TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 I did as well actually.P.S. Hey Nyar look, he edited his post. (inside joke.hehehe)
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 I did as well actually.P.S. Hey Nyar look, he edited his post. (inside joke.hehehe)oooh so funny, i edited my post. i type at 70wpm and usually edit spelling errors and confusing grammar. notice that i edited my post before even one response to it, so whatever your theory was for me editing them obviously falls short.and I want to challenge you. Consider just for a moment...the possibility...that superimposing a swastika over the united states of america is forcing an opinion down someone's throat....down many many people's throats. also consider the possibility that such an act could be interpreted as racist hatmongering and offensive. maybe you can consider this point of view....maybe you cant. i do not know. but my opinion on the matter stands firm. people don't have to like it, but hurling personal flames do not do them any justice.
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 hehe I am not flaming you, you old homeboy you.lol Just that you are kinda annoying so I am bothering you a little. Also this is a discussion on the anger that many people have in the netherlands about bush protecting americans that are or will potentially be tried on war crimes. Not about our petty squabble.back on topic people. :)
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 hehe I am not flaming you, you old homeboy you.lol Just that you are kinda annoying so I am bothering you a little. Also this is a discussion on the anger that many people have in the netherlands about bush protecting americans that are or will potentially be tried on war crimes. Not about our petty squabble.back on topic people. :)lol ok. usually you will flame me, then a few posts later tell me how you aren't flaming me. well ok, on to other things then.this post began with the accusation that Bush would invaded the netherlandsan exaggeration to the extreme.i found no rational basis for it after reading the document.the Rome Statute was first brought into being in July 1998, in which the United States opposed it. (I'm sure you remember reading that part in the document)WHo was president of the US in 1998?
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 that doesnt only mean bill clinton. good gravy silly guy.lol(I'm sure you remember reading that part in the document)I also like that flame.lolkeep on subject. ;)
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 emprworm, I pitty you.. honestly. You just read what you want to read and interpet things they way you see fit. Like said, it doesn't matter what we say or bring forward as proof, you won't accept it. Don't say it isn't so, cause everyone can see I'm right. It's no problem that you can't accept anyones ideas or views, but it's your attitude of putting others down, twisting others words that does it.You talk about kidnapping Americans. I truely wonder where you read that for example. It just proofs that you like to twist/add words to make your view look better. To answer your question, yes I read it. I want to bet that if the international court would have been in the US, you wouldn't have any problem bringing soldiers of other nations to the international court. Don't deny it, cause you would love it. That makes your discussion even more worthless. According to you it's the US above all and the rest is ignorant. Way to go !Let me be clear, with US I mean the government.
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Author Posted February 11, 2003 Emp you continue to surprise me. First you accuse me and Nyar of lying when we speak of that particular law. When we provide proof you claim that soldiers who commit war crimes anywhere in the world still fall under your jurisdiction. When I say no to that, and say that a neutral court should judge such cases, you accuse the tribunal of being a bunch of European US haters.Like TMA and Nyar said, you don't even show the respect to listening to arguments of others. You just dismiss everything as leftist propaganda. I've lost a lot of respect for you.
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 ok we have a dane who was taken from Afghanistan and flewn to Guantanamo. He may very well have committed war crimes what do I know, but he's not a POW cause the american system don't look at them as legal combetants, so it's just fine. However emprworm you talked about kidnapping, it looks like it too me.(I'm NOT supporting the dane retained on Guantanamo, he got what he deserved however he should be a POW.)Let me just ask you one question Emprworm: If say one of your generals gave orders that was war crimes against humanity in Iraq, how would you have him convicted? The problem is that it's always the victor who gets heard. When the great war was over Germany and Austria-Hungary got the sole blame and was to pay a huge sum to the victors. Yet it wasn't really Germanys fault alone the whole world had been building up for a war, but we don't see it that way, we won.This IMO led to the creation of Hitler, I wont put words to how big a tyrrant and devil he was. Yet had we succeeded in capturing after the war we would have set him in a trial, an international trial. Now emprworm should he or any of his Nazi leaders been allowed to be convicted by the Germans?As for the Marshall aid well I as a european is evergratefull for it, however the US didn't aid for the benefit of Europeans, it was done to keep strong allies against the Soviet.(this is just my opinion you don't have to comment)You blame Germany for being war mongers and many still hate them for the horrors they(led by the Nazis) did. Now maybe this is why they are among the greatest pacifists in the world today, every time Germany mention war the world raise an eyebrow and look sceptical.
