Immunity from UN

Remove all ads!

To clear a few things up about the UN and illegal agression here. Every nation that has joined the UN has agreed on not to attack another memberstate unless they attack first or general consensus can be achieved within the UN. They have also sworn to protect eachother from the agression of other nations. Iraq attacks Kuwait, bam! Everyone gangs up on Iraq. The idea with the UN worked. This is the general idea with the UN, I dont know the exact wordings of the treaties but this is what the UN is basicly about. Nations joining together promising not to take military action against eachother. If this had been followed with the case of Serbia/Kosovo all non-NATO nations that are part of the UN should have attacked the NATO nations or atleast protected Serbia, of course that would never happen as the UN is mostly a tool of the western world and it wouldnt have been very logical. But it was still against the UN charter, no matter how right or nescessary it might have been.
I cant understand what it is that many americans have against the UN, it is a great thought and even though it has alot of faults atleast it makes the nations of the world to talk to eachother and try to work out their differences. We humans have a tendency to go to war for the silliest reasons, if the UN can help in any way at all to stop that they have justified their existance.

 

Admittedly, this is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction here, Joacqin, but let me put forth an example for you:

Here's your house in the middle of the street. A few doors down is another house with neighbors you don't really get along with, but, by and large, nothing major happens. Right next door to you is my house. I also happen to be the richest person in the neighborhood (ok...I'm dreaming - sue me ), who also has access to a personal security force (prior military folks...well-versed in the use of various weaponry). I also happen to throw great parties that everyone is invited to, usually paying out of my own pocket, because, for the most part, I'm a good-natured guy who likes most people. Hell, when you needed that new hot-water heater, I even gave one to you. And Jones, down the street, well, his old Plymouth Horizon was acting up, so I gave him an interest-free loan that he only made a few payments on. Oh, well...no big deal...I'll just take it out of my own kids' allowance.

Now just a few blocks away is the police department (their people are volunteers from around the neighborhood, usually not much military training), but they need verification and the agreement of all neighbors to act on any alleged crime occurring in our neighborhood.

As stated above, everyone on the street more or less gets along...a few minor squabbles about balls in other people's yards, my dog chews up your rosebushes, whatever. Then one day, that neighbor down the street whom you don't really like decides to break into your house and steal something, only there's really nothing there that they want to steal, but your wife and kids are there. "Well," they think, "Since there's nothing to steal, let's just rape the wife, torture the kids, then burn the house."

I see this happening, and so do all the other neighbors, except a couple who are not quite as rich or powerful as me, and are on friendly terms with the ones tearing your family and home to shreds. So, I first do my neighborly duty and call the police. The police then proceed to call every single house in the neighborhood to verify and confirm that there is indeed a crime occurring. Everbody looks out their windows and says "Yep....sure is. (insert rather graphic descriptions of torture and rape)."

All except one neighbor.

Well...the cops can't come out because the entire neighborhood is not unanimous in their view of a crime being committed. So a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for a few days hence (the cops are busy after all), where everyone can sit down and discuss whether a crime is being committed or not.

Meanwhile, the screams from next door are keeping me awake at night, and I've got to get up early for work in the morning. Finally, one particularly terrible scream pierces everything, and I decide enough is enough. Screw the cops, screw the neighbors - I'm gonna do something about this.

So, I send over my security force (who have more than enough firepower to take care of anyone (and I do mean ANYONE) on the street, and they take care of the problem. No more torturers, rapists, or arsonists. The members of your family that are still alive are now safe, because I leave a few security personnel to make sure they stay that way. Everything is just fine and dandy in the world, right?

Wrong. Now I'm getting all kinds of flak from everyone else because I didn't wait for the neighborhood, or the cops, to give me permission to go in and "clean house". Never mind that I kept things from getting worse, or possibly spreading. Never mind that I was trying to be a good neighbor. Never mind that I DIDN'T ASK FOR A REWARD IN RETURN. No, I'm getting bashed for going in without permission.

Okay, before anyone says that the above means I'm all for the U.S. doing whatever it pleases, that's not true. In this case, it was a blatant crime being committed in the open for all to see. Had it been a crime that no one saw occur (mine own eyes are pretty convincing evidence to me), then the above scenario would have turned out much differently, and I would not have involved myself, except (maybe) after fully examining the available evidence.

