Edric O Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 ok, listen.We are not part of the United States.We do not intend to be (hopefully).We never were, thank God.That is all there is to it.Therefore if you want us to keep out of your affairs, keep out of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 nav, as much as it pains me personally, we are apart of an international community. This brings with it equal assurity that our forces will act just as decently as other allied forces. Surly the germans during world war 2 could have said the same things you are saying now. That they have not agreed to terms of international law and therefore are not apart of it. Well is somebody breaks international law, than they must pay for it. Nobody is above that law. Americans should be the first to uphold and go by that law. Oh and how you said americans loath and hate acts like rape? well you havent been in the military have you? I have lived most of my life on base and have had the "pleasure" of knowing the type of people in the U.S. Military. let me tell you, most of it is filled with white trash.lol These people are pretty immoral and sick. It goes to show you why we have the worst people in the military. The military doesnt give a shit about it's own solders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Er, France did not give up jurisdiction over their civilians by signing the statute of Rome, but jurisdiction over French suspects of international war crimes.The question wasn't really about if it was legally okay to choose option C, but about principal. I'll give a quote from the UN now.The United States' principal objection was over the concept of jurisdiction and its application over non-State parties. So their jurisdiction also applies to countries they're in war with? When they win a war, they "own" that country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 this is not about Europe or Asia or the Americas this is about an international court. So let's say Milosovic had taken alot of American soldiers captive and killed them in KZ camps. Then he looses the war and is captured however he is to be convicted in Serbia? What about Bin Laden? where do you want him to be trialed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 nav, as much as it pains me personally,this is uncalled for. take this back in your next post, please. act like an adult, and you will be treated as such. until then I will not respond to you.<rest of post snipped> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Er, France did not give up jurisdiction over their civilians by signing the statute of Rome, but jurisdiction over French suspects of international war crimes.The question wasn't really about if it was legally okay to choose option C, but about principal. I'll give a quote from the UN now.The United States' principal objection was over the concept of jurisdiction and its application over non-State parties. So their jurisdiction also applies to countries they're in war with? When they win a war, they "own" that country?ok, lets consider this. A french soldier commits war crime. lets say rapes an Iraqi woman in the coming conflict (assuming the french will be there).it is perfectly acceptable for the individual to be tried in France.it is perfectly acceptable for the individual to be tried under the ICC, so long as France is a participant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 this is not about Europe or Asia or the Americas this is about an international court. So let's say Milosovic had taken alot of American soldiers captive and killed them in KZ camps. Then he looses the war and is captured however he is to be convicted in Serbia? What about Bin Laden? where do you want him to be trialed? If Germany captures Bin Laden, we will ask for him to be handed over. Germany doesn't have to do this. If germany refuses to hand him over, then we will pout, complain and gripe- we will suffer a very very horrible foreign relations, but we will have no jurisdiction to invade germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 lol whoa I didnt mean to do that. I dont take it back though. WHy cant you answer my question nav? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nampigai Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 ok. What about Saddam (if he survives) ? he should be put infront of an Iraqi court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Emp, just face facts (facts are true in your termonoligy), you can't grasp the concept of this discussion and you will never admit the mistake you make here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 lol whoa I didnt mean to do that. I dont take it back though. WHy cant you answer my question nav?because i refuse to engage in debates that are grounded in childish insults. look around you:earthnuker, nam, nyar- all of them are are currently engaging in reasonable mature dialogue. Drop the personal insults, and join them and then we can discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Emp, just face facts (facts are true in your termonoligy), you can't grasp the concept of this discussion and you will never admit the mistake you make here.what facts? what mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 okay empr, I am sorry. now answer what I said above. I would much like to hear your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 what facts? what mistake?Fact: That you can't grasp the discussion here and seem to miss all points and proof presented.Mistake: Taking part in something you fail to understand. THe mistake of throwing things in the discussion that absolutely have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The mistake to not admit you're actually wrong or misunderstood what it's about. The mistake of twisting the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 what facts? what mistake?Fact: That you can't grasp the discussion here and seem to miss all points and proof presented.grasp what discussion here? There are several elements to it.The first element was the Bush would invade the netherlands. Also discussed: jurisdiction, the ICC, the ASPA, and the European angle to the ICC.Mistake: Taking part in something you fail to understand. THe mistake of throwing things in the discussion that absolutely have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. like what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Don't blame me if this gets locked ::) :-X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 what facts? what mistake?Fact: That you can't grasp the discussion here and seem to miss all points and proof presented.grasp what discussion here? There are several elements to it.The first element was the Bush would invade the netherlands. Also discussed: jurisdiction, the ICC, the ASPA, and the European angle to the ICC.Mistake: Taking part in something you fail to understand. THe mistake of throwing things in the discussion that absolutely have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. like what? Again you want another party to proof everything, while you just get along with twisting this discussion. I'd say read the thread and you have enough coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 okay empr, I am sorry. now answer what I said above. I would much like to hear your opinion.ok, lets review:surly the germans during world war 2 could have said the same things you are saying now. That they have not agreed to terms of international law and therefore are not apart of it. as I said earlier in this thread: (requoted)"Wherever a US soldier physically resides, there must be an agreement between the US and that host country allowing the soldier to reside there, except in the case where the US is at war with that country.Example: No soldier will set foot in Saudi Arabia without permission from Saudi Arabia unless the US is at war with Saudi Arabia."Oh and how you said americans loath and hate acts like rape? well you havent been in the military have you?I was IN the military for 10 years. I have lived most of my life on base and have had the "pleasure" of knowing the type of people in the U.S. Military. let me tell you, most of it is filled with white trash.lol These people are pretty immoral and sick. it is filled with good people. some people have problems and comit crimes like any other sector of society. and there are others- military dependents (chidren, spouses) who are very judgmental and overly critical of those who defend their freedom.It goes to show you why we have the worst people in the military. The military doesnt give a shit about it's own solders. if that is your opinion about the military, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Like I said in the other thread, Bush and his buddies can sink down deep in a huge pile of shit and preferably stay there.Narrow-mindedness :( i would have expected more from you Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I will give you credit on your last post. I respect that you have served the military and I respect that you accept that i have partial knowledge involving the military. What branch did you serve in? How old are you anyway? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 10 years air force: (joined right out of high school age 18)2 years ramstein AB, Germany2 years fairchild AFB, WA6 years at McChord AFB, WAgot out almost 2 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I was IN the military for 10 years.That just proves TMA's point:we have the worst people in the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Author Share Posted February 11, 2003 Lol Edric. Emp is going to like that one...or does he have you on the ignore list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 huh? yes I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 How do you block him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts