why the US goverment would want it gone. A super power in a world of chaos......

In fact.. Sure the US pokes its nose where it shouldn't, i would like to have seen how long it would have taken for the EU to actually do something in Bosnia had the US not have HAD to step in.

I am not claiming that the USA does no good. Obviously, that is not the case.

That was not my point - my point, quite simply is to question those who claim special status for the USA.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

The US brings it upon themselves. Now quit being a pussy and suck it up.

Originally Posted by Smeagol-Gollum
If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. ..

probably cause thats allt he UN is good for.. beyond a rubber stamp its powerless without the US

Thank you, but it is not really necessary to act as an illustration of the thinking I am discussing. I trust most readers are aware of the attitudes already.

and being one of the largest employers for Americans.
Source?

and being one of the largest employers for Americans.

Hardly, the workforce worldwide is about 49000. Roughly Disneyland and Disneyworld combined......

http://www.eda.admin.ch/sub_uno/e/uno/system/020911.html

Source?

Well about 9000 nYC would be witouth a job and about 50.000 people deliver services, food aso for them. or you think that all that grows in Central Park?

My two cents

Well about 9000 nYC would be witouth a job and about 50.000 people deliver services, food aso for them. or you think that all that grows in Central Park?

My two cents
So 59,000 people. That's "one of the largest employers of Americans"? Your math skills need a little work.

So 59,000 people. That's "one of the largest employers of Americans"? Your math skills need a little work.

Tell them when they are unemployed, you greedy.

You know my dad was a WWII hero, chest full of medals. Married a professional night club singer 20 years younger than himself and started a large family mostly boys in the sixties, (third marriage), and I was the third brother. If he was alive he'd spit to hear so called "Conservatives" bitch and moan about not being "Loved" by the world.

Pancake flipping Jesus! Have a little backbone. If your going to ride roughshod over the world expect people to bitch and moan when you put the spurs to them.

The only people who love Bush are people who love Bush, The only people who love Bush lovers are other Bush Lovers. Half the country and the rest of the planet think your morons, deal with it.

Tell them when they are unemployed, you greedy.
Apparently your reading skills need work too. I didn't say to fire them all. I said that's not nearly near the top employers of Americans.

Very well put. Whiners.
And what position does whining about whiners put you in
"ohhh they always whine about us atacking them"*in nasily almost crying voice
:rolleyes: :p

You whine about the US, we whine right back. Suck it up and stop whining about it.

You whine about the US, we whine right back. Suck it up and stop whining about it.

You are either deliberately or mistakenly missing the point.

Many posters to the General Forum have claimed that the UN, Red Cross, Geneva Convention, international press, Kyoto Agreement, International War Crimes Tribunal, World Court etc etc is "unfair" to the USA, because the international community expect the US to adopt the same rules/guidelines/principles as the rest of the world.

You either believe that this is accurate, or you do not.

I would rather see a constructive post that a one-liner that doesn't really address any issues.

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.

If a nation signs up to any international organisation or body then it should abide by the rules. You cant just sign up for the benefits and ignore the rules. Thats just stupid. Espically if you nation helped found said international organisation (the US was a founder member of the UN). If you sign something you have to abide by it. Its not just the US, but every country in the world that signs it. By your logic "The Geneva convention is unfair to the US" then it is also unfair to every other nation that signed up to it. Dont make the mistake (that so many Americans do) that you are the world. Many other countries signed up to these accords, not just the US.

This thread is Unfair to the USA

If a nation signs up to any international organisation or body then it should abide by the rules. You cant just sign up for the benefits and ignore the rules. Thats just stupid. Espically if you nation helped found said international organisation (the US was a founder member of the UN). If you sign something you have to abide by it. Its not just the US, but every country in the world that signs it. By your logic "The Geneva convention is unfair to the US" then it is also unfair to every other nation that signed up to it. Dont make the mistake (that so many Americans do) that you are the world. Many other countries signed up to these accords, not just the US.
Except for the fact we Did Not sign The Kyoto Protocols nor The International Court of Justice.

Wasnt the the big fuss about Kyoto and ICJ the fact we didnt sign them??

And please refer to the Geneva Convention for information on Non Uniformed Combatants.

Please give some legal justification for the alteration of the current Geneva Convention to extend the privledges of Uniformed Combatants to Non Uniformed Combatants, or at least explain why you feel that altering the distinction between Uniformed and Non Uniformed combatants is necessary at this time.

Wasnt the the big fuss about Kyoto and ICJ the fact we didnt sign them??


The fuss about Kyoto is that America has a tiny percentage of the Earths population yet consumes a disproprtinote ammount of resorces to its population. And as for the IJC, current infomation I have says that the US has signed but not rattified the treaty. I dont know when that happened and how long it will be before they rattify it but they need to hurry up.

Still, if a teaty not signed ( or ratified ) a non signing country isnt bound by that treaty is it?

Still, if a teaty not signed ( or ratified ) a non signing country isnt bound by that treaty is it?
I recall some states have promised to act like they had ratified it eventhough they officially haven't. I read about it maybe a month ago. hmm.. I'll try to find an English source...

here is one. I'm sure you'll find better ones if you want to know more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279056/posts

Interesting thread. The thing no one seems to want to point out is that everyone whines, bitches, pisses, moans, and gnashes their teeth about various things. It's all part and parcell of the human condition. The US and it's citizens whine, Europe and it's citizens whine, The Third World whines, Everyone else I've left out whines. The Left whines, the right whines. Everyone fucking whines! Some of it is justified, some of it is not. And as life is tough, and most likely will continue to be so, we will probably all keep on whining. I just wish the rich and famous would stop whining. They got mansions - I think we should rob 'em.

I recall some states have promised to act like they had ratified it eventhough they officially haven't. I read about it maybe a month ago. hmm.. I'll try to find an English source...

here is one. I'm sure you'll find better ones if you want to know more
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279056/posts

Excellent! I am all for lowering emmissions, if for no other reason, it is usually lowered by increasing efficency and lowering fuel consumption.

Fools!

There's obviously a world-wide (Communist) conspiracy to bring down the freedom-loving peoples (unless you're gay, black or Cherokee...in which case you love Communism! Die!) of the USA!

[/1958]
:D

Except for the fact we Did Not sign The Kyoto Protocols nor The International Court of Justice.

Wasnt the the big fuss about Kyoto and ICJ the fact we didnt sign them??

And please refer to the Geneva Convention for information on Non Uniformed Combatants.

Please give some legal justification for the alteration of the current Geneva Convention to extend the privledges of Uniformed Combatants to Non Uniformed Combatants, or at least explain why you feel that altering the distinction between Uniformed and Non Uniformed combatants is necessary at this time.

The Geneva convention mentions the word uniform and any of its derivatives just once. In that respect it is refering to the fact that if a supply of uniforms of the enemy forces is captured, then those uniforms should be made available to POWs, if the uniforms are suitable for the climate that the POWs are being held in.

Right at the beginning of the Geneva convention, in article 4, it mentions that POWs are captured persons who are -

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
I would say that covers all of these groups and more: The Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, The Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front. A comprehensive list of resistance groups operating in Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html)

My source of the Geneva convention - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Oh I cant imagine why anyone from the USA ,who posts on this forum, would ever accuse anyone of bashing the US! How absurd! *sifts through this thread and 1000 more that have derogatory remarks about the US* Oh....maybe because its true. I cant count the number of times I've walked away from a thread, just to avoid an argument, because it was about how stupid Americans are or how greedy or how selfish or how whatever. If the shoe was on the other foot, and there were countless posts about how stupid, arrogant, mindless, whatever else insult you want to add, about Europe (or choose your country), then people would be running to the Moderation section crying about how flaming and insults on Europe were running rampant. Dont even try and dispute it because all you have to do is go back and sift through the threads. So to whoever started this post about how sick they are about people whinning about others bashing the USA, get over it.

I never go off on here, but hell, I'm sick of seeing all the BS about the USA and then someone gripes because the American posters dont like to be criticized just because you dont like our government. I'll be so glad when W's term is over so the real whiners on here will shut up.

Oh I cant imagine why anyone from the USA ,who posts on this forum, would ever accuse anyone of bashing the US! How absurd! *sifts through this thread and 1000 more that have derogatory remarks about the US* Oh....maybe because its true. I cant count the number of times I've walked away from a thread, just to avoid an argument, because it was about how stupid Americans are or how greedy or how selfish or how whatever. If the shoe was on the other foot, and there were countless posts about how stupid, arrogant, mindless, whatever else insult you want to add, about Europe (or choose your country), then people would be running to the Moderation section crying about how flaming and insults on Europe were running rampant. Dont even try and dispute it because all you have to do is go back and sift through the threads. So to whoever started this post about how sick they are about people whinning about others bashing the USA, get over it.

I never go off on here, but hell, I'm sick of seeing all the BS about the USA and then someone gripes because the American posters dont like to be criticized just because you dont like our government. I'll be so glad when W's term is over so the real whiners on here will shut up.


Would you like some cheese with your whine? :D

I would say that covers all of these groups and more: The Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, The Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front. A comprehensive list of resistance groups operating in Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html)

My source of the Geneva convention - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Large portions of those groups, if not the majority, are made up of non-Iraqis, so the definition of resistance group would be incorrect

Would you like some cheese with your whine? :D


No I'd actually like some plain old wine. Sorry- as I said, I'm usually in a jokey mood on here, but I reached my threshold for this topic. I've said my piece and now I need more coffee. *grumble*

I need a :fluffle: maybe.

:fluffle:

:fluffle:

LOL......Thanks! I feel better already. :)

Oh I cant imagine why anyone from the USA ,who posts on this forum, would ever accuse anyone of bashing the US! How absurd! *sifts through this thread and 1000 more that have derogatory remarks about the US* Oh....maybe because its true. I cant count the number of times I've walked away from a thread, just to avoid an argument, because it was about how stupid Americans are or how greedy or how selfish or how whatever. If the shoe was on the other foot, and there were countless posts about how stupid, arrogant, mindless, whatever else insult you want to add, about Europe (or choose your country), then people would be running to the Moderation section crying about how flaming and insults on Europe were running rampant. Dont even try and dispute it because all you have to do is go back and sift through the threads. So to whoever started this post about how sick they are about people whinning about others bashing the USA, get over it.

I never go off on here, but hell, I'm sick of seeing all the BS about the USA and then someone gripes because the American posters dont like to be criticized just because you dont like our government. I'll be so glad when W's term is over so the real whiners on here will shut up.

While I understand what you're going through and acknowledge that there is US bashing in this forums, I'd like to point out that the subject is why should the US deserve special treatment in international organizations and/or treaty.

I think the original poster made it clear that it was not a cheap shot to bash the US. I, for one, am really interested to know why the internationnal court should have different rules for US citizens, for example.

damn, I sound like a diplomat.
Better get my head examined :p

While I understand what you're going through and acknowledge that there is US bashing in this forums, I'd like to point out that the subject is why should the US deserve special treatment in international organizations and/or treaty.

I think the original poster made it clear that it was not a cheap shot to bash the US. I, for one, am really interested to know why the internationnal court should have different rules for US citizens, for example.

While the original poster may not have meant to open an offensive can of worms, it prompted other negative remarks. Go back and read some of them. "The US is a bunch of whiners....wahhhh". Stuff like that is what I'm talking about. And there shouldnt be a different set of rules for us, I agree. Special treatment should be saved for sick kids and injured animals.
You know what I mean though.....lots of bad things said about people who live in the US and I just had to stand up for a minute.

You know what I mean though.....lots of bad things said about people who live in the US and I just had to stand up for a minute.

Yeah, everybody has to stand once in a while to say "enough".

LOL......Thanks! I feel better already. :)
Ohhh I will fluffle you!!!!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Know your frustration beautifull
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Ohhh I will fluffle you!!!!
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Know your frustration beautifull
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

aww...thanks...you know its unlike me to get my knickas in a twist! ;)

Large portions of those groups, if not the majority, are made up of non-Iraqis, so the definition of resistance group would be incorrect
Good point. But -

Resistance: (5) often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators (Source) (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=resistance)

Iraq has recently been conquered, and hostilities have not abated since the Coalition forces declared an end to hostilities. In actual fact they have increased.

But my main point. The leaders of most of these groups claim that most of their insurgents are Iraqi. But then how can we trust them when the most infamous leader is Jordanian?

And "For Iraqis to carry out suicide martyrdom operations is somewhat peculiar because of their secular orientation".

...

When taking all these trends into account, it becomes clear that acquiring a target for a suicide bombing is not an easy task, even when chosen randomly. A bomber must have intimate familiarity with the society which it seeks to target. The bomber must speak the native language and dialect and be familiar with the location of targets in order to successfully navigate within a city and acquire a suitable, if not specific, target.
[snip]
Security services in Middle Eastern nations routinely employ racial and ethnic profiling, and perpetrators who are not able to efficiently assimilate within the target societies are more easily identified and engaged.

In light of this information, the theory that suicide bombings in Iraq are exclusively the work of foreign Jihadi infiltrators does not hold water.

(Source) (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040330.htm)

Sorry I took so long to reply. I'm trying to keep the waffle to a minimum. It's hard. >.<

I feel love in this thread :)

I feel love in this thread :)
I know... I mean I'm feeling left out. :(

I know... I mean I'm feeling left out. :(
Sorry but peachy is the hottie ... and its early ... not up to a multipul fluffle yet

I know... I mean I'm feeling left out. :(

You got me on the dictionary definition, but I still love you anyway! :D

::Gets into ninja gear to prepare revenge:: :mp5:

You got me on the dictionary definition, but I still love you anyway! :D

::Gets into ninja gear to prepare revenge:: :mp5:

I love/hate relationship huh? I think I might be a bit scared...

I guess that's what you get when you like to play devil's advocate. c.c

The reason that everyone is angry with the US for not signing Kyoto is this. The ammount of resorces it consumes (in terms of energy output and CO2 Emmisions) is vastly disproportionate to its population (IE They consume a much larger percentage of the worlds resorces than they have pecentage of the worlds population). So it seems like US bashing but its not. Its just that it would hit them the hardest out of everyone but it does the same thing to everyone.

The only problem I have with people bashing the United States is the blanket statements that are made about people. While that's hard to avoid and the United States does it themselves all the time, I just have the overwhelming urge to jump up and down and scream "most of the country's population are political moderates and want the government to keep their nose and regulations out of our business."

When I was an exchange student in Budapest, Hungary this summer I met so many other kids from other countries (Slovenia, France, Norway, Spain, Brazil). And each and every one of them asked why we didn't realized that the rest of the world hated us, or rode my ass about Bush or made fun of me for being American. And that was really obnoxious.

No, the US shouldn't be above the rules. But, since it's obviously the 600-lb gorilla in the room with a bunch of spindly, wimpy crybabies who can't even defend their own countries when invaded by their neighbors (I'm thinking of France, if you've not read your history), then the US gets to make the rules.

Until there's an official world government, or your nation becomes the 51st state, or the US is no longer the world's superpower, I suggest you all get used to the idea.

No, the US shouldn't be above the rules. But, since it's obviously the 600-lb gorilla in the room with a bunch of spindly, wimpy crybabies who can't even defend their own countries when invaded by their neighbors (I'm thinking of France, if you've not read your history), then the US gets to make the rules.

Until there's an official world government, or your nation becomes the 51st state, or the US is no longer the world's superpower, I suggest you all get used to the idea.
so basicaly the "might makes right" arguement ... you silly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: (sounded like you could use a fluffle or two

so basicaly the "might makes right" arguement ... you silly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: (sounded like you could use a fluffle or two

No, it's not might makes right. But it means that the mighty get to decide who's on top... :fluffle:

expect the US to adopt the same rules/guidelines/principles as the rest of the world.
? You mean you want us to adopt on paper the rules/guidelines/principles that the rest of the world has adopted on paper? Of course, let's just ignore the fact that their actual actions differ from what is on paper.

No, it's not might makes right. But it means that the mighty get to decide who's on top... :fluffle:
Ok then the might creates right arguement ... thoes in power get to create what they think is right, though that really is a lot of the might makes right arguement I could see why you want the destinction

? You mean you want us to adopt on paper the rules/guidelines/principles that the rest of the world has adopted on paper? Of course, let's just ignore the fact that their actual actions differ from what is on paper.

If you cannot get agreement of rules/guidelines/principles then you have no basis for judging behaviour.

The entirity of the law, whether it be criminal, civil or international, consists of a written (or "on paper" if you prefer) set of rules/guidelines/principles.

The fact that some people then break the law does not invalidate the law does it?

The simple question, to which I return, is should there be a special set of rules/guidelines/principles for judging the US?

If so, why?

Right at the beginning of the Geneva convention, in article 4, it mentions that POWs are captured persons who are -

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Under (b) "Fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

Please describe the signage worn /flown /held /or otherwise carried by all the resistance groups you mention below, or admit they are operating outside of the Geneva Conventions

What sign is displayed by a suicide bomber?

By the way Uniforms are considered proper individual signage from what I have been briefed on the Laws of Armed Conflict

Under (c) "That of carrying arms openly:"

If you have 150 pounds of explosive in the trunk of your car, and no distinctive signage on the exterior of the vehicle to designate it as a weapons system, how is this carrying arms openly?

If you hide your weapons and blend in with the crowd; how is this conforming to the clause "carrying arms openly"?

Under (d)That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

Under what provision of the Geneva Convention is Beheadings, Suicide Bombings or the use of Schools, Hospitals, or Religious Facilities (Mosques) for the conduct of military operations, storage of military supplies and as refuge for military combatants considered an acceptable part of the Laws and Customs of War?

Are these people not in violation of the terms of the Geneva Convention? They are provided status as protected persons how again? Refer to http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm Article 2 just below for the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to groups that do not "accept and apply the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

This also includes the use of civilian populations as human shields


I would say that covers all of these groups and more: The Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, The National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, The Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front. A comprehensive list of resistance groups operating in Iraq (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/az091904.html)

Again, please provide descriptions of the distinct signage carried by these groups so that the Occupying forces and provisional government forces can recognize these personal as distict from the civilian population.
This signage must be displayed and recognizable at a distance so that the Occupying forces and Provisional Government forces can target them accurately at a distance so as to avoid unecessary loss of civilian life

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm

Article 2

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

This seems to read that if the said Power, ( those resistance groups you refer to ), will "accept and applies the provisions ( of the Geneva Convention )" only then shall the occuping forces be obligated to recognize the Convention in relation to these groups

Please let me know if this is your interpretation as well.


http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/civilianpersons.htm (cont.)

