At Stardate 20030622.2102, Jan Coffey wrote:
> Can you show evidence that Americans will be subjected to ridiculous > accusations? If not, your statement is only rhetoric.
Come one Jeroen you are twisting things up, have you read reviews of this thing? Do you know what war is like?
I've never been on the front line, if that's what you mean. But I think I have a reasonably good idea of what it is like. Hell. And it helps that I work for the military and that some of my co-workers *have* been in a war zone.
A platoon moves into village and one crazy guy runs out of his home with a shotgun. The man is put down. the Man's wife runs out screming and atacks one soldire with her bare hands, the soldure slaps her down and throws her in the mud. Several 17 and 18 year old soldiurs find it humerous. Later she claims that instead of being slaped and left in the mud she was raped. The rest of the viliaged (all of whome are on the opposing side of the war) coberate this fabrication.
A real word example of a scinario that would have benched a whole platoon and cost the government of the soldiours millions of dollars, possibly imprisoning many inocent people.
That's the problem with the US: for some reason they seem to think that any US serviceman will be considered guilty until proven innocent. That, however, is not how the ICC works.
This sort of thing can not be allowed. If the US had to deal with this sort of crap from the ICC then it simply would stop peacekeeping all together.
I wonder if the US realises that with this attitude, they're giving the impression that they believe US war criminals should not be prosecuted, and that accusations of war crimes committed by US soldiers should not be investigated.
> IMHO, this sounds more like the abovementioned "they're out to get us" > paranoia.
No it's these people pushing the ICC clearly don't understand the fog of war.
Ah yes, of course. All those countries don't understand the fog of war, because one country (the US) doesn't share their views. Oh well, guess you must be right -- after all, it's not as if regions like Europe, Asia and Africa have seen any war in the last few centuries...
And BTW, If you want to think that we are paranoid go ahead, it isn't true but you can think what you like, but just beouse we are paranoid doesn't mean that some are not our to get us.
So, which countries *are* out to get you? And why are those countries out to get you?
> Any accusation of war crimes needs to be investigated, regardless of who > allegedly committed those crimes. If no evidence against a person is find, > that person will not be prosecuted. If evidence *is* found, than that > person should be prosecuted. Why should US servicemen be exempted from > this? Are they "holier than thou"?
I believe that JAG is perfectly capable of prosicuting criminals in the military. There is no need for the ICC.
JAG can handle internal matters, such as murder within the military. But they should stay out of international matters (and war is, by definition, an international matter).
If an American is tried at the ICC, he will receive a fair trial, exactly because the judges come from the international community (which includes both friends and enemies of the US). If the US is going to put its own war criminals on trial, we can't be sure that someone behind the scenes isn't pulling strings to get a "not guilty".
> By not recognising the ICC, the US is essentially saying that international > laws should apply to everyone except the US.
No, it is those who are recognising the ICC who are saying that that particular flavor of international law should apply to them. Just becouse the US doesn't go along with something doesn't seggest that they believe that they should be exempt.
Actually, they did say that. The US was willing to accept the ICC, but only if no US serviceman would ever have to stand trial there. And they made a very clear threat about what they would do if an American *would* be put on trial there.
Also, wow do you go about proving cases like the Korea bridge incedent? The NKs rounded up a vilage and put them under a bridge then took up defensive positions behind and just above the bridge still in the river bed. The US troops came up the river bed to the bridge and were fired appon. The captan in charge ordered an open fire. Almost all of the viligers died. Most of the Nks got away. If all of the villigaers had dies how would you proove that the US troops didn't round them up stick them under the bridge and shoot them all?
I wouldn't have to prove that US troops did *not* stick those civilians under the bridge. