The "War On Terror"

[theN00b]

also one should not fore democracy on to people. Afghanistan is not a case of this. Technically the Northern Alliance (mujahdeen) was a republic. It was a corrupt republic but still a republic.

[Grifter]

Loud, I'm basing that on the fact that terrorism has been around for a very, very long time.  I'm not just talking about in the US or in the West... terrorism has whiped out villages in Africa...  Figure the IRA, and PLO have both killed thousands in their bombings...  people die to terrorists in Palistine and Isreal every week.  Poison gas was released in a subway in Japan years ago (thank goodness that terrorist group sucked at it)...  Cambodia... I'm not only counting the World Trade Centers or Oklahoma City...  Hell, lumberjacks die every year to eco-terrorists too.

Cossack, my personal idea of terrorism is the intentional slaughter of innocents... not military targets.  I personally don't consider the attacks on the Cole, the Marine Barraks in Beruit... even the sinking of the Main terrorist acts.  I consider those acts of War.  But those were military targets.  Bombing train stations and airplanes... killing athletes at the Olympics... blowing up buildings... poisoning water supplies.... spiking trees... those are terrorist acts to me.  

And I agree too... I'm not for us marching in and telling anyone else how to run their country, unless it is a true danger to us or the world.  Government methodology doesn't constitute the danger... but if India or Pakistan actually start firing off Nukes at each other... then it could justify getting involved.... The use of nukes is stupid and we should know better (we being the whole wide world).  So, just like in my gun argument... I don't think we can say anyone can't have them... but if they ABUSE them, they should (and I'm sure will) be punished.

And you are right... Democracy cannot be forced on anyone... it's impossible.  But most people confuse a Democracy and a Republic.  There hasn't been a true democracy since ancient Athens as far as I know.  

And the US didn't install that republic, they just restored the last internationally recognized government... I said that before...

[+-KoS-+Rebel]

The whole topic of the war on terrosim brings up something i said at the beginning of it all. I made a plan how we could easily take out Osama Bin Laden without the use of planes or any tactical weapons. I would have set it up this way. What we shoud have done is taken about 100 snipers and giving them food, water, a rifle, bullets, and nightvision goggles. We should place snipers on every mountain, hill, anything that provides cover and camped them there. Then at night when Osama has been moving we should have the snipers on full alert and shoot that fucker in the face. Easiest way. He wouldnt even see who shot him. It would be over just like that then we could move on to more important tragets such as the problem with Iraq and other terrorists in the Mid east. This idea may have worked but maybe not. But now we will never know.

Rebel out

[Think about that]

U.S. foreign policy = primitive bullshit.

[Read this]

Headline: EU offers to step in if US move out of Bosnia

July 03 2002 at 06:43PM


Brussels - The European Union offered on Wednesday to take control of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia to prevent its collapse if last-minute talks with the United States failed to produce an accord on its future.

Negotiators had until midnight New York time on Wednesday to avert a US threat to veto the mission's renewal unless US peacekeepers are given exemption from the jurisdiction of a new global war crimes court.

Senior EU officials renewed their criticism of the US veto threat and reaffirmed their commitment to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which came into force on Monday.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the EU was ready to speed up its timetable for taking over the 1 600-strong police mission run by the UN if the threat is carried out. Under present plans it is due to take charge of it next January.

'We will be ready to take the responsibility of filling the gap'"If the situation in the Security Council of the UN is such that the mission is over, we will be ready to take the responsibility of filling the gap until the moment when we had decided already to take it over," he told reporters in Brussels.

"I think we are in a position to accelerate the procedures if necessary," Solana said.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said he regretted the US opposition to the ICC.

"The EU fully supports the establishment of the International Criminal Court and sees it as a major progression in the development of international law," he told a news conference at the European parliament in Strasbourg, France.

"I deeply regret that differing views on this court threaten to jeopardise the whole peacekeeping role of the United Nations. A solution must be found to prevent this while also respecting the statute of the court," he said.