Article 4

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Nationals of a neutral state who find themselves in the territory of a beligerant state shall not be regaurded as protected persons ( under the Geneva Conventions) while thier states have normal diplomatic representation in the state in whose hands they are.

Which middle eastern countries do not have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US. Persons of these nations would be considered protected.

However if the confined persons nation does have "normal diplomatic relations" with the US then they are not "Protected Persons" under the Geneva Convention

Please provide the list of the countries that do not have normal diplomatic relations with the US and the number of detainies of their nationality. Only these pesons are given "Protected" status



http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Article 37.-Prohibition of perfidy
1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.


How would you Feign civilian or non combatant status?
Oh yes the signage thing again. If they are not diplaying their signage, and are not openly carrying weapons are they not in violation of this term of the Geneva Convention? And if they are are they not "accepting and applying" are they not excluded from the protections of the Geneva Convention?

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

So persons not openly carrying thier weapons are considered to have "forefited his right to be a Prisoner of War"...how interesting. They are entitled to the protections equivelent to those accorded a prisoner of war that has been tried and punished for any offenses he has commited.

Interesting, so what does this mean?


Third Convention

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

Lets see, You could be given the death sentence in Afganistan or Iraq prior to the occupation for doing what exactly?
Stealing?
Adaultry?
Blasphomy?
Speaking out against the government ( must less taking up arms against them) ?
Objecting to the rape of your children?
Being of the wrong ethnicity?
Being of the wrong religion?
Advocating free elections?
Protesting in any form or fashion?


My source of the Geneva convention - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Good source for the 3rd Conventions however it is incomplete as it applies to this arguement and to the whole of the Geneva Conventions.

One must be considered Protected by the Geneva Conventions to enjoy the rights and privledges of Protected status, and quite clearly most of the resistance groups you have cited do not meet these requirements in that they do not openly display signage and hide their weapons.

Their use of schools, hospitals and Mosques as munitions depots, hiding areas and military operations points shows that they are not "accepting and applying" the provisions of the Geneva Conventions thus the occupational forces and the provisional government are not bound to the Geneva Conventions in dealing with these groups are they?

Enjoyed the post, thank you

Oh I cant imagine why anyone from the USA ,who posts on this forum, would ever accuse anyone of bashing the US! How absurd! *sifts through this thread and 1000 more that have derogatory remarks about the US* Oh....maybe because its true. I cant count the number of times I've walked away from a thread, just to avoid an argument, because it was about how stupid Americans are or how greedy or how selfish or how whatever. If the shoe was on the other foot, and there were countless posts about how stupid, arrogant, mindless, whatever else insult you want to add, about Europe (or choose your country), then people would be running to the Moderation section crying about how flaming and insults on Europe were running rampant. Dont even try and dispute it because all you have to do is go back and sift through the threads. So to whoever started this post about how sick they are about people whinning about others bashing the USA, get over it.

I never go off on here, but hell, I'm sick of seeing all the BS about the USA and then someone gripes because the American posters dont like to be criticized just because you dont like our government. I'll be so glad when W's term is over so the real whiners on here will shut up.



Dude this is a Euro Forum Board, it's located in the UK. There are plenty of American forums you can go on where you'll be banned if you don't flame the Euros, praise Bush and PNAC. If you guys just can't take it go on the Coulter Board and play Republican grab ass all day.

Well about 9000 nYC would be witouth a job and about 50.000 people deliver services, food aso for them. or you think that all that grows in Central Park?

My two cents

Ugh..before the UN showed up that entire area was factories and meat packing plants which employed thousands of people. So about half of those folks would be employed. As for the other 25,000 they would have probably moved to find other jobs. Simply because thats how it works.

Dude this is a Euro Forum Board, it's located in the UK. There are plenty of American forums you can go on where you'll be banned if you don't flame the Euros, praise Bush and PNAC. If you guys just can't take it go on the Coulter Board and play Republican grab ass all day.

Most of the folks who play NS though are overwhelmingly from the US. But thats besides the point, the internet is an intellectual freezone in which nationality doesnt matter. Unfortunately some folks cant seem to figure that out.

Of course some folks are incredibly blindsided obtuse I HATE EVERYTHING NOT ON MY SIDE jackasses who couldnt really tolerate anothers view if their lives depended upon it.

Just my two cents though.

Parts of the original statement come off as irrelevant, because I've never heard of anyone complain about some of the stuff listed.

There are actually people out there who hate the US, and want to hobble it as much as possible. Now, it's not as widespread as some would believe, but I'd be willing to bet that France secretly desires to have the US go away.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Who complains about any of these? The US isnt even in them. And neither is half of the population(as far as Kyoto goes, not sure about the other two.)

India, China and the US havent signed the Kyoto treaty..1.5 billion + 1 billion + 300 million= 2.9 billion..about 1/3 of planet earth. Who has signed the Kyoto treaty? Countries already below the standards. Who hasnt signed the Kyoto treaty? Countries who wish to develop unhindered by international law. But hey toss out any international organization and claim folks are bitching about them...

Dude this is a Euro Forum Board, it's located in the UK. There are plenty of American forums you can go on where you'll be banned if you don't flame the Euros, praise Bush and PNAC. If you guys just can't take it go on the Coulter Board and play Republican grab ass all day.
It's more fun to try to exercise the brain then lather worship upon those who agree with you.

The Geneva Convention

Who argues that this is unfair to the US? I rememebr myself arguing around the Geneva Convention, never have I called it unfair to the US. If both sides apply it then yay for all.

No, it's not might makes right. But it means that the mighty get to decide who's on top... :fluffle:
Which in practice, is might makes right.

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.
There, there. It's ok. They're just thinking about you and your reality-challenged posts when they say that. :D

Dude this is a Euro Forum Board, it's located in the UK. There are plenty of American forums you can go on where you'll be banned if you don't flame the Euros, praise Bush and PNAC. If you guys just can't take it go on the Coulter Board and play Republican grab ass all day.

No -you listen "dude".....thats crazy. I'm not segragating myself from the rest of the world just because I read something that bothered me. And you, Mr 80 posts, do you even know why Nation states exists? this is why:

Why did you make this?
Because it seemed like a fun idea, and a way to let people know about my novel Jennifer Government. With luck, some of the people who play NationStates will buy the book. Then my publisher will think I am a left-field marketing genius, instead of a chump who blew four months on a web game when he should have been working on his next novel.

Those are Max Barrys words or a representative of his I would assume. So I'm sure Max would like for people in the US to read and buy his books too. I dont think He would take kindly to the arrogant dismissal that youve suggested or anyone else for that matter. He wanted to get the word out on his book and I think it was a brilliant Marketing idea.


dude... :rolleyes:

The only problem I have with people bashing the United States is the blanket statements that are made about people. While that's hard to avoid and the United States does it themselves all the time, I just have the overwhelming urge to jump up and down and scream "most of the country's population are political moderates and want the government to keep their nose and regulations out of our business."

When I was an exchange student in Budapest, Hungary this summer I met so many other kids from other countries (Slovenia, France, Norway, Spain, Brazil). And each and every one of them asked why we didn't realized that the rest of the world hated us, or rode my ass about Bush or made fun of me for being American. And that was really obnoxious.

I understand your frustration, and do not wish to categorise all Americans as being the same.

However, within these forums I have frequently seen people argue:

1. Torture is O.K. if used by the US, but not by anyone else

2. The UN is biased against the US

3. It is fine for the US to have real WMDs, anyone else is a legitimate target for invasion if they may have them

4. The Kyoto Protocols are unfair to the US. The original poster of that thread did not even find it necessary to state any reasoning for such a statement. The mere statement of bias was enough.

It is in response to these threads and comments that I decided to ask "why" the posters believe that there should be special rules for the US.

Like it or not, if you live in a democracy, people will identify you with your government.

You may well have helped choose it, either actively or passively (i.e. by not voting).

Yes, all Americans are evil, nothing America does is right, America gets all the privledge in the world and no other country gets anything in return, America is bad. Congratulations. You are the 1000th person to post this same regurgitated crap. Have a cookie.

Yes, all Americans are evil, nothing America does is right, America gets all the privledge in the world and no other country gets anything in return, America is bad. Congratulations. You are the 1000th person to post this same regurgitated crap. Have a cookie.
No, have TWO cookies! :D

No, have TWO cookies! :D

I'm a cheap bastard. He only gets one cookie. You know how expensive these things are these days?

I'm a cheap bastard. He only gets one cookie. You know how expensive these things are these days?


oooo-got any chocolate chip?

I understand your frustration, and do not wish to categorise all Americans as being the same.

However, within these forums I have frequently seen people argue:

1. Torture is O.K. if used by the US, but not by anyone else

2. The UN is biased against the US

3. It is fine for the US to have real WMDs, anyone else is a legitimate target for invasion if they may have them

4. The Kyoto Protocols are unfair to the US. The original poster of that thread did not even find it necessary to state any reasoning for such a statement. The mere statement of bias was enough.

It is in response to these threads and comments that I decided to ask "why" the posters believe that there should be special rules for the US.

Like it or not, if you live in a democracy, people will identify you with your government.

