EU as joke (modified)

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

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

....except for actually *doing* anything.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to

In other words, the US should just "shut up" until it sees things
the ["old"] Euro way?

That sounds vaguely familiar.


SMH

"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

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:18:36 GMT, Bjørnar wrote:

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.

Our Constitution affords American citizens certain protections *not*
guaranteed by the ICC. We'd have to change our Constitution (hah!) before
signing on to the ICC.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

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...

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

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts.


That is not true, and even if it were, that does not mean that your
specious arguments are valid

The UN has been anti-American for many years.



You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

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,


And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

You foolishly engaged in a public relations exercise which
was doomed to failure.


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.

According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


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.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.


terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

We, unlike Norway, will defend ourselves when we are
attacked.

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


Well, being the only super power in existence, we ARE in
a position to lead in international affairs.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

Of course we do, since the UN, NATO, etc. are sniveling
little debating societies. Someone has to defend
freedom, and silly little countries like Norway are
either incapable or too cowardly to do it.


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.

If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
the US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.


Not wise, just cowardly.

(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

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.

Al Minyard