Also, if the scenario above had been perpetrated by my own children, you'd better damn well believe that my punishment would be infinitely harsher than any the neighborhood would have come up with, especially since the neighborhood doesn't support the death penalty (and I do).

Frankly, half (I'm probably exaggerating, but I'm trying to make a point here) the countries in the world owe something to the U.S., and for the most part, we've let it slide. I'm sick and tired of all these countries bitching at us for one thing or another, when most of the time we're trying to help out. Should we have stayed out of Kosovo? Technically yes. Morally...NO WAY IN HELL! America (collectively, not necessarily individually) believes in basic human rights - not basic American rights - but HUMAN rights. This applies to every human on the planet. We are shocked, saddened, and outraged at some of the things that go on in the world, and for the most part, we keep out of it, unless we are asked for help. Occasionally, we feel some atrocity is simply too much to just sit and endure, so we take action. Usually we mention something to whoever we're supposed to mention it to, that we would like to take some action on a matter, but we feel that there is only so much debating and discussion that can go on before something needs to be done. That is when we thumb our noses at whatever body we're supposed to report to and say "Screw it, we're going in."

And if you think for a minute that we're going to attack any country that disagrees with this, then you need to think again. There have been many countries that disagreed with our policies, and yet, they're still around. Sure, we're strong, and we flaunt it more than Muhammed Ali flaunted himself, but we really don't DO much with it. America could have turned Germany into the 51st (49th?) state at the end of WWII, but instead we left them to govern themselves. We've done the same many times now. We go in, we get the job done, we help out with reconstruction, we leave. No conditions - well except Japan and that "No Standing Army" rule, but I think that is an exception that, AT THE TIME, was warranted.

America isn't perfect...I'll be the first to admit that. We are a long way from perfect. But for me, it's the best place in the world to live (of course, I only have England to compare with, having spent three years there while in the Air Force).

The thing is, right now, Americe IS the most powerful nation in the world, and the most powerful are the ones who always get bitched at. England in it's heyday was the same way. So was Rome, Egypt, and all the other empires and great civilizations throughout history.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

(My fingers hurt now)

 

Your post made me smile, MaxxQ -- I like your optimism, and your idealism. But if you can look at our great big diverse country, full of people with all different views on every conceivable subject, corrupt people, liars, saints, everyone ... and believe that we yet speak as one voice and do right as a nation -- WHY cannot you extend that faith to the larger community of nations? Could not all humanity maybe-just-maybe reach consensus?

And do you forget, neighbor, your other, less-than-neighborly actions in past? Actions that might make our other neighbors suspicious about what you *say* you saw next door?

 

Violet...you know what? I completely forgot about the main point of this thread....whether we should join the world court. I was so ticked about the America bashing and people saying we should do this or that, I forgot to put in my take on the matter. Well, I kind of alluded to it in the "my kids" paragraph. (read "my kids" as the citizens and military personnel of the U.S.).

But anyway, I agree with the idea of a world court, but I have problems with the implementation of it. It seems everyone wants the U.S. to be in it, with no special dispensations, which is fine. But that begs the question: if WE have to follow the rules, then shouldn't they? This "world court" seems to me to be nothing more than a glorified judicial arm of the UN, and we all know how effective the UN has been at enforcing it's own rulings.

And no...I haven't forgotten our mistakes in the past. We've paid for them, although maybe not in tangible form. Countries hostile to us continually point them out, those who may have been neutral to us in the past may have slipped a bit over to the other side when we made those mistakes, thereby depriving us of some trade or other benefits. It happens...although that's really no excuse. You may say I'm idealistic and optomistic, but I'm also enough of a realist to know that what we do gets watched very closely by others looking for an opportunity to exploit a mistake or perceived weakness.

We're still a young country, and we're still experiencing growing pains. The sixties were our "terrible two's" (and with seven kids, I DEFINITELY know what I'm talking about here ), or maybe even the civil war. Would you allow your neighbors to punish your kids for a mistake they made, or do you think that should be up to you? I would have no problem with letting the various signatories punish their own people, provided a - forum is the word I'll use - of observers, observe the proceedings to insure that proceedures are being followed.

I DO think all humanity can eventually agree, on world matters, but there are many countries - the U.S. included - who are either too stubborn or too stupid to know when to give in. This planet is too small as it is, and getting smaller all the time, and soon there won't be any room for all the petty squabbles and such going on nowadays. If something isn't done to make the world more friendly, there ain't gonna be no world to get friendly in.

Unfortunately, I don't have a solution, I don't even have a glimpse of a glimmer of a solution. It will never happen in our lifetimes - unless a 250km asteroid going at 60,000kph decides it wants to get up close and personal with us - which to me is sad, because despite all the problems, this planet is a pretty decent place.

God....now I sound like a peacenik hippie from the sixties. Not bloody likely...after all, I volunteered for the Air Force - I was a bomb loader BTW (I didn't volunteer for that, but it was the job I was assigned, and I did it as best I could). However, I do believe that peaceful coexistence is better than violence, but violence is, regrettably, necessary in some cases.

I don't know if I answered your questions to your satisfaction, Violet. I hope I did, but I accept that maybe I didn't. I'll never make the claim of being the smartest nut in the tree, but I'd like to think my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's.

Short true story: While in England, the son of a full colonel at my base raped a British girl with a baseball bat and a spray can. When caught, he was tried and convicted in a military court martial (according to the UCMJ - Uniform Code of Military Justice), after which, he was turned over to the English authorities for his trial under THEIR laws.

So I know for a fact that the U.S. will hand over someone if they believe it's justified.

Another true story: My direct supervisor (in England) killed the driver of another car while driving under the influence. He also stood trial in the British courts - before going up against the military courts. If you ask me, he got off light at both trials. Lost his licence to drive in the UK for 6 months, and a few months pay. Granted, the driver he killed was more drunk than he was (this was attested to by the passengers in the other car, as well as a blood alcohol test), so that may be why he got off light. As far as I know, he's still in the AF.

(my fingers still hurt...)

 

Your post was very interesting and well written, but totally irreleveant to what I wrote MaxxQ. Your neighbourly help was illegal, no matter how right it was. No one attacked NATO after their Kosovo bombings were there? Of course not. But they did break the charter, I am not saying if it was right or wrong of them to do so. I am just pointing out that they did.

Oh well back to topic.
Again you miss the point MaxxQ, I do not believe that the US lets its criminials go without punishing them, there are nations that do though. That have neither the possibility nor the inclination to take them to justice it is for therse the ICC is created mainly. But, if we want to stand trial over serbian and iraqian war criminials and the like we have let our own people have the same treatment. Can we say that well, you you and you are subject to this court but we arent? Either everyone are the subject of the same laws and the same court or no one is, which leads as you can see to that alot of naughty soldiers and the like from less organised/developed/perhaps even axis of eeeeeeeevil never have to live by comman human laws and never to fear punishment.

 

I love how you Europeans are so eager to yell "illegal! illegal!" when something violates a U.N. mandate.

Do any of you have any education at all concerning the foundations of international law? What makes you think the U.N. has ANY authority at all over you? Just because it's an international organization? Do you just like bowing down before every group that comes across your path? What's the deal?

Maybe if you all took some pride in your countries you'd be less quick to give up national sovereignty. Although, considering some of the countries you're in, maybe it's understandable.

XOXO,

Ugly American

 

Shralp I hope that post was meant to be taken as irony and/or bad humour.

 

Yes, the hugs and kisses were fraudulent.

 

Okay, joacqin...remind me to protest any help we may send your way if your country is ever in need of it. And yes, you did say it was wrong of the U.S. to break the charter, in your second sentence.

As for the world court stuff, you're right, everyone should abide by it or no one. Are you going to convince all those who aren't signing to agree to it? The U.S. isn't the only country to not want to sign it, but the U.S. is sure taking all the heat for it. If you're gonna bitch and gripe about it, you'd damn well better add those other nations into your whining session, otherwise your opinion means squat to me. I certainly hope you're not representative of the general consensus over there, because I always thought Sweden seemed to be a pretty decent place.

Maybe you'd prefer the U.S. just kept to itself and stayed out of other people's business. If so, then by god, if I had the power to do that, I'd do it in a heartbeat. You know...we're damned if we do and damned if we don't - if we help someone out, someone else complains....if we don't help anyone out, we still get run through the wringer.

Hey Violet...you wonder why I don't have much faith in humanity getting together peacefully? There's your reason right there.