You may well have helped choose it, either actively or passively (i.e. by not voting).
That's one of the hazards of living in a democracy ... people tend to form their own opinions. Actually, it's people who take the opposite extreme and refuse to grant anything worthwhile to the US who prompted me to vote for President Bush's relection; that and the fact that I can't abide John Kerry! :D

oooo-got any chocolate chip?
Nope. Sorry. All I've got are these Little Debbie oatmeal cookies with the creme centers. :D

That's one of the hazards of living in a democracy ... people tend to form their own opinions. Actually, it's people who take the opposite extreme and refuse to grant anything worthwhile to the US who prompted me to vote for President Bush's relection; that and the fact that I can't abide John Kerry! :D

It's amazing how you manage to bring John Kerry into a conversation that has less than nothing to do with him. Considering how often you mention that man's name without provocation, I'm beginning to think you've secretly got a crush on him.

That's one of the hazards of living in a democracy ... people tend to form their own opinions. Actually, it's people who take the opposite extreme and refuse to grant anything worthwhile to the US who prompted me to vote for President Bush's relection; that and the fact that I can't abide John Kerry! :D

Eutru, you said you'd rather vote for Hitler. Interesting, you claim OTHER people have a small hold on reality...

Yes, all Americans are evil, nothing America does is right, America gets all the privledge in the world and no other country gets anything in return, America is bad. Congratulations. You are the 1000th person to post this same regurgitated crap. Have a cookie.

Kindly have the courtesey to actually read what I have in fact written, and comment upon that.

I made not one of the statements that you are supposedly "quoting".

Learn to conentrate on reading what is actually there, not what you might think is there. Perhaps your concentration should not be divided between reading/comprehending and cookies.

How come no one ever flames Canada, Germany, or France? How come no one ever speaks out about what is going on in Africa or bashing the "great" UN for not doing anything about it except talk? :sniper: How come no one ever thanks the US for providing 40% of the aid to the world? :headbang: It is tough being the big dog on the block, even when you are a good dog. :(

How come no one ever flames Canada, Germany, or France?

You're fucking joking, right?

You're fucking joking, right?

NO!

How come no one ever flames Canada, Germany, or France? How come no one ever speaks out about what is going on in Africa? How come no one ever thanks the US for providing 49% of the aid to the world? :headbang: It is tough being the big dog on the block, even when you are a good dog. :(
And why being the big dog should get the US special treatment in things like the Kyoto accord or the Internationnal Justice court?

Because, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

How come no one ever flames Canada, Germany, or France? How come no one ever speaks out about what is going on in Africa or bashing the "great" UN for not doing anything about it except talk? :sniper: How come no one ever thanks the US for providing 40% of the aid to the world? :headbang: It is tough being the big dog on the block, even when you are a good dog. :(

That would mostly be because the sources we get most of our information from is the media, and the media finds that negative stories get far better ratings/sales. As for the whole real point of the post...I just don't know why they don't think things through enough for the rest of us but I also have been to the USA and the stuff said about them is EXTREMELY blown out of preportion (cant spell), but their government HAS made made decisions as well.

How come no one ever flames Canada, Germany, or France? How come no one ever speaks out about what is going on in Africa? How come no one ever thanks the US for providing 49% of the aid to the world? :headbang: It is tough being the big dog on the block, even when you are a good dog. :(

Ya know, right now the US is in the hot seat. It might be because of the current adminsitration. It might be because of the way the average American acts whomever that is. It might be because of the media and the image that they project.

Whatever it is, I only have this to suggest to you. Enjoy your life. Enjoy your holiday. Know that its good to be a sympathetic, fun loving, and all around good person regardless where you come from and if something is bugging you and nobody is going to give a care how you feel? Let it slide. It's not worth it to get all stressed out when you could be having a hell of a good time somewhere with the people that you want to be around.

The fact is, all of the people on this forum and on this site have opinions and a lot of them are backed by facts and emotions but the truth is...they are opinions and opinions don't do anything for the world unless they are followed by action.

They don't affect you. They don't affect your life. They don't affect the lives of Americans or the rest of the world until they are followed through by either by malicious or caring actions.

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.

Everything that has an "international" label is unfair to the US because of this little thing called realpolitik (German for "politics of reality"). Because the US is the only superpower, what the world-minus-the-US agrees on is usually not in the best intrest of the US.

I suggest everyone read up on realpolitik before you post your opinion on world politics.

That's one of the hazards of living in a democracy ... people tend to form their own opinions. Actually, it's people who take the opposite extreme and refuse to grant anything worthwhile to the US who prompted me to vote for President Bush's relection; that and the fact that I can't abide John Kerry! :D

OMG... A Bush supporter. It's nice to hear a voice of reason.

Shame on Germany for not donating more. I wonder who much the US donated in the Berlin Airlift. Only 1.7 million bucks. :(

I think the EU pledge is seperate from individual countries, cause if Britain is pledging $28mill and France $20.4mill, that's more than the EU contribution there.
Here's the latest list:
UK $96m
EU $44m
US: $35m
Canada: $33m
Japan: $30m
Australia: $27m
France: $20.4m
Denmark: $15.6m
Saudi Arabia: $10m
Norway: $6.6m
Taiwan: $5.1m
Finland: $3.4m
Kuwait: $2.1m
Netherlands: $2.6m
UAE: $2m
Ireland $1.3m
Singapore: $1.2m
Source: Reuters, United Nations

Whoah...well,bugger me! But isn't the UK generous? $96 mill! Well done!
Also good on the Aussies, considering the size of their economy, population and all.
(Now at least we don't have to hear "USA is giving more than anyone else, so there")

BTW death toll now stands at over 120 000 and they still haven't got to some places - at least 10 000 feared dead in the Andaman islands for example. It's probably going to hit 200 000.
That's a lot.


Well put!

Shame on Germany for not donating more. I wonder who much the US donated in the Berlin Airlift. Only 1.7 million bucks. :(
you misspelled ottoman

Everything that has an "international" label is unfair to the US because of this little thing called realpolitik (German for "politics of reality"). Because the US is the only superpower, what the world-minus-the-US agrees on is usually not in the best intrest of the US.

I suggest everyone read up on realpolitik before you post your opinion on world politics.

Yes, it is of course apparent that all nations act in the manner which accords with their own perceived self-interest.

There is no great mystery to "realpolitik" - it is quite simply the might is right scenario. As applied in Germany with such great success in two world wars.

We all understand the reality of the schoolyard bully.

However, when the schoolyard bully starts claiming that school rules do not apply to him, that is a different scenario.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. You want to bash my country, go right ahead. I give thanks everyday that I was born American, where I am free to have my own opinions and free to not have to listen to yours.

We all understand the reality of the schoolyard bully.

However, when the schoolyard bully starts claiming that school rules do not apply to him, that is a different scenario.

Your schoolyard bully analogy holds no weight because in a school yard there is someone (teacher, principal, etc.) to enforce the rules.

The US is the "top dog" if you would, in the world, so there is no one besides the US who can say what is fair and what is not, and back up their statement with action.

The UN is for sure not that principal or teacher, because the UN cannot do anything to correct or punnish the US, or any other country without US approval, manwpower, and finacial support.

Your schoolyard bully analogy holds no weight because in a school yard there is someone (teacher, principal, etc.) to enforce the rules.

The US is the "top dog" if you would, in the world, so there is no one besides the US who can say what is fair and what is not, and back up their statement with action.

The UN is for sure not that principal or teacher, because the UN cannot do anything to correct or punnish the US, or any other country without US approval, manwpower, and finacial support.

The fact that, as you so delicately put it, "there is no one besides the US who can say what is fair and what is not, and back up their statement with action" should not be regarded as a license to behave as you wish.

That is the argument of the psychopath.

If you wish to behave as an untouchable bully, that is fine. Please don't go screaming about the rest of the world being "unfair" while you do so.

And please do not continue to equate such behaviour with "freedom".

Smeagol-Gollum
Follow up question to Post # 65

How is the proper legal use of the Geneva Conventions being termed "Special Rules" for the US?

It is true that the Geneva Conventions protect Prisoners of War from Murder / torture / humiliation.

However it also states quite clearly WHO is protected and What actions could forfit those protections.

If a person does not fit the definition of a Protected Person or has performed actions that forfit those protections, what legal basis is there in the Geneva Conventions for extending those protections to these people?

Thanks

The fact that, as you so delicately put it, "there is no one besides the US who can say what is fair and what is not, and back up their statement with action" should not be regarded as a license to behave as you wish.

That is the argument of the psychopath.

If you wish to behave as an untouchable bully, that is fine. Please don't go screaming about the rest of the world being "unfair" while you do so.

And please do not continue to equate such behaviour with "freedom".

I am not saying anything is unfair to the US. I am just pointing out the fact thgat the US can do what ever it wants to do because there is no one there to stop them.

I am not equating being the biggest badassest country in the world with freedom. ( I could go off here about how anarchy is total freedom and the game of international politics is played in anarchy, so all countries are free to act as they wish with regards to the rest of the world, so the US is "free to call anything it wants unfair because there is no one there to take away the US's authority to label situations unfair, but I wont do that).

...they are opinions and opinions don't do anything for the world unless they are followed by action.

They don't affect you. They don't affect your life. They don't affect the lives of Americans or the rest of the world until they are followed through by either by malicious or caring actions.

You are so wrong. Opinions do hurt. Opinions and perceptions do hurt. If you don't believe that, you have never been the target of negative opinions or discrimination.

