NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Threatens Bolivia in Effort to Secure Criminal Court Immunity

Commentary/Analysis, Luis Bredow and Jim Shultz,
Pacific News Service, Mar 03, 2005

COCHABAMBA, Bolivia--The U.S. government is demanding that the Bolivian Congress approve an agreement that would grant immunity to U.S. troops and officials accused of human rights violations, exempting them from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. That effort, which includes a threat to withhold financial aid and access to free trade, seems to be backfiring.

It was in the ICC that the former Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was tried for crimes against humanity. The United States, alongside China, Iraq, Libya and others, is one of just seven nations to vote against the treaty. Many believe that the war in Iraq and cases of U.S. torture have made the United States vulnerable to criminal charges of international human rights violations.
...
Since then, the Bush administration has been pressuring poor countries worldwide to ratify bilateral immunity pacts with the United States, often under the threat of withholding aid. Government officials say that the United States has already secured more than 90 such agreements. At least 50 governments, however, have refused to cede to the U.S. demands. The new president of Uruguay recently announced that his government would refuse the U.S. request, declaring that his country honors its international agreements.

...the United States has just upped the ante, by adding the threat of withholding economic aid, a sanction included in an amendment approved by the U.S. Congress late last year. Human Rights Watch reports that U.S. diplomats have informally threatened economic sanctions for some time. The group says that an assistant secretary of state informed foreign ministers of Caribbean states that they would lose the benefits for hurricane relief if their governments did not sign immunity accords.

"U.S. ambassadors have been acting like schoolyard bullies," wrote Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch, in a letter to then-U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell.

Some within the Bolivian government have pressed hard for the country to cede to the United States' request. The Bolivian minister of government, responding to charges that such a resolution was an affront to the nation's dignity, was quoted as saying, "You can't eat dignity." Last year the Bolivian Senate approved an immunity pact, creating a political uproar. The lower house has steadfastly refused.

U.S. power is a major political flashpoint in Bolivia. The U.S. government is at the heart of the controversial war on drugs here, and U.S.-forced eradication of coca farms is an ongoing target of public protest and accusations of human rights abuses.
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=40d8f93957008266edbc544c21df75be

So far the Score is like this:

The Bolivian people has slapped hard on the Political party that was bending over to BUSH.. (RIP, good riddance , etc.)

The US has cut 96% of military aid to Bolivia.

So this is what the USA calls democracy? :D

It was in the ICC that the former Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, was tried for crimes against humanity.

Nope, that is a clear lie. His trial, which is not over by the way, is being held before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. (http://www.un.org/icty/)

The ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/) has no jurisdiction over crimes committed before its statute entered into force on 1 July 2002, or over crimes for which one is already being prosecuted (unless it is a mock trial designed to "protect" one from the ICC, in which case this provision is invalid). Slobodan Milosevic was apprehended in 2001.

This bullshit is typical of USian policy towards Latin America, and highlights one of the problems with the current manner of delivering foreign aid to poorer countries. If I were Morales, I would say 'no' to the US and find other forms of support within the latin American community.

Things like this make it difficult for me to be calm and polite to the USian government and its supporters.

Basta!

Gee, I wonder what the neocons here have to say about such a WONDERFUL, DEMOCRACY-SPREADING NATION as the US doing THIS KIND OF SHIT!

Word for the wise: Try that with Brazil and die.

You know what everyone should do out of spite? Demand the US pay back all debts, in full, immediately.

So all means, including brutal and devastating wars, are legitimate to bring official enemies to justice, but whenever the US commits atrocities, the very possibility of prosecution is heresy?

The US continues its long history of respect for freedom, human rights, and democracy.

You know what everyone should do out of spite? Demand the US pay back all debts, in full, immediately.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.
I was thinking the same damn thing. personally, I'm an isolationist. I think the US as a whole has dipped it's hand in the rest of the world too far. Lets make a Fortress nation. Bring back the Iron Belt, bring back US internal manufacturing, bring back US-owned research. Let teh rest of the world go on without us, tehy obviously don't want us here.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.

then we could start a the world against U.S. debate ... and ask your self why the others where so babaric... wouldn't be any fun huh?.,.... why dont ya face it ...they are running out of oil.. and soon they will beg the other world contryes to help them....

then we could start a the world against U.S. debate ... and ask your self why the others where so babaric... wouldn't be any fun huh?.,.... why dont ya face it ...they are running out of oil.. and soon they will beg the other world contryes to help them....
Uhh, actually, the WORLD is running out of oil. However, at least three thermal depolymerization plants are operating in the US, making gasoline and other light oil-based products from waste. How many in the rest of the world, I wonder? Who will run out first?

EDIT: Capitalization and that damned 't' and 'h' switch thing I do.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.

By all means, I won't call for the US debt to be charged, but I WILL call you to CUT THE CRAP ABOUT RESPECTING DEMOCRACY WHEN YOU WANT OTHER COUNTRIES TO HAVE THE SAME SHODDY HUMAN RIGHTS THAT YOU DO IN GUANTÁNAMO!

Answer THIS, Corneliu.

By all means, I won't call for the US debt to be charged, but I WILL call you to CUT THE CRAP ABOUT RESPECTING DEMOCRACY WHEN YOU WANT OTHER COUNTRIES TO HAVE THE SAME SHODDY HUMAN RIGHTS THAT YOU DO IN GUANTÁNAMO!

Answer THIS, Corneliu.

uh? I''m confused by the word you here. Yes I'm an American but I have no control over what the government does. I'm not a Congressmen nor a Senator. Those two bodies would be better suited for something like this.

uh? I''m confused by the word you here. Yes I'm an American but I have no control over what the government does. I'm not a Congressmen nor a Senator. Those two bodies would be better suited for something like this.

You = collective.

You, Corneliu, being a neocon, neglected to answer anything but the debt remark. Kindly explain the position of your government (one you're famous for supporting) or distance yourself from it.

You = collective.

You, Corneliu, being a neocon, neglected to answer anything but the debt remark. Kindly explain the position of your government (one you're famous for supporting) or distance yourself from it.