 

Again you misunderstand me Max. Firstly it wasnt the US the went against the UN charter,it was the NATO, sure alot of people views them as one and the same and in many ways it might be sure but it isnt. The NATO consist of most countries around the north atlantic and in western Europe. I would hope that we would never use the US' help, and if we did I would think more than once before asking it.

About swedes being decent people well we are and about anti US sentiments that you seem to bring up I am in the middle lane, there are ALOT of people that critize the US more than I do, I am pretty restrictive due to that one should never condemn anything. But I am not one of those people that views everything from the US and everything their goverment do as the best thing in the world. It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist.

 

MaxxQ, you sum it up well when you say "We're damned if we do and damned if we don't".
Many of the people who bashed the US (in previous topics) for acting like the leader of the world now complain that we're not acting like the leader of the world. It is insane.

 

"It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist."

No, no -- that's *Israel's* foreign policy. Common mistake.

I don't think anyone smart really wants us to lead the free world -- nor do we want the job. We don't want to be the great Daddy, whose job it is to fix all problems with American money and American lives! Holding ourselves apart, as we do, only contributes to this perception that everything wrong with the world is due to something the United States did or didn't do.

For example, who created Israel? A consortium of states led by us and the UK. Whose hassle is it now? Ours, and only ours. If we are too proud to delegate, and too proud to discuss, people have to draw their own conclusions about the United States' motives in the world. And we have to act, largely, alone.

I think as always this perception can only be overcome by dialogue. I don't understand how, strong as we are, this participation in dialogue could be perceived as striking our colors. After all, *no one* can make us do anything! Why should we not meet as equals to talk it out?

And yes, MaxxQ -- this very conversation between intelligent people of goodwill who yet disagree strongly should demonstrate for you how humanity is universal and consensus is... at least possible.

 

You REALLY need to go back and re-read your earlier posts.

1st post -No one should get immunity from crime, no matter their nationality. No matter what their country do. What the US want is to let its soldiers rape and use prostitutes in the countries they are 'helping' the immunity is in many ways wanted because alot of the UN soldiers have been acting like occupying forces in the nations they have been stationed treating local people like shit and taking advantage of them.

Right here you accuse the U.S. of wanting to let their troops get away with rape and whatnot. You don't say "Others think this", you single out the U.S. specifically, although you attempted to qualify it later with the part about "alot of UN soldiers...", but that doesn't help the fact that you purposefully singled out the U.S.

2nd post - Gonzago and Z-Layrex, this topic isnt at all about USA bashing.

Your first post, The second post in this thread, quoted above, was the first post I saw that singled out the U.S. as wanting it's troops immune from raping, etc. If that's not a bash at the U.S., then I'm a Swede.

It is about a nation wanting to stand above the law.

No, we don't want to stand above the law. We just fail to see how any American troop accused of a war crime could possibly get a fair trial in an international court, especially one with many people presiding over it that would love to see us kicked in the you-know-whats.

A law that everyone else agrees to, so that all the soldiers that have been on a mission gets the same treatment.

"Everyone" agrees to this "law"? There's a post in here that states about 70 nations have agreed to this. There are over 150 nations in the world. I fail to see where 150 - 70 = everyone.

The reason I feel a bit of a resentment against the US *goverment* in this question is the sheer arrogance to demand that your own citizens doesnt have to abide by the same laws that they expect others to do.

We only expect others to abide by our laws while they are in our country. We also expect our people to abide by the laws of other countries while we are visiting them. No one is above any law set forth by a government, I agree. But I'd like to know where you got the idea that our gov't won't allow our people to stand trial in another nation for breaking their laws. I've already given two examples that shoot holes in your theory. Here's another: I spent three weeks in Turkey on a temporary duty assignment. Before we left, we were told at a briefing that we WILL follow the laws of Turkey TO THE LETTER, because if we broke one and were caught, the U.S. would not, repeat NOT, lift a finger to help.

Oh I would like to add that in this topic it is the 'pro' US people that have turned this into an 'anti' vs 'pro' US topic. It had nothing to do with that.