Edric O Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 You are right, Namp. I completely agree.Let's just hope Emprworm actually reads your post this time... although it's more likely that he'll just twist your words and avoid giving a straight answer.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Emp you continue to surprise me. First you accuse me and Nyar of lying when we speak of that particular law. When we provide proof you claim that soldiers who commit war crimes anywhere in the world still fall under your jurisdiction. When I say no to that, and say that a neutral court should judge such cases, you accuse the tribunal of being a bunch of European US haters.Like TMA and Nyar said, you don't even show the respect to listening to arguments of others. You just dismiss everything as leftist propaganda. I've lost a lot of respect for you.not exactly. you claimed "Bush invades netherlands"#1. It was clinton who originally was opposed to the Rome Statute passed in 1998#2. You do not have jurisdiction over a country that refuses to sign a treaty #3. Saying "Bush invades netherlands" Is a gross distortion of the facts#4. An europoean court trying an American soldier would most assuredly not be neutral
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 ok we have a dane who was taken from Afghanistan and flewn to Guantanamo. He may very well have committed war crimes what do I know, but he's not a POW cause the american system don't look at them as legal combetants, so it's just fine. However emprworm you talked about kidnapping, it looks like it too me.(I'm NOT supporting the dane retained on Guantanamo, he got what he deserved however he should be a POW.)Let me just ask you one question Emprworm: If say one of your generals gave orders that was war crimes against humanity in Iraq, how would you have him convicted? The problem is that it's always the victor who gets heard. When the great war was over Germany and Austria-Hungary got the sole blame and was to pay a huge sum to the victors. Yet it wasn't really Germanys fault alone the whole world had been building up for a war, but we don't see it that way, we won.This IMO led to the creation of Hitler, I wont put words to how big a tyrrant and devil he was. Yet had we succeeded in capturing after the war we would have set him in a trial, an international trial. Now emprworm should he or any of his Nazi leaders been allowed to be convicted by the Germans?As for the Marshall aid well I as a european is evergratefull for it, however the US didn't aid for the benefit of Europeans, it was done to keep strong allies against the Soviet.(this is just my opinion you don't have to comment)You blame Germany for being war mongers and many still hate them for the horrors they(led by the Nazis) did. Now maybe this is why they are among the greatest pacifists in the world today, every time Germany mention war the world raise an eyebrow and look sceptical. combatants captured as legal captives under the Geneva convention may be tried even if they have not signed the Rome treaty. under this case, jurisdiction is valid.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 emprworm, I pitty you.. wow, I'm so hurt.I want to bet that if the international court would have been in the US, you wouldn't have any problem bringing soldiers of other nations to the international court. Don't deny it, cause you would love it. i do deny it, because that assumption is false.
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Author Posted February 11, 2003 #1. Bill Clinton did sign the treaty *, and it was Bush who rejected it later.#2. You did sign the treaty.#3. I never said that. The title of this thread was only referring to the article.#4. The court is not European. It has judges from all over the world*> The US's opposition to the court culminated in May when the Bush > administration rejected a treaty that established the ICC — even though > Bill Clinton signed it in 2000
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 not exactly. you claimed "Bush invades netherlands"#1. It was clinton who originally was opposed to the Rome Statute passed in 1998#2. You do not have jurisdiction over a country that refuses to sign a treaty #3. Saying "Bush invades netherlands" Is a gross distortion of the facts#4. An europoean court trying an American soldier would most assuredly not be neutralYou're telling me now that Clinton is going to invade the Netherlands ? ROTFL.. You do know who your current "president" is right ?#3. Saying "Bush invades netherlands" Is a gross distortion of the factsUhm, how do you call the use of military force to free people from another country ? Operation free prisoners and no, we're not invading, but just sending our army into your country, don't worry okay ? LMAO...
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 combatants captured as legal captives under the Geneva convention may be tried even if they have not signed the Rome treaty. under this case, jurisdiction is valid.But not if it's an american?
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 yes it is. many americans have been captured in war, and they are legal captive so long as the geneva convention is honored by their captors.
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 so if they have committed war crimes shouldn't they be put in a court?
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 of course they should, and they will.but taking an american captive under the terms of the Geneva convention means that there is a war taking place. If the US and the Netherlands were at war, only then could the Netherlands take a US soldier captive. If the US is at war with Iraq, and the Netherlands takes a US soldier captive, there is a material breach occuring. #1. The Netherlands is not at war with the US. #2. The US does not agree to the terms of the Rome Statute. If the Netherlands is taking a US soldier captive on the grounds of the Rome Statute, and the US has never agreed to that statute, the Netherlands is committing a hostile act of aggression against the US.On what grounds can the Netherlands take a US soldier fighting in a war with someone else (other than the Netherlands) and take him captive? What jurisdiction do you have to do this?
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Try to understand that it isn't The Netherlands that's going to take captives. It's a international community that does this. The Netherlands is just the home base for the international court of justice.And before you start asking us to proof stuff again, you should read what you have been represented. Yes, I do need to repeat myself as you can't seem grasp the concept of the discussion here. I have to admit though, you're very good at twisting the whole conversation by failing to even respond to Earth's post
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 It's not the Netherlands that will take him captive the place of the court is irrelevant it could be on the north pole, but it has been decided that it should be in the Haag. Now if anyone does a warcrime they will be put infront of an international court, we just saw it with Milosovic. It wasn't the Dutch army who captured him but his trial is in the internationl court of warcrimes in the Haag, in the Netherlands.However the Bush government have said that if any american soldier was to be in this court they would come and retrieve him using military action if necesery. In my eyes that isn't very fair. Should the Serbs be allowed to send a special task force to retrieve Milosovic? Should Iraq if we capture Saddam?