I do get upset about all this America, Bush, USA bashing. Americans are some of the most caring, giving, generous, and loving people in the world. What other nation has spilled the blood of their young to free other nations from oppression so many times? In case you have forgotten; WW I, WW II, Korea, Grenada, Kuwait.

And why being the big dog should get the US special treatment in things like the Kyoto accord or the Internationnal Justice court?

Because, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.

It is not "special treatment." We do not agree with the terms of either of the agreements so we are not going to sign them. Would you or your country sign something it does not agree with? I doubt it.

... but their government HAS made made decisions as well.

Thank you, I appreciate the positive comments.

OMG... A Bush supporter. It's nice to hear a voice of reason.

Ditto!

The UN is for sure not that principal or teacher, because the UN cannot do anything to correct or punnish the US, or any other country without US approval, manwpower, and finacial support.

A principal or teacher has the authority to take action to punish the schoolyard bully. The UN has no authority and it isn't because of the US, it is because they don't have the gumption or will to do anything but talk.

Want and example? What has the UN done to stop the killing of innocent civilians in Dafur (sp?)?

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.

AMEN!!

And let me state for the record that I was born an American citizen and still live here to this day..(though if this type of behavior continues, I will be applying for Canadian citizenship without looking back.)

I am so sick and tired of rightwing bellyaching. Sure the liberals cry and whine, but no sound is harder on the ears or the sanity than the constant self pitying wimpering of the wealthy American rightwing elite....."Oh why do they demand that we curb our pollution...oh why do they demand that we curb our spending habits...oh why do they demand that we treat them with the same respect they try to treat us with....oh why do they demand that we recognize their religions...wah wah wah...boo f'in hoo all damn day." Thats exactly what you rightwing whiners sound like to me, and it's pathetic. Please, go back to kindergarden and learn the lessons you have obviously forgotten.

...there is no one there to take away the US's authority to label situations unfair, but I wont do that).

Are you advocating "One World Order?" :confused:

Are you advocating "One World Order?" :confused:
I am not advocating anything.

I am just listing the facts.

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.
The reason why we dislike the UN is because they rarely ever do anything except become the bureaucracy in charge of other bureaucracies. And when they happen to actually do something, it rarely turns out well, as in the case of the Oil for Food program. It also seems that the UN is willing to turn a blind eye to anyone and everyone except for the US. Aren't the Iraqi insurgents breaking the rules of war by beheading civilians? Why isn't the UN up in arms over this? The UN was created with the purpose of not becoming another League of Nations. They failed that task.

And why being the big dog should get the US special treatment in things like the Kyoto accord or the Internationnal Justice court?

Because, that's what this thread is supposed to be about.
Concerning things like the IJC I believe it's because it violates or laws contained in it could violate parts of the constitution. Ergo, we will not sign.

Concerning things like the IJC I believe it's because it violates or laws contained in it could violate parts of the constitution. Ergo, we will not sign.
I don't think the US would have gone into the initial negotiations to join the international criminal court if it would have been constitutional. As far as I know, it would be the same as any other treaty--and the Constitution gives the Congress the right to enter into any treaty it ratifies, and that treaty gains the force of Constitutional law (which is part of the reason that the argument that the President had the individual power to suspend the Geneva Conventions was crap). Now there were indeed some questions about the ICC which involved national sovereignty that led me to believe that the Senate probably wouldn't have ratified it even if Bush hadn't pulled us out of it unilaterally, but the problem of Constitutionality wasn't an issue, I don'e believe.

Access to Natural Resources has been the cornerstone of every nation/empire. Africa, the Middle East and SE Asia are all exploited by major powers. These regions produce gems, plutonium, oil, labor, etc. The form of exploitation depends on the policies of the perpetrator, i.e. actions by government agencies/militasry and/or corporations.

The US government has maintained an international presence (military and corporate) since the mid 1800s, with a significant increase since WWII. At peace and at war, the US gov't and US corporations have worked well together outside the US (inside too but we're talking about foreign policy in this thread.)

Over the last 30 years, "national interests" has been a term used to explain foreign policy and justify military action. Since the 50s, our (the US) national interests have focused on anti-communism and oil. More recently, our interests have expanded to offshore manufacturing and labor resources. Instead of fighting communism, we do business (shitloads) with an oppressive communist regime (China - I believe we should do business with China, but you can't do business with one oppressive regime and overthrow another because it's oppressive. Smart people cry "Foul!" and immediately look for the thieves).

Unfortunately for the world, a lot of greedy people managed to hi-jack this country's gov't in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Their kind, like cockroaches, have infested everything. 100 years ago, during the reign of railroads and steel, large US corporations got into bed with the politicians whose aprroval they required. Since then, our "leaders" too often capitulate to corporate influences (the FCC pops into my head first, followed immediately by the FDA).

It has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. It has to do with corruption. Look at the money being spent on our politicians (http://www.opesecrets.org) Dems, Reps, they are all getting paid. Until that stops, we as US citizens are not being represented. We're being played.

As things are in the US, nobody should expect our gov't to do anything that conflicts with the interests of its corporate masters. Many in the US and abroad disagree with the US gov't's "vision" of the world (pax americana.) It's arrogance and we know it. How can we possibly promote freedom and democracy when we're rapidly becoming one of the most corrupt gov'ts in the world?

Forgive me, I'm especially cynical tonight. I think the people of the US need to focus more on being champions for freedom and democracy and less on being the "greatest nation on earth" (a common phrase I hear from my patriotic friends and relatives.) The best way we can support the global community is by ridding our gov't of corruption.

I believe, given the truth, most US citizens will make good choices.

correction: http://www.opensecrets.org

Concerning things like the IJC I believe it's because it violates or laws contained in it could violate parts of the constitution. Ergo, we will not sign.
The main concern of the US administration is claiming is that the court will be used for US bashing. With every crackpot dictator trying to send, for example, Bush in jail.

While it would probably cost quite a lot of money preparing a legal defense on all these charges, I don't think they should be afraid of this outcome. After all, IIRC, the court is not one with a jury. As such, emotionnal pleas and dislikes are not factored in.

But then, someone would complain of activist judges if it didn't go their way... /sarcasm.

What is the real concern is that the US has done some nasty things in the past (Iran contra, for example) and they are afraid of facing charges for these. But seeing as it is the goal of the Internationnal Court to do these things, I do hope that the US will get their comeuppance for some of the shit they subjected some parts of the world.

It's nothing personnal, it's just that I like it when justice gets done.

Concerning things like the IJC I believe it's because it violates or laws contained in it could violate parts of the constitution. Ergo, we will not sign.

If you are going to make a blanket statement like this, perhaps you could be more specific.

What part of the IJC is in conflict with what part of the Constitiution?

It is this type of wooly statement "it didn't originate in the US, it must be an evil plot against us" that I am trying to eliminate.

If you believe something, provide some evidence.

I am so tired to see threads where people claim that everything is "unfair" to the USA, or is "bashing" the USA.

This includes:

Anything to do with the UN. Despite that the term "United Nations" was first used by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the first meeting was in San Francisco, and the USA has a permanent seat on the Security Council, and the right of veto. If the UN fails to "rubber-stamp" everything the US does, it is obviously being unfair. I have even heard that some nations in the UN do not like the US - this is undoubtedly a disgraceful state of affairs.

The Geneva Convention. Obviously unfair to the United States. They should be permitted to torture when and as required, and to hold people in indefinite detention without trial. After all, other countries do these sort of things. So, why criticise the US? Mind you, the US is free to criticise others, and those doing so will often claim they their nation is merely defending "freedom" and "democracy". The irony appears to be lost on them. Also, I have never been able to follow the "logic" in such claims. If a muderer claimed "Yeah, but other people have committed murder, and some have killed more than I" would you regard that as a valid defence? Actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, not right if some people (or nations) do them and wrong for everybody else.

The Kyoto Protocols, The International War Crimes Commission, The International Court of Justice.

Damn, seems anything with any smack of "international" is merely a cunningly disguised attack on the peaceful and freedom-loving people of the US.

Now, I am happy to admit that the USA is the only current superpower. And that the US does do a lot of good. I just cannot understand why people obviously believe that a special set of rules should apply for the US.

Surely, the one set of rules, and the one set of standards (preeferrably high standards, not seeking to emulate the worst behaviour but striving for the best) should apply to all.

To some readers, this may appear as "flamebait", and to those I apologise in advance.

That is not my intention. I would merely like to see why it is that so many seem to think that the USA is a "special case" requiring special rules, and should be immune from any form of criticism.

Also, I apologise in advance to the many Americans who do not share the "special rules" belief.
I would propose this, if you want Americans to stop thinking of our nation as a special case then stop thinking of and treating the US differently from every other nation. That would certainly go a long way towards ending the idea that the US is a special case.

I would propose this, if you want Americans to stop thinking of our nation as a special case then stop thinking of and treating the US differently from every other nation. That would certainly go a long way towards ending the idea that the US is a special case.
Pray tell, in what way do we treat the US differently?

Who complains about any of these? The US isnt even in them. And neither is half of the population(as far as Kyoto goes, not sure about the other two.)