1) Calm yourself. Your getting hyper over nothing.

2) I do not know enough about this particular subject and I also know the OceanDrive2 has an annoying habit of turning something that is nothing into molehills.

3) As to the website, if this was going on, it'll be in the Washington Post and I subscribe to them online and get their news inside my email box and this has yet to make it in there.

4) I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever that the charges they are stating here are accurate. Where is the evidence? I am also not seeing the government's side in this story either. Proper Journalism should have both sides present in an article. I'm not seeing the government's side of the story.

5) I'll respond to whatever post I well please.

1) Calm yourself. Your getting hyper over nothing.

No, I'm getting furious at the prospect of the people I elected in MY country being used for this. If it happens in Bolivia, what's to keep it from happening in Brazil, where (and yes, I'll rub it in) the US helped stage a coup once already?

I'm not seeing any evidence whatsoever that the charges they are stating here are accurate. Where is the evidence? I am also not seeing the government's side in this story either. Proper Journalism should have both sides present in an article. I'm not seeing the government's side of the story.I'll respond to whatever post I well please.

Oh, you mean both sides? Okay, would you like to see Saddam's side of the Iraq War in a newspaper? Because that's how Dubya and the neocons are acting by using diplomats to bully nations into accepting to forfeit human rights. And you're free not to answer posts, but, rest assured, if you do not, you'll prove that their (your) side is getting more and more indefensible by the minute.

I also know the OceanDrive2 has an annoying habit of turning something that is nothing into molehills
Dang it, Corneliu - when WILL you take a course in remedial english?? If you don't feel that you owe it to yourself, realize that you owe it to the rest of us.

No, I'm getting furious at the prospect of the people I elected in MY country being used for this. If it happens in Bolivia, what's to keep it from happening in Brazil, where (and yes, I'll rub it in) the US helped stage a coup once already?

Yes I can see you are getting angry. However, you really do need to calm down otherwise your going to say something that you are going to regret. I do not want to see anyone here get a warning or a ban hence why I'm asking you to calm down.

Oh, you mean both sides? Okay, would you like to see Saddam's side of the Iraq War in a newspaper?

Actually, I would love to see Sadam's side in a Newspaper.

Because that's how Dubya and the neocons are acting by using diplomats to bully nations into accepting to forfeit human rights. And you're free not to answer posts, but, rest assured, if you do not, you'll prove that their (your) side is getting more and more indefensible by the minute.

My side is my side. I support the Office of the President. I do not support any one ideology. Yes I am a republican but that is my choice. Just because I am a republican does not make me a neocon. I have my own ideas on how to run this country but they are my ideas. Just like I'm sure you have your own ideas on how this country should be run but they are your ideas.

As to something being indefensible, I wouldn't go around throwing charges that you cannot back up.

Yes I can see you are getting angry. However, you really do need to calm down otherwise your going to say something that you are going to regret. I do not want to see anyone here get a warning or a ban hence why I'm asking you to calm down.

What you just wrote there is against the rules, as I recall. You can't threaten Mod action.

I think you should retract your statement.

Yes I can see you are getting angry. However, you really do need to calm down otherwise your going to say something that you are going to regret. I do not want to see anyone here get a warning or a ban hence why I'm asking you to calm down.

Oh, right, silly me, because I have no reason to be angry at the prospect of my country's sovereignity being made into a memory.


My side is my side. I support the Office of the President. I do not support any one ideology. Yes I am a republican but that is my choice. Just because I am a republican does not make me a neocon. I have my own ideas on how to run this country but they are my ideas. Just like I'm sure you have your own ideas on how this country should be run but they are your ideas. As to something being indefensible, I wouldn't go around throwing charges that you cannot back up.

Let's see, a country using diplomatic pressure to WORSEN another countries' human rights records. Yeah, that's as defensible and innocent as picking daisies. I'd love to hear your theory on it.

What you just wrote there is against the rules, as I recall. You can't threaten Mod action.

I think you should retract your statement.

I didn't threaten Mod action.

Oh, right, silly me, because I have no reason to be angry at the prospect of my country's sovereignity being made into a memory.

I didn't say you didn't have reason to be angry. I'm just trying to keep this as civilized as possible.

Let's see, a country using diplomatic pressure to WORSEN another countries' human rights records. Yeah, that's as defensible and innocent as picking daisies. I'd love to hear your theory on it.

I'm still waiting for proof of this.

What you just wrote there is against the rules, as I recall. You can't threaten Mod action.

I think you should retract your statement.

By all means, let him be, I love to watch irony happen...

then we could start a the world against U.S. debate ... and ask your self why the others where so babaric... wouldn't be any fun huh?.,.... why dont ya face it ...they are running out of oil.. and soon they will beg the other world contryes to help them....

The last nation on this Earth that will run out of oil is the US. The US does not tap into it's own supply like other nations do. Why? because when the shit hits the fan and the oil bus comes to a grinding stop. The US will say oh wait we got all this oil here we haven't even touched. The enviromentalist are obviously behind this evil plot to plunder the world of it's oil. All the while secretly laughing when they put on there show and block the ANWR bill. You heard this conspiracy theory right here first. :D

I didn't say you didn't have reason to be angry. I'm just trying to keep this as civilized as possible.



I'm still waiting for proof of this.

http://www.google.com.br/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22You+can%27t+eat+dignity.%22+Bolivia&btnG=Search

Several links, and that's only by using the quotes...

3) As to the website, if this was going on, it'll be in the Washington Post and I subscribe to them online and get their news inside my email box and this has yet to make it in there.

I certainly don't intend to get caught up in this already "hyper" "debate", but are you seriously telling me you don't know that this vote buying/diplomatic blackmailing has been going on for years now?

Now, I only read the New York Times, but the Washington Post can't possibly be that bad.

