I was pointing out that I was not bashing (which I know you wasn't saying I was). I knew that someone would bring up you had no idea what the soldiers went through, how can you say their role was to protect US interest instead of saving lives. I was just showing that I understand what they went through and wasn't trivializing their position there. They thought they was saving lives. It is the politicians I am bashing.
too human
Besides this coming war being illegal, one thing that concerns me is the US governments refusal to adhere to, and campaign against, the new International Criminal Court that was officially opened on March 11 (especially as it is on the eve of war). Since it is meant to persecute war crimes, why can't the USA sign on to show its good intentions to the international community? It's things like this that make me a little nervous...
paintball player
I have to point out that your clarification lacks validity as well… just because you know what soldiers may have gone through, or because you had family that went through it, is STILL not saying you were not bashing soldiers. These two things can be a fact, and STILL allow someone to bash soldiers. Understanding, and even knowing about something, does not mean you can’t bash it, or be bashing it.Originally posted by Collegeboy
I was pointing out that I was not bashing (which I know you wasn't saying I was). I knew that someone would bring up you had no idea what the soldiers went through, how can you say their role was to protect US interest instead of saving lives. I was just showing that I understand what they went through and wasn't trivializing their position there. They thought they was saving lives. It is the politicians I am bashing.
You may indeed NOT be bashing soldiers, and instead bashing politicians, but that is not “proven” by knowing about soldiers, their feelings, or their motives. They are two different issues. If you want to prove you are not bashing them, prove it, and not by implying you can’t be because of your family ties to the military, or your “understanding” of it….. which is exactly how you tried to defend yourself.
www.ShartleyCustoms.com
Custom Paintball Products and Accessories
CLICK HERE to Check out our PDU SERIES GEAR!
its more like a paper cut that has primadonna's yelling murder... - Glickman
paintball player
???????? Illegal? So, we are now committing a crime? You had better come with more than THAT.... explain.........Originally posted by Sooky
Besides this coming war being illegal, one thing that concerns me is the US governments refusal to adhere to, and campaign against, the new International Criminal Court that was officially opened on March 11 (especially as it is on the eve of war). Since it is meant to persecute war crimes, why can't the USA sign on to show its good intentions to the international community? It's things like this that make me a little nervous...
And don’t we already prosecute for War Crimes as an International Community? hmmmmm
too human
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.Originally posted by shartley
???????? Illegal? So, we are now committing a crime? You had better come with more than THAT.... explain.........
And don’t we already prosecute for War Crimes as an International Community? hmmmmm
The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?
Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.
Another: http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/jan/25/brkafp_2-1.htm
Last edited by Sooky; 03-19-2003 at 05:40 PM.
paintball player
Okay, so some Australian legal “experts” said it was illegal, yet almost half as much more said it wasn’t ….. that MAKES it illegal? And because Kofi Annan says that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would make it illegal? Not by a long shot, sorry. It does not quite work like that…. sorry.Originally posted by Sooky
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.
The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?
Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.
And the ICC sound GREAT! But what is the difference between these same crimes committed before or after that date? Didn’t we (as an International Community) still prosecute war crimes of that type BEFORE the ICC? And without the ICC wouldn’t we still do so? I think the answer is YES.
Registered User
Originally posted by Sooky
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.
The ICC is supposed to deal with any war crimes committed after July 1, 2002. Things like genocide, the bombing of civilians, and systematic rape and torture. Russia and China have also refused, but the US gov. has actively campaigned against the court, and tried for an amendment to exemplify non-signatories. Also, the USA has been seeking guarantees from other countries to not turn over americans to the ICC. It just seems to me a tad unreasonable; isn't it creating a two-tier justice system, where the powerful are not responsible to anyone?
Edit: heres the link: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...55E421,00.html 43 international experts delared it illegal, but 21 said it wasn't. I know little about international law to say more than that, however.
Another: http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/jan/25/brkafp_2-1.htm
Yes but professor triggs is a moron! You should see other things that he objects to. He also stated that a retaliation against OBL was uncalled for & we should wait until we can grab him at an airport then put him on trial.HUH? The guy mus teach at the school that collegeboy goes to.
Iraq lost a war. he signed a cease fire on the grounds that he would disarm. He didnt. he has played us for a fool for too long, now it is time for action. the free world cannot allow terrorists & backers of terrorism to be able to conduct their terror on the world. I have said it b4, if Sadam had the power & the arms of the United States do you think that we would still be alive today??. He has shown that he cant be trusted. His time ends today & it was 12 years too long.
Conservative Jihadi
According to the family history that is quite extensive, my family came here in the late 1600's. Yours?Originally posted by Collegeboy
I surely wish people would brush up on their history before posting nonsense. And yes this is directed to you FOL.