India, China and the US havent signed the Kyoto treaty..1.5 billion + 1 billion + 300 million= 2.9 billion..about 1/3 of planet earth. Who has signed the Kyoto treaty? Countries already below the standards. Who hasnt signed the Kyoto treaty? Countries who wish to develop unhindered by international law. But hey toss out any international organization and claim folks are bitching about them...
In Kyoto Protocol DEVELOPED nations have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Noone has ever even tried to get China or India to ratify the protocol. All EU countries have to cut their emissions. Russia is the only country (as far as I know) who benefits from it.

edit
Actually China has ratified it, but it's not required to reduce it's emissions as much as developed countries. /edit

I would propose this, if you want Americans to stop thinking of our nation as a special case then stop thinking of and treating the US differently from every other nation. That would certainly go a long way towards ending the idea that the US is a special case.

My point is precisely that the US is not a special case.

Read the forums, you will see many proposing precisely the special treatment which I question. I have provided plenty of examples.

If you wish to seriously debate the matter, perhaps you could address the specific issues that I have raised.

Lets begin with this, the UN. The UN fails to act in vitually any matter without the support of the US. Without a nation to bear the lions-share of risks and costs the UN is unable to function. Any action of the UN without US support is only debate. Any action of the US without the UN"rubber-stamp" is viewed as an attempt to dominate the world, any action the US takes in cooperation with the UN is viewed as an attempt to dominate the UN. Which other nation recieves this treatment?

The various international courts that are proposed pose a particular threat to the US. I know you don't believe this, but you need only look at the people that advocates of these courts scream the loudest to prosecute to see my point. Where is the outcry to try anyone outside the US? Surely there are those outside the US who deserve prosecution. In the US such courts are seen as witch-hunts. Is there any reason to think otherwise?

As far as this special set of rules is concerned, they are as much yours as ours. When is the last time a nation besides the US was criticised for non-intervention in a conflict. For intervention in a conflict not thier own? For percieved exploitation of the third world? Are these actions and inactios of the US alone?

Lets begin with this, the UN. The UN fails to act in vitually any matter without the support of the US. Without a nation to bear the lions-share of risks and costs the UN is unable to function. Any action of the UN without US support is only debate. Any action of the US without the UN"rubber-stamp" is viewed as an attempt to dominate the world, any action the US takes in cooperation with the UN is viewed as an attempt to dominate the UN. Which other nation recieves this treatment?

I'll take you as an example, but my comment goes for many.
The UN is more than military actions. There is so many UN programs that give help in the form of disaster relief, education programs, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the effort to remove anti-personnal mines, and on and on.

The UN is doing plenty even if you don't realize it. For armed conflict and peacekeeping, it has to be aprroved by the security council where 5 nations have veto rights. Of course the UN will never do something military if the US doesn't want to, it would be vetoed. If this was not the case there would be an army in Israel right now to force the peace between them and Palestinians.


The various international courts that are proposed pose a particular threat to the US. I know you don't believe this, but you need only look at the people that advocates of these courts scream the loudest to prosecute to see my point. Where is the outcry to try anyone outside the US? Surely there are those outside the US who deserve prosecution. In the US such courts are seen as witch-hunts. Is there any reason to think otherwise?

And the Internationnal court will prosecute others than americans. The US is scared shitless at the prospect of not being able to do whatever the hell it wants without repercussions. That is why the US is so dead set against it.

It's called accountability and if you hear outcry against the US right now it's because the US is acting like a bull in a china shop when it comes to their foreign policy. If, say, Germany was invading Poland under false pretense or Japan was signing a treaty with South Korea and not respecting their end of the deal, you can bet your ass that there would be outcry.

As far as this special set of rules is concerned, they are as much yours as ours. When is the last time a nation besides the US was criticised for non-intervention in a conflict. For intervention in a conflict not thier own? For percieved exploitation of the third world? Are these actions and inactios of the US alone?

All the time. Russia was criticised plenty during the cold war for all the above reasons. France was criticized not later than 2 years ago because they didn't want to be part of the war in Irak by the US and the UK.

I'll take you as an example, but my comment goes for many. The UN is more than military actions. There is so many UN programs that give help in the form of disaster relief, education programs, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the effort to remove anti-personnal mines, and on and on.
True, the UN does a large job on the Humanitatian front, like the Oil for Food program, that was a Humanitarian program wasnt it?

Just curious, when was the last time you saw an independent audit of UN activities?

The UN is doing plenty even if you don't realize it. For armed conflict and peacekeeping, it has to be aprroved by the security council where 5 nations have veto rights. Of course the UN will never do something military if the US doesn't want to, it would be vetoed. If this was not the case there would be an army in Israel right now to force the peace between them and Palestinians.

The UN wont do what any of the veto holder dont want them to do will they?
- France : Chirac's statement that France would veto ANY resolution authorizing force against Iraq pretty much made certain that Iraq would be a non UN effort didnt it??
- Russia : Chechneya
- China : Tienimen Square
- UK : Odd I cant think of anything off hand about the UK

And about Isreal

Answer me this East Canuck

How many UN resolutions against Israel?
How many condeming suicide bombings in Israel?

Do the numbers here suggest to you that there just might be bias somewhere?

And what would you have the UN soldeirs doing in Israel?
Perhaps this type of activity?

http://www.freedomdomain.com/un/disturbpeace.html
For example, in the African nation of Somalia, peacekeepers on a U.S.-led mission were so brazen they actually took pictures of their atrocities — trophy photos — as souvenirs.
Italian peacekeepers snapped away as they pinned a man to the ground and allegedly shocked his genitals with wires from a radio generator.
Other Italian peacekeepers took photos as they bound a woman to an armored truck and allegedly raped her with a flare gun.
Peacekeepers from Belgium were photographed roasting a boy over an open fire. A witness said the boy went into shock after his clothes caught on fire. The soldiers were acquitted of torture after the child couldn’t be located. The peacekeepers claimed it was just a game to discourage the boy from stealing.

Kyle Brown was a peacekeeper, an elite Canadian paratrooper sent to Somalia on a U.S.-led mission. Part of his job was to help the starving people of Somalia.
But Brown says that when desperate Somalis tried to steal their food, some peacekeepers in his unit turned violent. “That seemed to be the only language that they understood, violence. You know, these people lived and died by violence,” he says.
The peacekeepers tied up a 16-year-old Somali boy at a weapons bunker — nicknamed “the pit” — who had been hanging around the compound.
Brown says the corporal who was supervising him blindfolded the boy, bound his legs, and tied his hands behind his back.
According to Brown, the corporal kicked the boy, then beat him with a baton and a lead pipe. Soldiers later testified the beating continued for hours and more than a dozen different peacekeepers came by to watch and some even joined in, including Brown.
In all, more than 80 soldiers heard the boy’s screams, and no one came to his rescue.
But peacekeeper Brown did pull out his camera and take pictures. He says it was his corporal’s idea.
A medic later found cigarette burns on the teenager’s feet and genitals and evidence that he was raped with the peacekeepers’ baton. After hours of torture, the boy finally died.

Oh my goodness, Canadians tortured someone to death?
How could this have ever happened with peacefull and generous Canadians on the job?

Why wasnt this front page news for Weeks and even Months?
Any Ideas East Canuck?
Maybe because it wasnt important?
or
Maybe becuase it wasnt Americans doing it?

or perhaps you would have the UN doing this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1287926/posts

In Kosovo, some of these women "are threatened, beaten, raped, and effectively imprisoned by their owners," Amnesty International reported in May. "With clients including international police and troops, the girls and women are often too afraid to escape, and the authorities are failing to help them. It is outrageous that the very same people who are there to protect these women and girls are using their position and exploiting them instead - and they are getting away with it."

or perhaps
http://www.ssrc.org/programs/gsc/gsc_quarterly/newsletter5/content/graybill.page

Although the blue helmets were initially welcomed by their hosts for their anticipated contributions to peace, they may impact negatively on women's security in conflict countries, as they are often the perpetrators of acts of gender violence against the vulnerable populations they are mandated to protect. Peacekeepers in Somalia (United Nations Operations in Somalia I and UNOSOM II), Mozambique (UNOMOZ), and Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) have been accused of raping civilian women and promoting the illegal sex industry in those countries.

or perhaps

http://www.womenagainstrape.net/dark_side_of_peacekeeping.htm
There is nothing surprising about rape in Sierra Leone. ....
The report also describes how a 12-year-old girl was raped in March 2001 by a Guinean peacekeeper manning a checkpoint after she asked him to help her get a ride to Freetown, the Sierra Leone capital. A soldier was charged and taken to court the same day. However, the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) dropped the case and the soldier was sent back to Guinea.

Lovely group your advocating there East Canuck, sure you dont want to take a shower to remove the slime ?

So tell me who would provide the manpower of this effort East Canuck?

I am assuming you will want to station UN peacekeepers along the boarders between Israel and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to keep those horrid Israeli suicide bombers out of the Palestienian areas, so your going to need a LOT of manpower, say 50,000 or so...

Whos gonna pony up the soldeirs East Canuck? Canada?
http://www.satirewire.com/news/feb02/warship.shtml Relax Canuck, its satire...see its even in the web pages title.

And what are you going to do to ensure every soldier in the group has no Anti-Semetic or Anti-Arab tendencies East Canuck?

After all wouldnt it be really distressing if one of your precious peacekeepers were brough up on a hate crime charge cause he said the wrong word...oh wait...they dont get brought up on charges do they?

And the Internationnal court will prosecute others than americans. The US is scared shitless at the prospect of not being able to do whatever the hell it wants without repercussions. That is why the US is so dead set against it.