Since I seem to recall that you like to have several "reliable" sources for proof, I'd suggest you'd just google something along the lines of "international criminal court US bilateral" and pick whatever is to your liking.
These are basics, so no, I'm not going to do it for you.

http://www.google.com.br/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22You+can%27t+eat+dignity.%22+Bolivia&btnG=Search

Several links, and that's only by using the quotes...

I see nothing from the Times, the Post, The Washington Times, USAToday or the Wall Street Journal.

I certainly don't intend to get caught up in this already "hyper" "debate", but are you seriously telling me you don't know that this vote buying/diplomatic blackmailing has been going on for years now?

Now, I only read the New York Times, but the Washington Post can't possibly be that bad.

Since I seem to recall that you like to have several "reliable" sources for proof, I'd suggest you'd just google something along the lines of "international criminal court US bilateral" and pick whatever is to your liking.
These are basics, so no, I'm not going to do it for you.

Its called politics. Its been going on for decades. Look at the Cold War.

Its called politics. Its been going on for decades. Look at the Cold War.
Just because bad shit's been going down for a long time doesn't make the shit any more palatable, nor does it make a persuasive argument to let it continue.

That's what you might call "apathy". Political apathy. The willful kind.

No, I'm getting furious at the prospect of the people I elected in MY country being used for this. If it happens in Bolivia, what's to keep it from happening in Brazil, where (and yes, I'll rub it in) the US helped stage a coup once already?

Other nations put political pressure on each other every single day. That is world politics. No nation on this planet can get away from it.



Oh, you mean both sides? Okay, would you like to see Saddam's side of the Iraq War in a newspaper? Because that's how Dubya and the neocons are acting by using diplomats to bully nations into accepting to forfeit human rights. And you're free not to answer posts, but, rest assured, if you do not, you'll prove that their (your) side is getting more and more indefensible by the minute.

Saddam's side of the story? Are you serious when saying this? We all know Saddam's side of the story. That is why is in a jail cell waiting for the day they hang him. Last time I checked any nation has the right to say no to political pressure. I think you saying "forfeiture of human rights" doesn't really apply to this scenerio.

I see nothing from the Times, the Post, The Washington Times, USAToday or the Wall Street Journal.

Considering that the Washington Times had an editorial that proposed a(nother) military coup in my country in case Lula got elected here (he did) on the grounds that he's a socialist (he isn't, and, even if he were, mind your own fucking business), I fail to see how much your evidence criteria is better than mine. Oh, wait, it isn't.

Just because bad shit's been going down for a long time doesn't make the shit any more palatable, nor does it make a persuasive argument to let it continue.

I agree with you. However, I'm still looking for proof and see what really is going on.

Considering that the Washington Times had an editorial that proposed a(nother) military coup in my country in case Lula got elected here (he did) on the grounds that he's a socialist (he isn't, and, even if he were, mind your own fucking business), I fail to see how much your evidence criteria is better than mine. Oh, wait, it isn't.

And just what nation are you in? I sincerely doubt there'll be a military coup in Bolivia or in anyother country with the US being behind it.

Also, you really shouldn't listen to editorials. I don't.

Saddam's side of the story? Are you serious when saying this? We all know Saddam's side of the story. That is why is in a jail cell waiting for the day they hang him. Last time I checked any nation has the right to say no to political pressure. I think you saying "forfeiture of human rights" doesn't really apply to this scenerio.

I do NOT want to hear his side of the story, but, yes, trying to make people immune to prosecution for human rights crimes IS acting like Saddam acted.

Its called politics. Its been going on for decades. Look at the Cold War.
Oh, you know, I don't really care what you call it, I just wanted to make sure you weren't actually saying it wasn't happening.

Which, if I read that post correctly, you suddenly aren't anymore.

And just what nation are you in? I sincerely doubt there'll be a military coup in Bolivia or in anyother country with the US being behind it.

In Brazil. My point being that the Washington Times you use as "evidence" is but a piece of sh*t newspaper that supported staging a coup here in 2002.

Wow.... is anyone really surprised that these types of shenanigans didn't go on before? :rolleyes:

Oh, you know, I don't really care what you call it, I just wanted to make sure you weren't actually saying it wasn't happening.

Which, if I read that post correctly, you suddenly aren't anymore.

I don't think I really gave an opinion on it. All I said was that I am not seeing proof substanciating it.

I do NOT want to hear his side of the story, but, yes, trying to make people immune to prosecution for human rights crimes IS acting like Saddam acted.

The reasoning behind the US being against this issue is simply this. There are many people out there for nefarious reasons that would love to try US soldiers for political reasons. The US has enough safeguards in the military to police it's own. I am confident that any soldier brought up on human rights violations and convicted will serve time. It is not acceptable for human rights violations in the US military. Now many would argue that the simple act of war is a human rights violation. This is where international jurisdiction would come into play. When a war is not politically ok with another nation you could see charges brought up. This is the biggest problem with the "treaty". Which the US should not sign in my book. To many haters out there for it to be fairly used.

I sincerely doubt there'll be a military coup in Bolivia or in anyother country with the US being behind it.

If I was the sort of poster who makes, keeps and/or updates their sigs, I'd quote you on this. What are you studying at school, again?

The reasoning behind the US being against this issue is simply this. There are many people out there for nefarious reasons that would love to try US soldiers for political reasons. The US has enough safeguards in the military to police it's own. I am confident that any soldier brought up on human rights violations and convicted will serve time. It is not acceptable for human rights violations in the US military. Now many would argue that the simple act of war is a human rights violation. This is where international jurisdiction would come into play. When a war is not politically ok with another nation you could see charges brought up. This is the biggest problem with the "treaty". Which the US should not sign in my book. To many haters out there for it to be fairly used.

The rapes in Okinawa seldom get prosecuted; Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo are the tip of the iceberg. You say "haters", I say "people that want law to work". But you can see nothing wrong in what Bush does, for you are as perverse as he is. I bet you really like it, seeing random Arabs that may even be innocent being turned into naked human pyramids. You would actually support legislation WEAKENING a country's human rights laws... Yet you claim to be different from Saddam.