When did your relatives immigrate here from Britain FOL?
And your assertion that some of us should "brush up on our history". Who's? Yours?
'I guess John Kerry went into the primaries without a plan to win the election.' - Ann Coulter
All you ever needed to know about how the left thinks in one video.
The Thinking Conservatives Website
Hey Michael Mooron, THIS is what a documentary looks like.
Former Moderator
That is incorrect. He did not say that. Everyone was carefull never to say that even the French.Originally posted by Sooky
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal.
Again this is a cancelling of a cease fire for non compliance by a party agreeing to it. Its perfectly legal to protect your soverienty. Not only that its perfectly legal to protect the UN's original intent! Thats a subject of debate and a grey area what Soverenty is. But one of the reasons that no resolution is needed in that case is that its not a new action at all its a continuation of old actions all sanctioned by the UN. Some (a few) members of the UN would like for it to be interpreted the way you think it is but that is so they can have it their way and protect their own interests. However they are wrong.
All Kofi said was it would be a bad thing not to all get together and pass one. I regret we cannot either. He didn't take sides on it at all. Nor did he say it was illegal. He knows it's not. The few that do not want to now force the disarmament of Iraq now want to mince words. And if thats the case they regret voting for 1441 and now want to try and act dumb to get out of it. To be honest when they voted they realy underestimated what Saddam would do. They realy believed he would comply! And now they are faced with the fact that they were wrong and have to live up to it. So now they act like they didn't know what they ment? Not buying that! But what else would "sever consequences" mean from non compliance with a "cease fire"? Don't try and snow yourself. Your not the only one fooled but a fool none the less if you want to swallow that.
too human
Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?
As for the ICC, I can understand the US not wanting to have its citizens prosecuted, but shoudn't they be if they commit war crimes? I think it would reassure other nations if the USA didn't appear to be seeking special status for its soldiers. When hearing of this, I am sure people suspect Guantanemo bay, and rumours of torture in Afganistan (whether they are true or not- I am not saying either way). Refusing to adhere to the ICC just makes the US seem guilty, thats all. And with Iraq, it just brings cause for concern as to the actions of the US military not being accountable to some independent authority.
Sorry if I am getting this too off topic.
Edit: others already responded, one second.
Registered User
I always find it interesting when people discuss whether the war is illegal or not. Is someone going to put sanctions on us? Not likely. How about try our president for war crimes? PLEASE!!! That is one thing that U.S. citizens would not dissent over!Originally posted by Sooky
Kofi Annan has said that any military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal. Also, I recently read of 40-something Australian legal experts stating the same thing. I'll look for a link and post it if I find it.
Lawyers can come to any conclusion that they want but it is a moot point. The relationships between us and our allies is important. The legality issue, however, is ridiculous.
ULE Body Level 10 Automag intelliframe + retrovalve
paintball player
CPhilip already explained about Kofi….Originally posted by Sooky
Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?
As for the ICC, I can understand the US not wanting to have its citizens prosecuted, but shoudn't they be if they commit war crimes? I think it would reassure other nations if the USA didn't appear to be seeking special status for its soldiers. When hearing of this, I am sure people suspect Guantanemo bay, and rumours of torture in Afganistan (whether they are true or not- I am not saying either way). Refusing to adhere to the ICC just makes the US seem guilty, thats all. And with Iraq, it just brings cause for concern as to the actions of the US military not being accountable to some independent authority.
Sorry if I am getting this too off topic.
Edit: others already responded, one second.
As for why we would not want our citizens prosecuted.. that is not quite accurate. We prosecute our own citizens for both domestic crimes AND war crimes. That is the difference. Why hand over our citizens to a foreign body when we already handle the situation? The ICC is wonderful for taking care of crimes committed by citizens of other countries that will NOT take the proper actions.
So with that in mind, not supporting the ICC, and not wanting our citizens handed over to it is pretty logical.. What WOULD be wrong, is if we BACKED the ICC and then refused to have our own people fall under it.
But again, no matter if the ICC is there or not, we as an International Community would still try people for War Crimes. It is not like the removal of the ICC would cause crimes to go unpunished.
Then how can your grandfather land on Gold Beach.Originally posted by FactsOfLife
According to the family history that is quite extensive, my family came here in the late 1600's. Yours?
And your assertion that some of us should "brush up on our history". Who's? Yours?
Na standard history is fine.
too human
Well, I don't think I'm a fool, but I am pretty sure I read a direct quote from him. It is possible I am wrong though, I will have to verify that. Although, I have heard the same from some of my professors, and thought it was common knowledge... But I will have to check.Originally posted by cphilip
That is incorrect. He did not say that. Everyone was carefull never to say that even the French.
Your not the only one fooled but a fool none the less if you want to swallow that.