Any of the men in the UN peacekeeping forces above been prosecuted East Canuck? I gave you pleanty of references so far, so why dont you produce some references to the ICC court case numbers for the Canadians up above, Should have made the news in Canada when the men were prosecuted by the ICC so you should have no problems turning up a reference.

Odd how Russia hasnt ratified the ICC treaty yet either, why didnt you mention them too East Canuck? Or would it have taken some of the support out of your arguement to mention that they dont accept it either?

And just Maybe we have OTHER concerns with the treaty, dare you to read Note # 1 on the bottom of the web page East Canuck.
http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp

But is doesnt really matter to the US does it East Canuck? Because we sent in this letter to the UN

In a communication received on 6 May 2002, the Government of the United States of America informed the Secretary-General of the following:

"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."

So the US can blithly IGNORE the ICC, since we are not becoming a party to this treaty, cant we East Canuck?


It's called accountability and if you hear outcry against the US right now it's because the US is acting like a bull in a china shop when it comes to their foreign policy. If, say, Germany was invading Poland under false pretense or Japan was signing a treaty with South Korea and not respecting their end of the deal, you can bet your ass that there would be outcry.

Russian Intellegence Before the war:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

Hans Blixx found this, but you dont care since it could have only threatened Israel eh East Canuck??
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10B15FC3F5E0C708DDDAB0894DB404482

Check out picture # 2 Can anyone here translate the German or the Russian on the center box and let us know what it says?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/graphics/phantom_fury/flash.htm

Or maybe you can read the box on the left side East Canuck,
Tell me what is that material anyway?

As far as treaties go, well did you read Note # 1 on the web page
( http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty10.asp ) Eact Canuck?

Tell me would you sign a mortgage contract and let the mortgage company increase the interest rate on you, say double it or triple it?, and still feel you were morally obliged into "respecting their ( Read Your end East Canuck ) end of the deal"

Would you do that East Canuck?

All the time. Russia was criticised plenty during the cold war for all the above reasons. France was criticized not later than 2 years ago because they didn't want to be part of the war in Irak by the US and the UK.

Really? The UN critisized France for not participating in the Iraq war? I never heard that

Was France critisized for their military intervention in the Ivory Coast since it didnt have UN sanction or mandate?

How about you produce a reference showing an UN official critisizing France for that East Canuck, better yet, find a reference where Koffi Aman calls France's intervention in the Ivory Coast Illegal East Canuck, cause otherwise you have no credibility to make the above statement East Canuck

True, the UN does a large job on the Humanitatian front, like the Oil for Food program, that was a Humanitarian program wasnt it?

Just curious, when was the last time you saw an independent audit of UN activities?

The Oil for Food program was aprooved by the security council, IIRC. Besides, there's still investigation on it. Who knows, maybe we'll find that there wasn't so much wrongdoing as some would have us believe.

Besides, I would like to state that the UN is in no way, has never been and was never designed to be a country. You seem to treat it like it is. It a bunch of people from all the member countries who get together and try to better the world. Any and all references to scandals you sent my way are made by individual persons who happened to be working for the UN when it happened. While it's true that the UN lacks some regulatory system to audit and/or supervise what happens in different programs, I want to state that things are like that because the members wanted it that way.

Why by your rationale, we could say the Abu Graib scandal was a UN fault as the US is a member.

As for the internationaal court, it wasn't in place when the cases you're mentionned happened. Since the court has some rules as to what it can review (one of those being nothing before it's formal ratification and inception) they couldn't have worked on it. Besides, as with all courts, someone has to send a case for it to be reviewed. If nobody bothered, nothing will get done.

Yes the US will not be under the Court as you so aptly demonstrated. That is mainly why we ask why the US doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. I have given what I think the reasons are, although I admit not being an expert on the dossier.

I just want to further comment on:

Really? The UN critisized France for not participating in the Iraq war? I never heard that

Was France critisized for their military intervention in the Ivory Coast since it didnt have UN sanction or mandate?

How about you produce a reference showing an UN official critisizing France for that East Canuck, better yet, find a reference where Koffi Aman calls France's intervention in the Ivory Coast Illegal East Canuck, cause otherwise you have no credibility to make the above statement East Canuck

Where, in the original post by Deelo or in my answer did you get that we were still talking about the UN? We went past it in the first paragraph and tackled another issue. So my comments were right on the money, as far as I'm concerned.

The Oil for Food program was aprooved by the security council, IIRC. Besides, there's still investigation on it. Who knows, maybe we'll find that there wasn't so much wrongdoing as some would have us believe.

We can hope so, but I would expect it to only get worse, call me cynical if you will.

Besides, I would like to state that the UN is in no way, has never been and was never designed to be a country. You seem to treat it like it is. It a bunch of people from all the member countries who get together and try to better the world. Any and all references to scandals you sent my way are made by individual persons who happened to be working for the UN when it happened. While it's true that the UN lacks some regulatory system to audit and/or supervise what happens in different programs, I want to state that things are like that because the members wanted it that way.

Yeah you get humans involved they are always going to muck up the works.
Truthfully I used to think very highly of the UN, but the last twenty years or so I have seen, ( what is in my perception ), the UN becoming more openly corrupt and parasitic.

Why by your rationale, we could say the Abu Graib scandal was a UN fault as the US is a member.

No, the UN didnt authorize the Iraqi war so I wouldnt blame anything that goes wrong there on the UN.

As for the internationaal court, it wasn't in place when the cases you're mentionned happened. Since the court has some rules as to what it can review (one of those being nothing before it's formal ratification and inception) they couldn't have worked on it. Besides, as with all courts, someone has to send a case for it to be reviewed. If nobody bothered, nothing will get done.

Canada ratified the ICC in July 2000. The articles I posted were from 1999 to 2004, someone should be bringing some of this up to the court dont you think?
Any idea if any of these cases were prosecuted by the ICC?

Yes the US will not be under the Court as you so aptly demonstrated. That is mainly why we ask why the US doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. I have given what I think the reasons are, although I admit not being an expert on the dossier.

Doesnt someone have to ratify a treaty to be obligated to "play by the rules"?

And why point at the US when the Russian Federation isnt "playing" either? Do they also get "special rules"?

And this "playing by the rules"

Why would anyone cry foul on the Geneva Convention (GC) in conjunction with the prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Grabi?
Those people, at least the terrorists, have forfeted their right to be protected by the GC, thus the US, nor anyone else, is obligated to treat with them as being protected by the GC. (see posts 65 and 101)
Though I do agree that torture isnt an effective way of gaining information, and inhumane, it s a moot point in reference to the GC and terrorists.

I just want to further comment on:
Where, in the original post by Deelo or in my answer did you get that we were still talking about the UN? We went past it in the first paragraph and tackled another issue. So my comments were right on the money, as far as I'm concerned.

My appologizes, I misread the intent of the paragraph. it was in reference to counties being critisized. I thought of Koffi Aman's critisisim of the US invasion of Iraq calling it illegal as a critisism. But if its broader than that who has critisized France's intervention in the Ivory Coast? Anyone?

Thanks for the interesting conversation

We can hope so, but I would expect it to only get worse, call me cynical if you will.

You're probably right, but hey, I'm an optimist...

Canada ratified the ICC in July 2000. The articles I posted were from 1999 to 2004, someone should be bringing some of this up to the court dont you think?
Any idea if any of these cases were prosecuted by the ICC?

We have to wait for enough coutries to ratify it to take effect. Then it has to officialized with some paperwork, and by naming at least one judge. As soon as this is done, we get what I will call 'hour 1'. Anything before 'hour 1' is not reviewable by the court. Things happening in 2004 are probably admissible. Things like the Oil for Food would be admissible but we still need a final report on it before former charges can be issued.


Doesnt someone have to ratify a treaty to be obligated to "play by the rules"?

And why point at the US when the Russian Federation isnt "playing" either? Do they also get "special rules"?

I wasn't aware that Russia did not sign. I'm not surprised they didn't and, now that you mention it, I want to know why they don't want to too.

However, this thread was started to ask about the US and I feel we should start another one to ask about Russia. Also, the thread pointed at many things where the US is percieved to be playing by a different set of rules. Russia did sign Kyoto, for example.

And this "playing by the rules"

Why would anyone cry foul on the Geneva Convention (GC) in conjunction with the prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Grabi?
Those people, at least the terrorists, have forfeted their right to be protected by the GC, thus the US, nor anyone else, is obligated to treat with them as being protected by the GC. (see posts 65 and 101)
Though I do agree that torture isnt an effective way of gaining information, and inhumane, it s a moot point in reference to the GC and terrorists.

Well, we seems to have different interpretation of the GCs. You choose the strictest, narrowest interpretation possible while I feel that the GCs ought to encompass so-called ennemy combatant.

Also, I believe that if you want to treat these combattants fairly, you should use the GC in their treatment. Either way, I am appalled at the legal loophole where the Gitmo prisoners seems to be struck and would never, if elected, hide behing things like that to justify keeping someone indefinitely, without outside contact, and without rights to speak of. While you can justify it before the law, I would say "treat them as prisoners of war, the law be damned." But then, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, is that surprising?

I do concede that your argument is pretty airtight if we go by your interpretation.

My appologizes, I misread the intent of the paragraph. it was in reference to counties being critisized. I thought of Koffi Aman's critisisim of the US invasion of Iraq calling it illegal as a critisism. But if its broader than that who has critisized France's intervention in the Ivory Coast? Anyone?