And just what nation are you in? I sincerely doubt there'll be a military coup in Bolivia or in anyother country with the US being behind it.


*coughVenezualacough*

*coughVenezualacough*

It was very poorly done.

Mexico already went through the same and it also rejected the US proposed treaty to be excepted from the ICC. The US retired almost all military aid, around US$1 million. Mexican government said "meh".

Mexico already went through the same and it also rejected the US proposed treaty to be excepted from the ICC. The US retired almost all military aid, around US$1 million. Mexican government said "meh".

Y viva el Mexico!

It was very poorly done.
So, if it's a successful coup it doesn't count? :D

The rapes in Okinawa seldom get prosecuted; Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo are the tip of the iceberg. You say "haters", I say "people that want law to work". But you can see nothing wrong in what Bush does, for you are as perverse as he is. I bet you really like it, seeing random Arabs that may even be innocent being turned into naked human pyramids. You would actually support legislation WEAKENING a country's human rights laws... Yet you claim to be different from Saddam.

Abu Ghraib was a problem I agree. Those involved are being tried. I would also like to mention that those were not random "Arabs" that were in there. The last time I checked the US has investigated the rapes in Okinawa with some service men turned over to Japan for prosecution. I happen to agree with letting the Japanese prosecute them.
Also Bush has plenty of policies out there I question. I am not a blind Bush supporter. I call it how I see it.
When is it I said that I support legislation weakening a nations human rights? I am a huge supporter for human rights. That's why I support taking out dictators such as Saddam. I also support the overthrow of the Iranian government. Any other national government that supports the murder and torture of innocent citizens should be dealt with a heavy hand.

Y viva el Mexico!

Ahh yes viva the model of human rights!

So, if it's a successful coup it doesn't count? :D

LOL!

Any other national government that supports the murder and torture of innocent citizens should be dealt with a heavy hand.

Yet you support the US in seeking charte blanche to violate human rights. Unless you're indulging in some big-ass doublethinking exercise here, you favor the bombing of Washington DC.

So, if it's a successful coup it doesn't count? :D
I have to agree with Corneliu on this one. It was very hasty and not that well planned or supported, with very little consideration to the medium- and long-term. If the US got involved it was only at the very end.

Any other national government that supports the murder and torture of innocent citizens should be dealt with a heavy hand.

Infering then, the continued support of regimes/states that use above methods also.

The United States in the past has not been 'clean' in this sense either, nor today for that matter.

Ahh yes viva the model of human rights!

In comparison to a country that's trying to weaken said rights in OTHER countries, yes, Mexico is a model of human rights. Heck, not even North Korea tries to make other countries worse in this matter.

In comparison to a country that's trying to weaken said rights in OTHER countries, yes, Mexico is a model of human rights. Heck, not even North Korea tries to make other countries worse in this matter.

Mexico has very very very poor human rights records.

Mexico has very very very poor human rights records.

I'm aware. Yet they don't try to make OTHER countries as bad as they are, now, do they?

Yet you support the US in seeking charte blanche to violate human rights. Unless you're indulging in some big-ass doublethinking exercise here, you favor the bombing of Washington DC.
Not signing the ICC doesn't give the US a free hand in violating human rights, simply that don't recognize the authority of the ICC to try US citizens. The US would still prosecute human rights abuses amongst its troops. In fact the ICC recognizes that if the nation of the accused has the system and the laws to try the case, the prisioner would be turned to that country. Even if the US signed the treaty and one of its military brought to trial it would be unlikely that the ICC took the case, turning it instead to US authorities.

However, it's the principle of having an international court that the US opposses. That's why they've made such a big show of Saddam being tried in Irak by and Iraqi court. And perhaps it's Saddam's trial that has shed more light on why an international court is necessary.

I'm aware. Yet they don't try to make OTHER countries as bad as they are, now, do they?

Mexico can't get any lower so why should they try lowering others? I'm still looking for proof that this is going on with the US though.

Yet you support the US in seeking charte blanche to violate human rights. Unless you're indulging in some big-ass doublethinking exercise here, you favor the bombing of Washington DC.

The US does not have carte-blanc to violate human rights. I personally do not want my government in my name commiting human rights violations. I do not see where they are at this point. The problems within the military have been dealt with. If new violations arise they will be dealt with also. You seem to forget who mentions first the problems within the US military.
Your opinion of human rights violations I am guessing has to do with holding "terrorist". Am I wrong on this?
Why is it you insist on making assumptions on how I and others think? When you assume things you only make an ASS out of U and ME. So please stop making wide sweaping assumptions about what I think. Try sticking to directly what people are saying and argue those points. It makes for a better discussion.

The ICC is a simple matter of trust- the Us doesn't trust it to be fair. The rest of the world doesn't trust the US to live up to its own ideals in that regard (jobs for the boys mentality)

That distrust is highlighted at the moment via the higher then normal levels of anti-Americanism. They'll recede shortly to their usual friendly(ish) levels like the mid 90's.

Mexico can't get any lower so why should they try?
Yes it can. Opposition parties are allowed, free speech could be better but it's mostly free, right of dissent and association are allowed. The big problem is in the justice system and widespread corruption. But human rights could get much worse.

Gee, I wonder what the neocons here have to say about such a WONDERFUL, DEMOCRACY-SPREADING NATION as the US doing THIS KIND OF SHIT!

Word for the wise: Try that with Brazil and die.

Wise word to you, mess with the United States and get f----- up

Mexico can't get any lower.
Well gee, maybe y'all should invade it, then and give freedom and democracy or something to the Mexican people. That's what you guys like to do, right?

Well then.

Infering then, the continued support of regimes/states that use above methods also.

The United States in the past has not been 'clean' in this sense either, nor today for that matter.

Yes there has been problems in the past with US involvement and support of dictators. So that should be a lesson for the future. Can't do anything about the past but correct the behavior moving forward. Now no nation is totally "clean" of support of human rights violators. I would make a policy of taking on the worst of the worst first and go from there. This isn't an easy issue to deal with. It can't and won't be solved over night. Take one at a time and hopefully there can be a better future.