Aaron_mag: I'm not trying to imply that the US government will be charged with war crimes, even if they commit them. But the fact that the US can get away with anything (including if this war is illegal [which I will have to look into again]) just because of their economic and military might ticks alot of people off and just contributes to the anti-americanism, etc, that has been coming up in this thread.
shartley: I am not saying the US cannot police itself, but if it appeared responsible to an international organization rather than itself, it would alleviate some suspicion (or at least mine).
Anyways, I didn't really mean to get too heavily into this as I am not really an expert or a MASTER DEBATER on the issues or anything (thats why I read rather than post), so please don't take my posts as a challenge or anything. Jeez, you can't even post without everybody jumping all over you here!
Last edited by Sooky; 03-19-2003 at 06:26 PM.
Registered User
I am not disagreeing with you there. It is important for the U.S. to consider this in their actions. Consideration of this was the reason Bush Sr. and many moderate Republicans did not want to invade Iraq after the war. Many of us still feel this way and I think Bush Jr. felt that way before Sept. 11th. Whether or not this was the right decision is the whole topic of this thread. Now I hope that it will go quickly (which I am sure it will) with little loss of life on both sides (also possible as I think the Iraqi forces will surrender quickly). Then the biggest hope is that our occupation of Iraq does not become a mess.Originally posted by Sooky
Aaron_mag: I'm not trying to imply that the US government will be charged with war crimes, even if they commit them. But the fact that the US can get away with anything (including if this war is illegal [which I will have to look into again]) just because of their economic and military might ticks alot of people off and just contributes to the anti-americanism, etc, that has been coming up in this thread.
I am wondering.
Does anyone think that all of these ethnic groups in Iraq are just going to go peacefully and allow just any leader to be put into power?
This reminds me of the problems that came up with the break up of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Former Moderator
And if you would listen to what he said you can still. but you chose to listen to others that interpreted it for you.Originally posted by Sooky
Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?
We are indeed doing exactly what the ICC demanded. Its some of them that decided to change their minds and reinterpret what they said. It is them that are in violation of their own resolution. They chose to forget and not back it up. Most of them still know what they intended but just would rather not admit it...
Most countries you say Say its illegal actualy say the THINK it MAY be illegal. However they are very carefull not to SAY its illegal because then it would be argued that what they are doing is ILLEGAL. They are not enforcing the cease fire agreement AND UN resolution 1441. And thats illegal!
Still around????
Uhmm, they have not censored or deleted anything you have posted have they. Keeping it all in one place is bad how? Anyone is welcome to jump in. I have not personally attacked anyone now have I? Debate yes, Dissent of course, if we all just agreed, this would be a very boring, short, welcome to AO thread!Originally posted by aaron_mag
This is true. Moderators not trying to emphasize the Bush point of view.
Former Moderator
Point one...its commonly SAID that they said it but that don't make it so! You need to listen to what they said. Only France tried to outright say it as close as they could but then again THEY have caused the violation of international law themselves! Let me explain...Originally posted by Sooky
Well, I don't think I'm a fool, but I am pretty sure I read a direct quote from him. It is possible I am wrong though, I will have to verify that. Although, I have heard the same from some of my professors, and thought it was common knowledge... But I will have to check.
There are two sides to every legal argument. One is the side we and our allies are taking in that they are illegaly failing to enforce the cease fire agreement and resolution 1441. And they voted unanimously to do enfoce it. And it is only a few nations with veto power who are ILLEGALY welding them to stop what MOST nations already agreed would be done. That is being done to impeed the implementation of 1441. It is the Nations (the few) that are impeeding the UN resolutions that are in violation of international Law. Which by the way is Voluntary! Protection of Soverenty is not. And it is the founding principal of all peoples volunteering to adhear to UN as international law. Without that there would be none. And when the UN allows itself to violate its own resolutions the agreement is breeched. And that is the case here. One or two nations managed to breech international law and I believe for thier own financial interests. I am convinced of that.
Another thing you need to realize is that a College Campus is not anywhere close to the real world. I am at one every day. I know. Its ripe with people who thing they are smart on everything just because they are in one narrow thing. Pompus Know it alls are rampant in that environment. Another thing is that most college aged students are ignorant of current affairs outside of what they are told that is filtered by their peers and professors. I am telling you to keep a open mind and dig the facts up for yourself. Your the only one YOU can trust!
Still around????
Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Well, I didn't waste my time with the repetitive insults. The signal to noise ratio is pretty low. I simply meant to state I read the signal on the first few pages until it started to diverge.
Read it or don't comment. What are you a cherry picker?
While the American support and participation was crucial, the biggest gripe is that it is always over estimated by the US. Indeed much of the gripe may be that with all the US actually DID do, why is it they have to steal the honour in battles and actions that were not their doing (Think U-571)?