Excuse me? YOU were the first person to specifically mention the U.S. in an inflammatory manner. Are we Americans just supposed to sit back and take that crap from you? We have pride in our country, and we have reason to be proud. We've accomplished a lot in our 200+ years of existence, and all you can say is that we want our troops immune to prosecution for war crimes. You are not in our gov't, or even a visitor in my country, and yet you think you know what we think, or how our gov't works? If you were here, you could say all that you've said above and still walk around a free man. However, don't get your hackles up when someone takes exception to your statements. As I'm doing. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that right, even though you're not an American. Hell, if you were here, I'd probably buy you a beer so we could continue this in person. But I digress...

3rd post - I would just like to add that it is very interesting to read this thread, every poster had made a different addition to the puzzle, pointing out different facts and making the image clearer and clearer. This is a damned good thread if we can keep it at this level.

Well, let's start by not singling out the U.S. by implying that we are the only country that objects to this "World Court".

Gnolyn, where you would you find objective arbitraries? Will be hard.

It would be impossible. Humans are incapable of being completely objective (no I'm not suggesting that computers take over...they're even more fallible than humans).

4th post - I am from Sweden and Sweden and swedes have a long history and a good reputation as arbitrary diplomats and negotiators, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world but I still think that Sweden wouldnt be a good choice for arbitrary judgment. My vote would go for normal lawyers and prosecutors that gets an assignment with a rolling schedule. Perhaps a bit like american jury duty, they get called up for international duty.

This is the first sensible thing you've written so far. I actually like the idea, although I would add that their indentities should be secret to help prevent possible blackmailing, bribery, etc.

5th post - I didnt mean it like they wanted their soldiers to go on a rampage, I just meant that it is easily viewed like that and that different rules apply to different nations.

Of course it could be easily viewed like that. Suppose Sweden refused to sign? Maybe, I would view it as your gov't wanting it's troops to rape and pillage with impunity.

How come that all other nations except the US wants to put the ICC in action Shralp?

Again, please try to explain your math to me; how does 150 minus 70 equal "all nations except the US"?

Dont you think that there is a difference between the view of justice in the UK and Libya too?

Of course there is. But tell me how you would bring about a meeting of minds on this. The U.S. literally has tens of thousands of laws on it's books - local, state, and federal. Now, multiply that by however many nations agree to this world court, and then attempt to condense it all down into something that everyone can agree on. I wish you luck. Every single nation will have an objection to something, and eventually, the "laws" will be so watered-down, and the means of enforcing those "laws", will be so toothless, that it would be less than pathetic.

Not to mention the radical view between the US and the scandinavian nations. I dont know the details but I dont think it is planned that a libyan ismalistic fanatic is going to preside over US soldiers that have beaten up some thieving kid somewhere.

Can you guarantee that? I didn't think so.

6th post - So Shralp you put the US on the same level as nations that condone genital mutilation, middle eastern nations that torture their prisoners?

No...he's saying that as punishment for a capital crime, that the UN may want to look at genital mutilation, torture, etc, as a replacement to the death penalty. It was also a very subtle form of sarcasm. Which you obviously didn't catch.

Isnt the US a democracy?

We like to think so, but actually, we're more of a republic, with democratic overtones.

A country on which we can have a bit higher demands than tribal societies in eastern Africa?

Why? Why should the world demand more from America than from any other nation? Where is it written that we HAVE to answer to the world? Especially when it seems much of the world wants nothing better than to put us down, to lower us to THEIR standards. Why can't they work to RAISE THEIR OWN standards? I'll answer that - because it's easier to destroy than to build. I'll now follow with a quote from John F. Kennedy (this was said during his speech about "...landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth...): "We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Apply that to America as a whole, rather than just the space program, and you will realize that America has worked very hard in it's 200+ years to become the nation it is today. Other nations are much, much older, and have accomplished not one-tenth of what we have. Granted, some have poor resources and must spend most of their GNP just to stay alive, but there are many who just seem to lazy to better themselves.

The deathpenalty is wrong, there are NO, none at all justification of it. All other western democracies has abolished it. Why do the US still practice it? IMO we can have higher demands on the US than on less developed nations. Dont you think so Shralp?

This is your opinion, and therefore, you are free to express it. America still has the death penalty, IN SOME STATES, because the people of those states want it. Our gov't follows (for the most part) what it's people want. Some states do not have the death penalty. Why accuse the entire U.S. when it's only some of us that want it? I guess you don't really know as much about us as you'd like to think.