Wise word to you, mess with the United States and get f----- up

As an American, I'm going to have to ask you not to sound so patriotic like this. I don't want us to be the world's policemen.

I see.

Bolivia's government was elected. Yet you try to meddle in its affairs, and, yes, for the worse. The Saddam trial has been a nice show of why an international court is needed. But, of course, the US hates the idea of anything international. Yet its attorney generals support torture, its president supports wiretapping, and, somehow, it claims to have some moral high ground. If I were watching this from another planet, this would be funny.

Well gee, maybe y'all should invade it, then and give freedom and democracy or something to the Mexican people. That's what you guys like to do, right?

Well then.

:rolleyes:

Wise word to you, mess with the United States and get f----- up
Unless of course you are a major oil-producing nation, already have nuclear weapons, or will let you put bases there, then the US will be your bitch.

:rolleyes:
Well, come on! It's seems reasonable enough. :p

It's tough being a cop, I know... I used to watch Hill street Blues. Being Policemen to the World is so... tough.

Wise word to you, mess with the United States and get f----- up

You see, ignorant babbling MORON, it's the US that are trying to force other nations to worsen their human rights laws. It's the US that's messing with US.

And, not being American, I know more English than you do, for I know that there's the "word to the wise" expression. "Wise word" makes no sense. I'm not even a native speaker, yet I speak much better than you do. DAMN, you're dumb.

Yes there has been problems in the past with US involvement and support of dictators. So that should be a lesson for the future. Can't do anything about the past but correct the behavior moving forward. Now no nation is totally "clean" of support of human rights violators. I would make a policy of taking on the worst of the worst first and go from there. This isn't an easy issue to deal with. It can't and won't be solved over night. Take one at a time and hopefully there can be a better future.

True.

Sadly, the current citizens of the state can never be too sure what their leaders are doing behind closed doors. Heck it was the Church Committee that aired a lot of nasty shady business that occured a few years earlier- but no leader is going to publicly say they are or are not supporting these places, in the present time.

These things only come out years later when it has already been too late.

Can you really trust your leaders that well?

You see, ignorant babbling MORON, it's the US that are trying to force other nations to worsen their human rights laws. It's the US that's messing with US.

Cool the name calling. There is no need for it in a debate.

And, not being American, I know more English than you do, for I know that there's the "word to the wise" expression. "Wise word" makes no sense. I'm not even a native speaker, yet I speak much better than you do. DAMN, you're dumb.

And yet your using it to attack a poster? Attacking a poster is not proper debating decorum.

I just realized a problem...
I read this, and rolled my eyes and said to myself, "Here we go again. The US being the world bullies... errr... 'police officers.'"
And I realized it's becoming like white noise.
Oh noes. ANOTHER ridiculous violation of democracy and human rights by the US... whoopdy do...
And that's dangerous territory. When it gets to the point that people come to expect it, and continue to do nothing but roll their eyes, the gov't has been allowed to go too far.

I just realized a problem...
I read this, and rolled my eyes and said to myself, "Here we go again. The US being the world bullies... errr... 'police officers.'"
And I realized it's becoming like white noise.
Oh noes. ANOTHER ridiculous violation of democracy and human rights by the US... whoopdy do...
And that's dangerous territory. When it gets to the point that people come to expect it, and continue to do nothing but roll their eyes, the gov't has been allowed to go too far.

Don't interpret my sarcasm as anything but agreeing with you. It's not sarcasm about yourself, but the situation. I liked what you posted here, but I'll use it to drive my point home using sarcasm. That being said:

Ya THINK?

Thanks. :)

The last nation on this Earth that will run out of oil is the US. The US does not tap into it's own supply like other nations do. Why? because when the shit hits the fan and the oil bus comes to a grinding stop. The US will say oh wait we got all this oil here we haven't even touched. The enviromentalist are obviously behind this evil plot to plunder the world of it's oil. All the while secretly laughing when they put on there show and block the ANWR bill. You heard this conspiracy theory right here first. :D
As per the bolded ... nope, try the archives. And if it were possible, i'd say peruse the archives BEFORE the server swap. That theory's been 'round quite a while, and it's not a bad one, even if it is a little skewed.

Wise word to you, mess with the United States and get f----- up
Yeah, unless you're Iran ...

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0825447.html

or perhaps Vietnam ...

http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_finalescape.html

Well, keep up the flames ...

Following up on this story. Thanks to the amazing success of this policy the Bush administration is thinking that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea:


U.S. Rethinks Its Cutoff of Military Aid to Latin American Nations

SANTIAGO, Chile, March 11 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated Saturday that the United States would look for ways to resume military assistance to Latin American nations cut off from aid programs because of their refusal to shield Americans from the International Criminal Court.


The rest: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/politics/12rice.html?hp&ex=1142226000&en=d7b179ed26a18747&ei=5094&partner=homepage

To be fair, it wasn't all Bush's fault since the law was proposed and approved in Congress.

In the War on Democracy, the US gov have overthrown a lot of democratically elected governments to ensure their corporate interests were secured. It's truly sad but true. You’re more likely to get a warm reception by the US gov as a puppet or outright dictator, provided you let US and other approved foreign corporations rape your nation for all it has. If you don’t you might be assassinated or have a CIA backed coup emerge out of nowhere. Central and South America are the basket case they are today because of the Monroe Doctrine and the abuse of that Doctrine during the Cold War that continues today.

Haiti comes to mind. Clinton had to stop the CIA from staging a coup against Haiti’s elected government even after stating his administration’s policy towards Haiti. Not long after Bush was in power the CIA was let off their leash and the gunmen they backed knocked over the democratically elected government they were actively undermining. Nice job. Now Peacekeepers are going to be stuck cleaning the mess up for years.

