EU as joke (modified)

Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:


On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar"
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:



Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
intellectual laziness.

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as responsible
for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
intelligence information in order to gather support for the
most radical action any nation can undertake - acts of war
against another nation.

Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or
how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.



Regards...

You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????


Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?



I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
wasn't very wise.

In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.

He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.

Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????

Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?

Chirac, Schroeder, etc. as well as the majority of "european"
individuals (who elected and support the above mentioned
cowards).

Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
Country that has saved them on several occasions.

I guess ones does what any critic would and should do in
the face of manipulation, express a voice against it.
It takes courage,

No, it takes cowardice and duplicity.

and I know for a fact that many
americans are doing that as well.

But "europeans"? You might wan't to rethink that.

Why? It is perfectly valid.

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions,
as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having
a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and
ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the
point of Civil War.

I get the sense from reading your posts that see Europe as representing
"Kultur" while America represents "Zivilisation." Now you speak of a Civil War
of the West, presumably between Europe and America. The fact that an educated
person would seriously raise this as a possibility is too depressing to comment
on. I thought this was 2003, not some writ large version of 1903.


Chris Mark

So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
larger navy?

The ones with coastlines. Even if they couldn't take part in the fairly
obvious upcoming ground war, they could help support the rest of the
world in shutting down Germany's navies and make it easier to retake the
continent.

Most of Europe's complete lack of preparation for WWII is plainly
documented and bloody obvious to the rest of us...
I wrote a long and detailed reply and then my comp crashed and the reply
went with it..The comp is still acting kinda funny so I'll give a short
answer then.Some European countries were allied with germany, many were
neutral andthose that took part were could have used better airforce and
army to preventGermany ever achieving such a victory. For example if
Benelux-countries couldhave halted German advance enough to buy more time
BEF and Frances defence mighthave better. French had a strong navy and for
what purpose ...

Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism.

Then why give Saddam a pass? Literally no one argued he was being deceptive and
no one could argue his ties to international terrorism. So why did France,
Germany and Belgium jump off the ship at that point?

Elect someone
to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
actually matters

You're a fool if you think this administration doesn't have a thought-out
policy. I realize GWB isn't a liberal, and you Europeans can't stand that, but
it tends to blind you.

It would help more if they could actually
formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
even their friends in Iraq.

And its your informed opinion that they're not doing that? Great, whats the
last cabnit meeting you sat in on? Last Pentagon "Tank"? I thought so.

Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
"indict Tommy Franks"

snip a bunch of legalistic crap

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same. The US is the
universal target for anyones ill feelings, even Belgians it appears. Why would
the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the power to idicted, charge
etc. our serving generals for doing their job, *legally*. The US would spend
millions of US dollars every year defending ourselves in this international
"kangaroo court".

What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.

Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush Europeans
continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the same things
Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton refused to sign it for the
reason I stated above, I haven't heard Bush comment on it, but its my guess he
feels the same way.

Clinton and NATO *unilaterally*, without UN approval, bomb Yugoslavia and
eventually send ground forces in to occupy Kosovo. This is acceptable. Bush and
the UK, along with dozens of other nations, invades and removes Hussain from
power with *several* UN resolutions that threaten military action and France,
Germany, Belgium and Russia have a fit. The only country listed there with any
consistancy is Russia, the rest are hipocrits.

Unfortunately, the Bush
government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
immunity from prosecution.

Clinton too...oh forget it....


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
"indict Tommy Franks"

snip a bunch of legalistic crap

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.


even Belgians it
appears.

This was an unique Belgian law. It still had to pass through the
Belgian jurisdiction system though, and it belongs to history that
the Belgian court of appeal threw out the law alltogether and
settled for a watered down version. The suit against Franks was
dropped.


Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

[..]


What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.

Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush
Europeans continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the
same things Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton
refused to sign it for the reason I stated above,

Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000. On May 6, 2002.
Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.




Regards...

"Bjørnar" wrote in message
...
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

You never answered the questions. Why? Because that would be the case and
that is the reason why the US rightly declines to join a system that would
unjustly target it. We may be stuck with the current legal system, but why
join something equally as ridiculous?

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

No myth here. This is how it would start but it would morph into an anti US
(when the correct party was not in power) body. And who defines egregious
international crimes?

The simply truth is we don't have to join. Why should we? I would agree to
it only if there was a clause that said, "if the ICC pursued a case that is
purely political in natural, we don't have to submit anymore." Sounds
ridiculous doesn't it. About as ridiculous as "Numerous safeguards in the
ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases." Well I
don't trust it. And neither do most Americans. Make it iron clad and the
US would probably take another look.

MG

"Bjørnar" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

Just look at what a Presidential visit does. It becomes the
focal point for all the lefties/fascists/anarchists/greens to
strut their stuff in front of a TV camera. Same with IMF/World
Bank meetings, or G7 meetings, etc.

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.

It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
liable for his official actions in a court of law.

He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote in
:

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.

It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
liable for his official actions in a court of law.

He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.
It's for the benefit of human rights all accross the world.
It's something the entire civilized world has signed, 139
nations all in all. Even Israel and Iran followed in the wake
of Clinton, echoing the significance of this treaty and that
the world stands by it and what it represents.

The US is a big player in international affairs, it probably
wants to keep it like that, but how can it expect gain support
and respect in the minds of people if it only wants to play
by its own rules? Openly displaying a mistrust in rest of the
world?

Was Clinton wrong when he acted "to reaffirm our strong
support for international accountability and for bringing
to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity"?

Didn't Bush, bombing into Afghanistan, fanfare that the war
on terrorism was a "war to save civilization itself"? Where
is the US in this, apart from swinging swords that is.


ICC is important. By not endorcing the treaty the US is showing
a dibelief for international cooperation on such a funtamental
issue as human rigths. You say that people look to the US for
all kinds of "wrongs", well it probalby mans people look to
the US for all kinds of "goods" as well -- not accepting the
treaty is sending the wrong kind of signals to the world while
a US commitment would instead act as a deterrent of human
rights abuse. Simply put, if growing up has taught me one thing
it's that we all need role models, good role models.

Everything we humans do between eachother is ultimately built
on trust. It's my oppinon that you have to take risk to
make progress, in particular when the rest of the players
is openly signalling its will to share the risk as well.
That's part of how we build confidence and trust.

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.



Regards...

"Bjørnar" wrote:

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.

Sounds like a good reason for sending President Bush to prison for
20 years, no?

Surely *someone* with a law degree *somewhere* would think so. And
the ICC is just the ticket to accomplish that!


SMH