7th post - Jack Funk, as usual the news reporting is very different in different parts of the world. All we hear here in Sweden is about the US refusing to sign a treaty that everyone else signs, media gives the impression that the US wants to be above a law that they themselves support for others.
Apparantly the news in the US are very different, I would think that the truth is somewhere in between.

Ahhh...and now we come to the crux of the matter. Relying on a single news source is BAD. Even if it's several different networks and newspapers in your country, they most likely will have a very biased opinion about certain things. No matter how much the media likes to say they're objective, it just ain't so. I have never seen an honestly unbiased report on anything, including here in the U.S. Every media organization in the world puts its own slant on things, some more obviously than others.

So, in essense, you've just told us that you have let Sweden's media dictate your thoughts to you. Well, that happens here in the States as well, so I can't fault you entirely. There are many news services freely available on the internet, from many different countries. Why not investigate a few of them, and see what they have to say on the matter (and please, don't just pick ones that already have an anti-U.S. sentiment). Even reporters, loathe as I am to admit it, are usually required to confirm a story through several sources.

You're not even giving us a chance. You're taking what your media are saying at face value and not even questioning it. And you want to talk fairness with "laws"?

8th post - Your post was great, I think that you have struck the head on the spike Methylviolet. The US are the boss, they should set good examples.

I agree with the second half of the second sentence, but that first half just irks me no end. Who says we are the boss? "Boss" implies giving orders to others and expecting those orders to be followed without question. That is NOT what the U.S. is about. We do NOT boss around other nations. We may use our influence in the way of trade agreements or such, but that's realpolitik. Every country in the world does that to a greater or lesser extent. The UAE does it all the time with oil...it's a way of doing business. Not necessarily the right way, but that's how it is. The only time that we start "bossing" folks around, is when there has been an actual threat to our nation. For example, Afghanistan, or, more specifically, the Taliban. We first asked nicely that they turn over whatzisface...they refused. We then asked a bit more forcefully....again, they refused. We then gave them a final request. They again refused.

Strike three, you're out.

America has always attempted diplomacy first and foremost. Sometimes it works, other times...well...it doesn't.

9th post - To clear a few things up about the UN and illegal agression here. Every nation that has joined the UN has agreed on not to attack another memberstate unless they attack first or general consensus can be achieved within the UN. They have also sworn to protect eachother from the agression of other nations. Iraq attacks Kuwait, bam! Everyone gangs up on Iraq. The idea with the UN worked. This is the general idea with the UN, I dont know the exact wordings of the treaties but this is what the UN is basicly about. Nations joining together promising not to take military action against eachother. If this had been followed with the case of Serbia/Kosovo all non-NATO nations that are part of the UN should have attacked the NATO nations or atleast protected Serbia, of course that would never happen as the UN is mostly a tool of the western world and it wouldnt have been very logical. But it was still against the UN charter, no matter how right or nescessary it might have been.

In theory, I agree with all that you have said above. The UN IS a great idea, it LOOKS great on paper, but in practice, it sucks. There is too much beuracracy, and red tape floating around there to effectively work in a timely manner. In my first post above, I agreed that technically we were wrong. (That should have been NATO, but as you or someone else has said, most people think NATO=U.S., so I'm not going to worry about semantics). So, okay....we stay out of Kosovo, and the UN, months later decides to get off its collective ass and do something about it. Except by that time, there's no reason to go because they're done with whatever atrocities were brought up to begin with. [ sarcasm ]Yep, we did the right thing, but boy, it's too bad all those people are dead. Hmmmm....they got the death penalty for a crime of being against the gov't mandates. I guess the U.S. ISN'T the only nation that supports it.[/ sarcasm ]

I cant understand what it is that many americans have against the UN, it is a great thought and even though it has alot of faults atleast it makes the nations of the world to talk to eachother and try to work out their differences. We humans have a tendency to go to war for the silliest reasons, if the UN can help in any way at all to stop that they have justified their existance.

The key words above are "...try to work out their differences." That doesn't always work - you know that and I know that. What Americans have against the UN is that it is too large and ponderous to get anything done, and done well. It also hasn't got the teeth to enforce it's own rules or laws, except when they call on...Guess who?...the Americans.