The Bruce

I think one of the best guide of how screwed up the wild parts of this world have become is “The World’s Most Dangerous Places 5th Edition” by Robert Young Pelton. It’s practically the bible for the CIA and journos going into the unpleasant places of the world. The author gives a no holds barred look at things how they are and doesn’t sugar coat anything. Anyone interested in world events and the nasty things going on behind closed doors should consider this a must read. Even more so if you plan to have a vacation in the third world.

http://www.comebackalive.com

I am confident that any soldier brought up on human rights violations and convicted will serve time. It is not acceptable for human rights violations in the US military.

You need to look a lot closer at those who were involved in various things like oh, slaughtering entire villages while in US uniform. Not one of them ever went to jail even when caught. And house arrest with a presidential pardon doesn't cut it.

In the War on Democracy

I stopped reading when I saw this.

Why don't you grow up some before spouting crap that is false?

I stopped reading when I saw this.

Why don't you grow up some before spouting crap that is false?
Why don't you remove your head from your behind and see the world?

Why don't you remove your head from your behind and see the world?

I have seen the world. Why don't you take your head out of your ass and see the world.

I stopped reading when I saw this.

Why don't you grow up some before spouting crap that is false?

Should I rub Brazil, 1964, in your face, all over again, or should I let the spirits of the Chileans killed by Pinochet do that?

Should I rub Brazil, 1964, in your face, all over again, or should I let the spirits of the Chileans killed by Pinochet do that?

I was not alive in 1964.

I was not alive in 1964.

That didn't stop it from happening. Your country overthrew LOTS of democratically elected governments, yet you claim they care for Democracy.

That didn't stop it from happening. Your country overthrew LOTS of democratically elected governments, yet you claim they care for Democracy.

Cold War politics from my understanding. The USSR was doing the samething or attempted to do it just as much. I love how people only pick on one side of the cold war.

And yes we do care about democracy for if we didn't, we would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq right now where they are having democratic elections.

Cold War politics from my understanding. The USSR was doing the samething or attempted to do it just as much. I love how people only pick on one side of the cold war.

And yes we do care about democracy for if we didn't, we would not be in Afghanistan or Iraq right now where they are having democratic elections.

So you just lowered the standards of the US to USSR standards? How nice.

On a different note, it wasn't the USSR that raped my country.

On yet another note, you mean after you overthrew the guys you PUT THERE during the Cold War? Well, bravo!

So you just lowered the standards of the US to USSR standards? How nice.

No i just said it was cold war politics. I didn't lower any standards. As a historian, I have to look at what both sides were doing and both sides were trying to get the upper hand in the Cold War.

On a different note, it wasn't the USSR that raped my country.

On a different note, Cuba overthrew the Angola government.

On yet another note, you mean after you overthrew the guys you PUT THERE during the Cold War? Well, bravo!

WE didn't put the taliban in power. We never even recognized the Talibani government. Only 3 nations did that so that is an historical inaccuracy. All we did was assist Afghanistan in stopping an illegal invasion of said nation by.....

THE USSR

Even if you can't eat dignity, we could still eat the Bush clan.

No i just said it was cold war politics. I didn't lower any standards. As a historian, I have to look at what both sides were doing and both sides were trying to get the upper hand in the Cold War.
On a different note, Cuba overthrew the Angola government.
WE didn't put the taliban in power. We never even recognized the Talibani government. Only 3 nations did that so that is an historical inaccuracy. All we did was assist Afghanistan in stopping an illegal invasion of said nation by.....

THE USSR

You did put Saddam in power. Or he was magically a nice guy when YOU did it?

I'm pointing out, regardless of "tu quoque" arguments about what the USSR did, what the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA did, that's PRECISELY what you refused to acknowledge in responding to The Bruce.

So the USSR overthrew governments. I didn't, and don't, support them. And it does NOT make YOU doing it all right either.

I'm not Cuban, I'm Brazilian. And Chile was doing no harm to anyone, neither was Argentina, neither was ANY OTHER NATION WHOSE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS THE US OVETHREW. Iraq comes to mind. So does most of the Latin America. Yet you fail to acknowledge that The Bruce's statements you so easily dismiss are TRUE.

You know what everyone should do out of spite? Demand the US pay back all debts, in full, immediately.

You do realise what would happen if that happened, right?

Not only would the US government be forced to default, the global economy would completely tank, sending us into a new depression.

Either that or the US Fed would hyperinflate. Neither would be a pleasant experience...

It'll happen soon enough, but I don't think any of us want to start this crash sooner than necessary.

You did put Saddam in power. Or he was magically a nice guy when YOU did it?

Then he started the war with Iran (and yes he did start that war, not Iran) and then invaded Kuwait and then ignored UN Resolutions. Thank God he is gone.

I'm pointing out, regardless of "tu quoque" arguments about what the USSR did, what the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA did, that's PRECISELY what you refused to acknowledge in responding to The Bruce.

I have not refused to acknowledge it. I do know some of what we did and I condemned it when I heard of it in my history classes. That's right. Whats done is done and we cannot go back and fix it. Iraq we can fix and we have fixed it.

So the USSR overthrew governments. I didn't, and don't, support them. And it does NOT make YOU doing it all right either.

I agree 100%

I'm not Cuban, I'm Brazilian.

I really don't care what your nationality is and the more you toss it around, the less impressed I'm getting.

And Chile was doing no harm to anyone, neither was Argentina, neither was ANY OTHER NATION WHOSE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS THE US OVETHREW.

I'm trying to hold a civilized conversation and all you can do is yell? I'm sorry but yelling is so uncivilized. Why don't you try to talk normally and let us actually have a decent conversation.

Then he started the war with Iran (and yes he did start that war, not Iran) and then invaded Kuwait and then ignored UN Resolutions. Thank God he is gone.



I have not refused to acknowledge it. I do know some of what we did and I condemned it when I heard of it in my history classes. That's right. Whats done is done and we cannot go back and fix it. Iraq we can fix and we have fixed it.



I agree 100%



I really don't care what your nationality is and the more you toss it around, the less impressed I'm getting.



I'm trying to hold a civilized conversation and all you can do is yell? I'm sorry but yelling is so uncivilized. Why don't you try to talk normally and let us actually have a decent conversation.