Uhm U-571 was a fictional movie? Maybe thinking a little to hard on that one. Also the movie concludes with credits showing all of the various ships from all Allied Countries that captured Enigmas and code Books...Starting with the first ones captured by the British. I guess we shouldn't take the Alamo as a documentary then?
[B]
BTW fighting in reverse does not count as valor?
Alright, I can recognize a smilie. But is it really appropriate? Do you honestly find being invaded multiple times and having your country's soil filled with the blood and bones of millions a laughing matter. With so little respect shown is it any wonder Americans are not particularily liked? Lack of respect for other annihilates any of the respect you may have earned.
Well it doesn't count does it?
I am not going to dignify the rest of your post. As for facts on the situation try looking here:Facts
This is hard facts not innuendo and rumor. Slander the President and VP all you want, no skin off my butt. Like I said, bring proof or go away!
too human
Cphil- I understand you point about the past UN resolutions. I do follow current affairs as much as I can (apart from college), though I would admit it is often one-sided (thats why I have been interested in this thread). However, as I already stated, I am not an expert, and did not mean to get too caught up in this.
Still around????
Are you seriuos? Bush offered to join with assurances of protection for US Service Personel. They would not give it, we did not join?Originally posted by Sooky
Besides this coming war being illegal, one thing that concerns me is the US governments refusal to adhere to, and campaign against, the new International Criminal Court that was officially opened on March 11 (especially as it is on the eve of war). Since it is meant to persecute war crimes, why can't the USA sign on to show its good intentions to the international community? It's things like this that make me a little nervous...
That court is flawed and will fail quickly. Look at the Belgian War Crimes Law. Palestinians are now trying to indite Sharon there? No politcal prosecutions? Of course not!
Conservative Jihadi
idiot.Originally posted by Collegeboy
Then how can your grandfather land on Gold Beach.
Na standard history is fine.
he landed on Gold beach in Normandy France in WW2.
thanks for showing your true idiocy for the day.
I was beginning to get worried.
Former Moderator
Sooky I got great hope for you! You truly have an open mind. And like I said do not take anyones word for any of this EVEN MINE!Originally posted by Sooky
Cphil- I understand you point about the past UN resolutions. I do follow current affairs as much as I can (apart from college), though I would admit it is often one-sided (thats why I have been interested in this thread). However, as I already stated, I am not an expert, and did not mean to get too caught up in this.
Still around????
Well Sooky, I am glad you joined the debate, Welcome! The more the merrier!Originally posted by Sooky
Well, I am choosing to believe Kofi Annan. I don't understand why he would be wrong in this matter. Maybe explain?
Now as for your above post, keep this in mind: Kofi has a lot at stake keeping Iraq under the U.N.'s thumb. Right now, the UN collects and keeps 28% of all of Iraqs oil proceeds for"administrative and other functions". 28% of $59 billion is a lot of cash, eh? He might not want to see that cash cow set free of his organization.
Still around????
Bully? Correct me if I am wrong, but after the bully is done kicking your butt, Isn't he supposed to take your lunch money? We took a vote (Congress), we are going to kick their tails and then give them some of our lunch money! Darn it, some one needs to tell Bush the proper way to bully the world!Originally posted by SlartyBartFast
Seems to me that the singling out of the French for ridicule is more of a high school bully kind of tactic than diplomacy or mature conduct.
Isn't it kind of hard for an American soldier to land with the British.Originally posted by FactsOfLife
idiot.
he landed on Gold beach in Normandy France in WW2.
thanks for showing your true idiocy for the day.
I was beginning to get worried.
http://www.what-if-you.com/ww2memori...chapter_34.htm
Britian= Gold and Sword
US = Utah and Omaha
Canada/British=Juno
So unless your grandfather fought for the british he could not have landed at Gold.
Conservative Jihadi
how little you know boy.Originally posted by Collegeboy
Isn't it kind of hard for an American soldier to land with the British.
http://www.what-if-you.com/ww2memori...chapter_34.htm
Britian= Gold and Sword
US = Utah and Omaha
Canada/British=Juno
So unless your grandfather fought for the british he could not have landed at Gold.
he was a liason officer with the army. attached to the British 2nd.
I think this is the part where you remove your foot from your mouth?
or better yet, do us a favor and keep it there.
you're a perfect example of why children should be seen and not heard.
Former Moderator
Everyone go to the news...something MAY be happening. We may be switching threads....
Former Moderator
the President will adress the Nation at 10:15...
We will end the debate as to why and if then and switch to what is happening and only that. The debate on AO will end and we will switch to factual discussion of the Operation. Please adhear to that as I will edit heavily at that point.
Watch the news now!
Posting Permissions