10th post - Your post was very interesting and well written, but totally irreleveant to what I wrote MaxxQ. Your neighbourly help was illegal, no matter how right it was. No one attacked NATO after their Kosovo bombings were there? Of course not. But they did break the charter, I am not saying if it was right or wrong of them to do so. I am just pointing out that they did.

Ummm....yes you did. In the same paragraph. Illegal means wrong.

You obviously didn't read far enough down in my post because I stated that technically it was wrong to break the charter, but morally right. However you have, like you have blamed others, equated the U.S. with NATO. You have specifically singled out the U.S. when there are several other nations in the NATO alliance that also went into Kosovo. Why do you not blame them specifically as well?

Oh well back to topic.
Again you miss the point MaxxQ, I do not believe that the US lets its criminials go without punishing them, there are nations that do though. That have neither the possibility nor the inclination to take them to justice it is for therse the ICC is created mainly. But, if we want to stand trial over serbian and iraqian war criminials and the like we have let our own people have the same treatment. Can we say that well, you you and you are subject to this court but we arent? Either everyone are the subject of the same laws and the same court or no one is, which leads as you can see to that alot of naughty soldiers and the like from less organised/developed/perhaps even axis of eeeeeeeevil never have to live by comman human laws and never to fear punishment.


Yes, actually we can say that certain countries are subject to the WC and we aren't...IF those countries sign the agreement and we don't. Why should we sign up for this thing? We are free to choose one way or the other. You can't put a gun to our heads and say sign or else. But that's exactly what you're trying to do.

11th post - Again you misunderstand me Max. Firstly it wasnt the US the went against the UN charter,it was the NATO, sure alot of people views them as one and the same and in many ways it might be sure but it isnt. The NATO consist of most countries around the north atlantic and in western Europe. I would hope that we would never use the US' help, and if we did I would think more than once before asking it.

You apparently view them as one and the same as well. You still haven't mentioned, or condemned any nation other than the U.S. Equal treatment for equal partners, eh?

About swedes being decent people well we are and about anti US sentiments that you seem to bring up I am in the middle lane, there are ALOT of people that critize the US more than I do, I am pretty restrictive due to that one should never condemn anything. But I am not one of those people that views everything from the US and everything their goverment do as the best thing in the world. It seems that you have to agree on every part of the US foreign policy or be viewed as a non decent person not to say a terrorist.


Okay....I probably went a bit too far with my generalization of Sweden, but I DID say that I hope the rest of your country doesn't share your views. I apologize anyway.

No, I don't view everyone with a dissenting opinion of the U.S. as a terrorist or non-decent person. I do, however view you as a hypocrite when you say that all nations should be equal under the world court, but then single out only the U.S. as a non-participant in said court, as well as breaking a UN charter. It's not like we were ever the first ( no comments about that....yes I am aware that "just because they did it, we can too" is no excuse), we certainly won't be the last.

Now, to total things up (for the sake of argument, we'll all agree that NATO=U.S.).

4.5 posts that are directly bashing the U.S., including your vey first post, and the second post of the thread. Roughly 30% of your total posts.

1.5 posts that are irrelevant to the discussion (the one where you comment on how great this thread is...the half-post is the one to Methylviolet, the other half is up there^).

The rest are posts that don't obviously bash the U.S. (although they could be read that way...I won't count them though)

So...11 posts total, minus 1.5 for irrelevancy, equals 9.5 posts. 4.5 of those remaining posts bash the U.S. in one form or another. That's just under 50% from you alone that can be taken as anti-American.

And you said this thread wasn't about bashing The U.S....

Tsk, tsk...

(my fingers are bleeding now... )

Edit: P.S. - I'll still welcome you to my country and buy you your beverage of choice. I may get mad at things people say, but I rarely do anything about it.



[This message has been edited by MaxxQ (edited July 11, 2002).]

 

Oh my gosh MaxxQ that was the longest post ever. I think you guys are talking past each other -- you are closer to agreement than you might allow. Beer would be handy here, wouldn't it?

I bet the world court has beer -- oops, except for the Muslim members.

 

ROFL Violet.

Sorry about that. I get on a roll and just don't realize how much I'm saying.

BTW...in answer to your previous post:

Yeah....I know. I was being a jerk there. I've got to stop putting my foot in my mouth, especially with the hot weather...my feet are NASTY.