So, now you doublethink. If you acknowledge that the US did overthrew democratic governments, why does the words "war on democracy" sound so distasteful to you?

I really don't care what your nationality is and the more you toss it around, the less impressed I'm getting.
Exactly how I feel every other other thread I read lately.

United States of where-was-that-again?

Vespuccistan?

So, now you doublethink. If you acknowledge that the US did overthrew democratic governments, why does the words "war on democracy" sound so distasteful to you?

Because we are not fighting a war on Democracy.

Because we are not fighting a war on Democracy.
One of my long-standing points. You aren't fighting a war on democracy, you're just occupying it militarily (presumably until it becomes precisely the kind of democracy your leaders want - one in name only.)

Because we are not fighting a war on Democracy.
The numerous examples given suggest otherwise.

One of my long-standing points. You aren't fighting a war on democracy, you're just occupying it militarily (presumably until it becomes precisely the kind of democracy your leaders want - one in name only.)

What nation are we occupying? Last time I checked the rule book, we aren't occupying any nation.

What nation are we occupying? Last time I checked the rule book, we aren't occupying any nation.
You're occupying democracy.

You're occupying democracy.

HAHA!!

What nation are we occupying? Last time I checked the rule book, we aren't occupying any nation.
...but as it happens, you are actually occupying Iraq.

HAHA!!

Visit Santiago and check if they find this as funny as you did.

...but as it happens, you are actually occupying Iraq.

:rolleyes:

Actually we are not. If we were occupying the nation, they would not have their own government. They have their own government and they are running their own affairs. They have the ability to ask us to leave whenever they feel like it. Doesn't sound like an occupation to me.

Visit Santiago and check if they find this as funny as you did.

Don't have to. I have no tolerance for a nation who decided to provoke a war with a US Ally.

:rolleyes:

Actually we are not. If we were occupying the nation, they would not have their own government. They have their own government and they are running their own affairs. They have the ability to ask us to leave whenever they feel like it. Doesn't sound like an occupation to me.
Well, that's the trouble with a banana republic - the leadership will cling to the *ahem* non-occupying occupying forces in order to forestall their inevitable topple, and thus will never ask the non-occupying occupying forces to leave. Fait accomplis.

Sounds like an occupation to me.

:rolleyes:

Actually we are not. If we were occupying the nation, they would not have their own government. They have their own government and they are running their own affairs. They have the ability to ask us to leave whenever they feel like it. Doesn't sound like an occupation to me.
The vast majority of Iraqis see the US as "occupiers" not "liberators" (as does most of the world), and they want the US to leave immediately, but grudgingly allow the US to stay.

Don't have to. I have no tolerance for a nation who decided to provoke a war with a US Ally.

Was that before or after you overthrew its democratically elected government, replacing it with Pinochet's while you turned a blind eye to all his atrocities?

Don't have to. I have no tolerance for a nation who decided to provoke a war with a US Ally.
I have no tolerance for the willfully blind.

Whoops, looks like we're stuck with it.

Well, that's the trouble with a banana republic - the leadership will cling to the *ahem* non-occupying occupying forces in order to forestall their inevitable topple, and thus will never ask the non-occupying occupying forces to leave. Fait accomplis.

Sounds like an occupation to me.

That's because of your ideology. If they want us to leave, they can ask us at anytime to leave.

Was that before or after you overthrew its democratically elected government, replacing it with Pinochet's while you turned a blind eye to all his atrocities?

To be honest, I don't really care. Evita was a nice musical though.

If they want us to leave, they can ask us at anytime to leave.
...And be the first SOBs lined up against a wall, blindfolded in front of a firing squad? I mean, if they're lucky? Are all Americans as naive as you?

The vast majority of Iraqis see the US as "occupiers" not "liberators" (as does most of the world), and they want the US to leave immediately, but grudgingly allow the US to stay.

If they want us to go, they will tell us to go and we will leave as we have promised. The government of Iraq knows that.

...And be the first SOBs lined up against a wall, blindfolded in front of a firing squad? I mean, if they're lucky? Are all Americans as naive as you?

hmm? Where are you getting this from?

If they want us to go, they will tell us to go and we will leave as we have promised. The government of Iraq knows that.
And you think the people who comprise the so-called 'government' of Iraq are suicidal? Dude, those people will never let you out of their sight. They took your red-white-and-blue and painted damn fine targets all over themselves.

To be honest, I don't really care. Evita was a nice musical though.

So was "Hair", but, then, you'd get angry for me mentioning that I don't give a fuck about the 56,000 morons that died in Nam. "It's ok not to care as long as it isn't my nation", right?

hmm? Where are you getting this from?
Take off the political blinders for a moment and look at it from a common-sensical POV, Corny. Those guys in the Iraqi 'government' are dead the minute your troops exit.

Hence, your troops will never exit.

So was "Hair", but, then, you'd get angry for me mentioning that I don't give a fuck about the 56,000 morons that died in Nam. "It's ok not to care as long as it isn't my nation", right?

I don't care what you thought of nam. Frankly, I blame the political leaders for that screw up.

I don't care what you thought of nam. Frankly, I blame the political leaders for that screw up.

I thought that, if they hadn't gone in and invaded a country, thereby killing millions, they'd not come back in bags, or missing limbs, or blind, or deaf, and so on and so forth. Just like you don't give a shit about the dictatorships the US helped create. The difference being that what the US did WAS a war on democracy, and that I'm not claiming moral high ground on caring...

I thought that, if they hadn't gone in and invaded a country, thereby killing millions, they'd not come back in bags, or missing limbs, or blind, or deaf, and so on and so forth. Just like you don't give a shit about the dictatorships the US helped create. The difference being that what the US did WAS a war on democracy, and that I'm not claiming moral high ground on caring...

And once again, I have to point out to you that the politics are vastly different today than they were during the Cold War which were different prior to WWII which was differet on andon and on.

Just as we adapt to the times of today, politics had to evolve as well. What is in the past is in the past and there is nothing that you or I can do about it.