Washington wants the UN Security Council to pass a resolution placing US personnel overseas beyond the court's reach or adding language to each mission's mandate shielding US peacekeepers.

Speaking on a visit to Belgrade, the European Commissioner for External Relations Chris Patten said the 15-nation EU would not give in to US pressure to weaken the court.

"We think the ICC is the most important advance in international rule of law since the establishment of the UN and we are not going to allow anyone to water down our commitment to the principle," he said.

US envoys circulated a draft compromise text in the Security Council late on Tuesday, and hopes of a deal persisted as US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice met visiting Danish officials representing the EU.

The US proposal would give 12 months' immunity for crimes by peacekeepers from any country that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court. - Reuters      

[Bondo]

I think it is a bit silly of us to expect to be beyond getting in trouble if we commit a war crime (as there were reports of being done in Vietnam at least).  So I think the UN or whoever it is that runs the war crimes tribunal would be smart to stand up to the US and say "No, we won't let you be held to different standards"...typical Americans are better bullshit.

[Grifter]

I think it is a bit silly of us to expect to be beyond getting in trouble if we commit a war crime (as there were reports of being done in Vietnam at least)...   ...typical Americans are better bullshit.

hmm... first of all... anyone that's used a shotgun in a battle has technically commited a war crime (since shotguns were banned long ago... before the Spanish-American war I believe).  That would cover many countries as being guilty... including the US, since there were films of shotties in Vietnam.

Second of all.. maybe it's just America wanting a grandfather clause, because that's how I read it... and the previous post doesn't disagree with it.  

The US proposal would give 12 months' immunity for crimes by peacekeepers from any country that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court. - Reuters ?

Immunity for those that had not yet ratified the treaty... meaning that they haven't signed up for it yet.

Sounds to me like they just don't want to get charged for something that may have already happened.

That clipping was from Brussels... any reason to think it's any less jaded then the American press?

[Brain]

as i understand  this(they coverd this on the local news radio station) this court could  say that  thi court cold charge anyone for warcrimes, which include(if i remeber correctly) ' deragatory statements' made against combatants so in other words talkshow hosts could be in deep shit.
also
this would mean that if ever there were civilian casualties, american soldiers could be tried and convicted of warcrimes

and i dont even want to discuss how this court could be used as a crowarbar against the us if we take a stance that the europeans dont like

if you ask me, this whole thing is a very bad idea

[Grifter]

There is a bunch around this issue that's not clear and a bit scarry... (just because too much power is something to always be worried about).  

One big question is... who makes up the laws that all these soilders are going to be held accountable to?  Because if I'm an American soilder (or even Canadian or any other).. I've agreed to uphold the laws of my country...  not of the UN.  

Lots of questions before I'd pass any judgement on it.

[Brain]

if i remember correctly, the laws are the standard warcrimes laws, but that's not what bothers me.
what i find particulary disturbing is that there is no mandate nor a timeline here. it they had a purpose, like say nuremburg(i just totaly slaughtered that) i wouldnt mind that much, it is the open endedness that bothers me in particular

[Grifter]

Like I said, I'm too ignorant on the topic right now.  All I have is questions, time to do  some reading.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The United States is afraid that since it is the only remaining superpower in the world, lesser nations would try to take potshots at it by putting American troops on trial unfairly...despite these fears, no one that has ratified the treaty has yet mollified these fears.

Also as Grifter stated above, this new court doesn't mean shit for the US since the US hasn't signed it.

[Ace]

I haven't read anything about this outside the forum, but generally I would be opposed to this for reasons like Assassin and GRIFT state. We can take care of our own guys; we don't need other nations trying us for spitting on the wrong side of the street or whatever it may be. If they really have a problem with it, I suggest they try picking up all of the slack. Let's see how long they last.

[Ace]

I'm double posting cuz I can, but who is the fucking pansy who talks shit about the US but won't post his name?