Thanks for the interesting conversation

No harm done.

As for France and the Ivory Coast: I saw it more as a rescue mission to evacuate French citizens while there was a rebellion going on. I would never criticize the US for similar actions if it was while engaged to rescue US citizens. I feel the French were caught in a terribly difficult situation and acted on how they felt was the best course of action.

However, I'm not very familiar with this whole subject and my news sources comes from French papers. Hardly what I would call an unbiased judgement from my part.

And with that I bid you Happy New Year as I am leaving for some celebrating.

You're probably right, but hey, I'm an optimist...

:) I envy you a bit for your optimisim, perhaps I am a bit more worldweary, a touch too cynical.

Whatever the case, may you keep your optimism in the New Year and find that it cleaves to the truth more clolesly than my cynicisim ( Never could spell that word )

After all in this I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

We have to wait for enough coutries to ratify it to take effect. Then it has to officialized with some paperwork, and by naming at least one judge. As soon as this is done, we get what I will call 'hour 1'. Anything before 'hour 1' is not reviewable by the court. Things happening in 2004 are probably admissible. Things like the Oil for Food would be admissible but we still need a final report on it before former charges can be issued.

Well I wish you well, appearently the changes slipped into the final document after the conference (with out reveiw by at least two signatory nations ) were enough to cause the US, (which had signed the conference document) to with hold ratification of the treaty.


I wasn't aware that Russia did not sign. I'm not surprised they didn't and, now that you mention it, I want to know why they don't want to too.

However, this thread was started to ask about the US and I feel we should start another one to ask about Russia. Also, the thread pointed at many things where the US is percieved to be playing by a different set of rules. Russia did sign Kyoto, for example.

Yes they did, are they abidding by it? I have not heard much on the adhearence to Kyoto, which I find odd. It could be the slant US news has to the Dramatic and sensational ( and outright deporessing at time ), after all reporting someone did something they agreed to do is hardly breaht catching news is it? :rolleyes:


Well, we seems to have different interpretation of the GCs. You choose the strictest, narrowest interpretation possible while I feel that the GCs ought to encompass so-called ennemy combatant.

Also, I believe that if you want to treat these combattants fairly, you should use the GC in their treatment. Either way, I am appalled at the legal loophole where the Gitmo prisoners seems to be struck and would never, if elected, hide behing things like that to justify keeping someone indefinitely, without outside contact, and without rights to speak of. While you can justify it before the law, I would say "treat them as prisoners of war, the law be damned." But then, I'm a bleeding heart liberal, is that surprising?

I do concede that your argument is pretty airtight if we go by your interpretation.

Well, I had one advantage in this discussion, since about 1985 through 2002 I was breifed semi annually on the Laws of Armed Conflict. I know ( and so do the soldiers in the field ) what can, and can not be done in accordance with the GC done to the bone ( well almost )
It was stressed repeatedly during each briefing that if we violated the GC we could be facing a military tribunal on the field right then and there. Decision of the officer in charge would be reveiwed, but if they shot your ass right then and there, it would be small consolation to your next of kin.

That was enough to make a person sit up and pay attention during those, depending on the briefer 1 to 4 hour long, deadly dull briefings.

Now admittedly they dont shoot soldiers in the field for hardly anything these days. But, depending on the offense, death would be an option of the officer in charge under the UCMJ.

Firing unprovoked upon the civilian population is one of those things that can have you asked, "Do you want a blindfold with that ciggerette?"

Stripping off your uniform ( with the exception of attempting to escape ), in the course of your military duties was another that they hammered on. Such action "Would bring dishonor upon the US military forces" and trust me they hold a great deal of pride in the Honor of the service. It was understood that that doing, to gain a military advantage, could get you shot.

Also it was stressed that capturing an Non uniformed soldier of enemy forces, otherwise known as ( drumroll please ) a non lawful combatant, was doing a service not only to the US forces. But to the civilian population as well since these non lawful combatants tend to do things like, use human shields, bomb public throughfairs, ( think Improvised Explosive Device ) target hospitals and various other violations of the GC that would harm the civilain population and could be used to turn public opinion in the territory occupied and the US, against the US forces.

And while I would admit that many of the prisoners in GITMO and Abu Ghrabi may fall under the definition of an organized militia, not required to have uniforms, (but still required to carry weapons openly yada yada yada) weeding them out from the actual terrorists is a difficult thing to do.

That the men caught up with the terrorists are being held longer than they should is something that *I* feel they should be compensated for, perhaps on the pay scale for a Non Comissioned Officer performing labor in a POW camp, once it has been determined that "this person is not a terrorist". Have that pay given to them for every day and every fraction of a day they were held prisoner. This may seem cold but for some of the prisoners this would be more money than they have ever seen in their lifetimes. (what? 12 swiss francs per day X every day ) The prisoners might even consider it addequate compensation themselves.

And sorry, as for the actual terrorists, I feel they have abondoned their claim to all rights.

;) But then again I am a cold hearted mean spirited and callous conservitive, what did you expect?


No harm done.

As for France and the Ivory Coast: I saw it more as a rescue mission to evacuate French citizens while there was a rebellion going on. I would never criticize the US for similar actions if it was while engaged to rescue US citizens. I feel the French were caught in a terribly difficult situation and acted on how they felt was the best course of action.

However, I'm not very familiar with this whole subject and my news sources comes from French papers. Hardly what I would call an unbiased judgement from my part.

I heard of the people saved, I also heard of people killed. then again like you I can not be called an expert on the subject, this was just something that I saw as fairly hypocritical of the French. Then again my news sources have their own biases do they not?

For once I would like to hear nothing but the truth. :headbang:

But it would probably bore me to tears.


And with that I bid you Happy New Year as I am leaving for some celebrating.

I am spending the evening with family, a quiet night of relaxation and peace.

Speaking of Peace, I wish you and yours a Peacefull and Joyous New Year.

:eek: *blinks* Did a self confessed Liberal Canadian and a self confessed American Conservative (Southern Even!) just agree on some points?

Maybe there is hope for the human race ;)

Respectfully to East Canuck

AAhhzz
*No animals were harmed in the making of this post, but a gaudrillion electrons were excited!*

:eek: *blinks* Did a self confessed Liberal Canadian and a self confessed American Conservative (Southern Even!) just agree on some points?

Maybe there is hope for the human race ;)


I just read your conversation, and it was a very interesting one. I'm an American Conservative (Not Southern though) and those points made sense to me too.

:) I envy you a bit for your optimisim, perhaps I am a bit more worldweary, a touch too cynical.

:eek: *blinks* Did a self confessed Liberal Canadian and a self confessed American Conservative (Southern Even!) just agree on some points?

Maybe there is hope for the human race ;)

Respectfully to East Canuck

AAhhzz
*No animals were harmed in the making of this post, but a gaudrillion electrons were excited!*

Excellent dialog done very well by both parties. I am also a conservative American so I guess you know where I stand. Again, congratulations to the both of you and have a great New Year

*blinks* Did a self confessed Liberal Canadian and a self confessed American Conservative (Southern Even!) just agree on some points?

Maybe there is hope for the human race

Respectfully to East Canuck

AAhhzz
*No animals were harmed in the making of this post, but a gaudrillion electrons were excited!*

I just read your conversation, and it was a very interesting one. I'm an American Conservative (Not Southern though) and those points made sense to me too.

Excellent dialog done very well by both parties. I am also a conservative American so I guess you know where I stand. Again, congratulations to the both of you and have a great New Year

Thank you eryone for the praise. I couldn't have done it alone so I congratulate AAhhzz for his part in this holiday miracle. Happy New Year to all the American Conservative. I believe there is hope for you lot yet, as you can still have a civilized debate. ;)

Thank you eryone for the praise. I couldn't have done it alone so I congratulate AAhhzz for his part in this holiday miracle. Happy New Year to all the American Conservative. I believe there is hope for you lot yet, as you can still have a civilized debate. ;)

*bows slightly at the waist sweeping hat of head*

Hats off to you as well Sir
( ok total guess as to gender, but the gesture seems to demand a respectful pronoun, if I am wrong let me know :) )

Happy New Year to Everyone, Leftists, Liberals, Conservitives, Neo-Cons, whatever your flavor, I hope the New Year brings you the Peace and Joy and Blessings that this past year has brought to me.
( and truthfully I am a Happy Man indeed )

And East Canuck, I feel hope for us all, as long as humans can have reasonable debates like this one.

Respectfully

AAhhzz
*wanders off wondering if East Canuck and myself should start a consulting firm teaching politicians how to have reasonable debates*

Yes they did, are they abidding by it? I have not heard much on the adhearence to Kyoto, which I find odd. It could be the slant US news has to the Dramatic and sensational ( and outright deporessing at time ), after all reporting someone did something they agreed to do is hardly breaht catching news is it? :rolleyes:

Russia is complying with Kyoto. Compliance being set at 90% of 1990 CO2 emissions.

In 1990 Communist USSR supplied manufactured goods to the entire communist world. Collapse of communism meant that by 1995 CO2 emissions had fallen by 40%, as the formerly communist world realised Russian made anything was crap and all the Russian factories went bust. This means Russia can sell credits for the CO2 it does not produce to Europe for millions of dollars.

It was always a surprise they didn't ratify amoung the first few countries.

As a side note