And once again, I have to point out to you that the politics are vastly different today than they were during the Cold War which were different prior to WWII which was differet on andon and on.

Just as we adapt to the times of today, politics had to evolve as well. What is in the past is in the past and there is nothing that you or I can do about it.

There's ONE thing you can do about it, which is stop being a hypocrite and admit that the US DID, IN FACT, wage a war on democracy by overthrowing elected governments.

That's because of your ideology. If they want us to leave, they can ask us at anytime to leave.
Didn't they already do that?

Didn't they already do that?

no they haven't.

The vast majority of Iraqis see the US as "occupiers" not "liberators" (as does most of the world), and they want the US to leave immediately, but grudgingly allow the US to stay.

Completely wrong as usual canuck. If you knew people that were there first hand. They would have told you differently. Alot of them do not want the US to leave immediately. They want the US to leave after the situation is stabalized. Very big difference. Which knowing the area of the world I can say this may take awhile. As far as what the rest of the world thinks. It truly doesnt matter really. I don't give a rip what someone in Iran thinks about it. I don't care what someone in China thinks of it. It isn't there issue really. Of course they can have an opinion but really it isnt backed up with any knowledge of what is going on. That is why I take the so called "world" opinion with a grain of salt.

If you knew people that were there first hand. They would have told you differently. Alot of them do not want the US to leave immediately.I ll believe it, when a democratic Referendum says they want the Foreign soldiers to stay.
.
Completely wrong as usual canuck.I would say you are wrong, not him.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.

Tallying total debts, I'd say you'd still leave America so far in the red, it'll take years for it to get out of a depression so big, Mexico would look rich by comparison.

Completely wrong as usual canuck. If you knew people that were there first hand. They would have told you differently. Alot of them do not want the US to leave immediately. They want the US to leave after the situation is stabalized. Very big difference. Which knowing the area of the world I can say this may take awhile. As far as what the rest of the world thinks. It truly doesnt matter really. I don't give a rip what someone in Iran thinks about it. I don't care what someone in China thinks of it. It isn't there issue really. Of course they can have an opinion but really it isnt backed up with any knowledge of what is going on. That is why I take the so called "world" opinion with a grain of salt.


People that were there first hand? ok. lets Ask the Iraqis (http://http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright)

As early as August of 2003, five months after the invasion, a Zogby poll found that two-thirds of Iraqis wanted the U.S. and British forces to leave the country within a year, and more than half said that the Iraqis should be left alone to set up their own government. Two years later, as Iraqis were about to vote in their first democratic election, two-thirds wanted the Coalition troops out either immediately or as soon as the new government was established. (The model that Iraqis most admired was that of the United Arab Emirates, a loose federation of seven tribal states, each overseen by a prince, and ruled by a president who is, essentially, a king.) In 2006, when the Iraqi government was in place, a poll by the University of Maryland found that seventy-one per cent of Iraqis wanted their government to ask the Americans to leave within a year; an even higher number doubted that the U.S. would comply with the request.

A poll released last month (by ABC News, the BBC, and the Japanese broadcaster NHK), half a year after the surge in American forces, found that nearly half of Iraqis favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces, while thirty-four per cent of Iraqis, most of them Kurds, said that the U.S. should remain “until security is restored.”

You know what everyone should do out of spite? Demand the US pay back all debts, in full, immediately.

Then in that case, the US should call on other nations to pay the debts they owe us.

If all the other nations called in their debts, the nations that owe us would have a really easy time paying theirs because dollars would be worth so little.

People that were there first hand? ok. lets Ask the Iraqis (http://http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright)

Also I would encourage watching this video series for some interesting information on the Iraq situation and the FACTS not portrayed in the right-wing mainstream media, including that the neocons wanted to turn Iraq into a corporate ideological experiment, and their attempts to subvert Iraqi democracy at every turn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk-qBY-TiZg

That aid money is something we give them, and if they are going to do something that puts their host in a very awkward position to say the least we have the right to suspend it, and that includes them signing a treaty that put's America in a position where it might have to fight a vicious, potentially catastrophic, war against pie-in-the-sky European liberals.

You can say it's international law, but how would you like it if you invited a homeless man in to your house, fed him, clothed him, and then he sold you out to the FBI for illegally pirating MP3's so he could collect on the reward money? Would you invite him back again? I wouldn't.

That aid money is something we give them, and if they are going to do something that puts their host in a very awkward position to say the least we have the right to suspend it, and that includes them signing a treaty that put's America in a position where it might have to fight a vicious, potentially catastrophic, war against pie-in-the-sky European liberals.

You can say it's international law, but how would you like it if you invited a homeless man in to your house, fed him, clothed him, and then he sold you out to the FBI for illegally pirating MP3's so he could collect on the reward money? Would you invite him back again? I wouldn't.
Somehow I don't think the comparison of downloading MP3's and war crimes is adequate son. Come back later.

uh? I''m confused by the word you here. Yes I'm an American but I have no control over what the government does. I'm not a Congressmen nor a Senator. Those two bodies would be better suited for something like this.

then run for congress:D

christ folks, 18 months? this was posted in march, of last year

I certainly don't intend to get caught up in this already "hyper" "debate", but are you seriously telling me you don't know that this vote buying/diplomatic blackmailing has been going on for years now?

Now, I only read the New York Times, but the Washington Post can't possibly be that bad.

Since I seem to recall that you like to have several "reliable" sources for proof, I'd suggest you'd just google something along the lines of "international criminal court US bilateral" and pick whatever is to your liking.
These are basics, so no, I'm not going to do it for you.
This is the first I've heard of it, and I guarantee you most Americans would say the same if they read this, and many of them would just roll their eyes at it.

After all, America is a great bastion of freedom. It would never act like a spoiled baby trying to lord over the world.

christ folks, 18 months? this was posted in march, of last year

Just noticed, you might want to check some other threads on the first page, it seems necromancy has become someone's new job.

christ folks, 18 months? this was posted in march, of last year

Wait, what?

...

Oh shit! You're right!