EU as joke (modified)

In article ,
(Locus) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
m...

Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
nothing to do with it.

Puh-lease.. Dig a little deeper and you should be able to find out it
was seen as a political "joke" all over, except the US of course.

The "joke" was the ICC to begin with.

You only see what you want to see.

Suuure. It's all a really funny joke. Except the part where they tried
to pass a law in Belgium to get out of the ICC...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.



It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.


Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.

If someone runs up and kicks him in the groin he does.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world

Spoken like someone with zero chances of being charged by the ICC.

and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters.

Its not beating the trumped up BS cases that concerns us, its dealing with them
over and over again that is of concern.

I really don't see what the US is so afraid of

An endless string of baseless ICC suits filed by both our enemies and a few
non-enemies (Belgium).

That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what
the ICC would look like.

How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will
have any chance of survival in the ICC?

Because if it was brought in the ICC instead of Belgian courts, US lawyers
would have had to represent Gen. Franks in the hearings that eventually
dismissed the charges.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

snip

That's two opinions, if I had the time or inclination I'm sure I could find two
disenting opinions.

"The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome
Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive
than those in the American Bill of Rights

No one is arguing that the ICC would be locking up US military personnel, just
that the ICC would give a venue for US enemies to engage in "legal warfare",
requiring US lawyers to be in a constant state of defending our citizens. The
US was dragged into the Yugoslavia conflict, but who became the target for the
anti-war crowd? That's right the "big guy on the block".

Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution
unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations.

Who would decide if there was sufficient evidence?

AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion
in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%.

I don't know who AMICC is, but polls don't mean much to me. The overwhelming
response of US citizens in the form of letters to their congressman oppsing the
ICC were enough to convice both parties that the US should not support the ICC.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

Now I know you're living in a fantasy world. Strong support from congress would
have meant Clinton signing the agreement immediately instead of one of his last
acts on his way out the door. Clinton knew congress would not ratify it, he was
just trying to make a statement regarding his legacy. Bush decided not to waste
everyones time and removed it from the Senate docket.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.


The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
that first day.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.

Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
(and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
(built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
two torpedoes.

Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
the guns or fort.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif


And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg


That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.


Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
the air runaways are disabled..



Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in
:


Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?


Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" writes:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

I think he meant their losses.

/Tomas

"Tomas By" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" writes:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

I think he meant their losses.

Then he should consider what the true cost of Pearl Harbor
was to Japan.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, several hundred thousand soldiers,
sailors and airmen as well as their Empire.

Keith

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


What "self rule"? The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the terrorists
was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training camps
for terrorists. "Shared by many" is not an issue, what some
sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us from
defending ourselves.


The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.


That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.


It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

The framework is deeply, and irreparably flawed. The "laws"
are ill defined and there are no checks and balances,





"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do. In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.


Al Minyard

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

So you think that the fact that many Norwegians supported
the Nazis makes up for your rapid retreat and surrender??
Strange logic there.


The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.

The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
defense.

The "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
grossly over rated. How many Norwegians actually shot
at the Germans?

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
that first day.

Wow, shot down 6 aircraft, what a devastating defense.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.

Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
(and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
(built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
two torpedoes.

Hardly prevented the invasion.

Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
the guns or fort.


So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
to surrender.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif


And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg


That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.


Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
the air runaways are disabled..



Regards...

Well, you DID run for the hills when the Germans
showed up. The Germans simply walked into
Oslo, and the airfield around it.

Al Minyard