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 WHO then would take US soldiers captive? British? Germans? French? The topic of this thread is specifically "Bush Invades Netherlands "Aside from the undeniable fact that such a proposition is a massive distortion of leftist propoganda, lets assume for a moment, that he would come in and wipe out the Netherlands with a barrage of preciion guided bombs.Now, if France is the country that takes the US Soldiers captive and those soldiers are detained in France, then why would Bush Invade the Netherlands? Now your argument really falls apart (not like it had any merit to begin with).Now, lets assume that France takes American soldiers captive and then transfers them to the Netherlands. In this case, it is now the NETHERLANDS holding the soldiers captive, in which my original statement: "but taking an american captive under the terms of the Geneva convention means that there is a war taking place. If the US and the Netherlands were at war, only then could the Netherlands take a US soldier captive" still stands.regardless, the whole proposition is asenine.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 WHO then would take US soldiers captive? British? Germans? French? The topic of this thread is specifically "Bush Invades Netherlands "Aside from the undeniable fact that such a proposition is a massive distortion of leftist propoganda, lets assume for a moment, that he would come in and wipe out the Netherlands with a barrage of preciion guided bombs.Now, if France is the country that takes the US Soldiers captive and those soldiers are detained in France, then why would Bush Invade the Netherlands? Now your argument really falls apart (not like it had any merit to begin with).Now, lets assume that France takes American soldiers captive and then transfers them to the Netherlands. In this case, it is now the NETHERLANDS holding the soldiers captive, in which my original statement: "but taking an american captive under the terms of the Geneva convention means that there is a war taking place. If the US and the Netherlands were at war, only then could the Netherlands take a US soldier captive" still stands.regardless, the whole proposition is asenine.LMAO... oh my.... you really have failed to read up haven't you LOL... You've just proven that your argument falls apart, not ours LMAO.. Oh man, what a good laugh this turns out to be.. Try to read what people post and stop twisting the conversation (as said so many times)..To be clear... i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m u n i t y you know what those words mean right ? ROTFL... Man, don't interfear in a discussion you don't understand.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 LMAO... oh my.... you really have failed to read up haven't you LOL... You've just proven that your argument falls apart, not ours LMAO.. Oh man, what a good laugh this turns out to be.. Try to read what people post and stop twisting the conversation (as said so many times)..To be clear... i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o m u n i t y you know what those words mean right ? ROTFL... Man, don't interfear in a discussion you don't understand.uhhh......wow. I am astounded, really astounded by your debating skills. ::)I didn't know that an "international community" could take a US soldier captive.Usually when a soldier is taken captive, it is done by another human being, not by a "community". The soldier who is now captive will physically reside in a single location in time and space. This location that the soldier is physically residing in will be in direct interest to the United States since this is an act of kidnapping. If the physical location of the soldier is in the netherlands, then that country is now responsible to release the soldier who is being held illegally.
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 WHO then would take US soldiers captive? British? Germans? French? The topic of this thread is specifically "Bush Invades Netherlands "Aside from the undeniable fact that such a proposition is a massive distortion of leftist propoganda, lets assume for a moment, that he would come in and wipe out the Netherlands with a barrage of preciion guided bombs.Now, if France is the country that takes the US Soldiers captive and those soldiers are detained in France, then why would Bush Invade the Netherlands? Now your argument really falls apart (not like it had any merit to begin with).Now, lets assume that France takes American soldiers captive and then transfers them to the Netherlands. In this case, it is now the NETHERLANDS holding the soldiers captive, in which my original statement: "but taking an american captive under the terms of the Geneva convention means that there is a war taking place. If the US and the Netherlands were at war, only then could the Netherlands take a US soldier captive" still stands.regardless, the whole proposition is asenine.damnit emrpworm, please read what I said, it doesn't matter where the international court is but it has been decided to be in the Haag, wich is in the Netherlands. The Bush government said they would use military force to retrieve any soldier hold in captivity by this court, thereby inderictly saying they would invade the Netherlands. If the court was in France, Belgium or Burkina Faso they would invade that country, but it's in the NetherlandsANSWER TO EMPRWORMS POST ABOVE THIS ONE:The persons would be captured by UN troops not Dutch military.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 uhhh......wow. I am astounded, really astounded by your debating skills. ::)I didn't know that an "international community" could take a US soldier captive.Usually when a soldier is taken captive, it is done by another human being, not by a "community". The soldier who is now captive will physically reside in a single location in time and space. This location that the soldier is physically residing in will be in direct interest to the United States since this is an act of kidnapping. If the physical location of the soldier is in the netherlands, then that country is now responsible to release the soldier who is being held illegally.Ah comon, you have better comebacks then that. You know I was refering to people of a international comunity. Be the smart guy you always are :)And don't talk about my debating skills, while you duck every question you have no answer to and with that, twist the conversation ::)
Recommended Posts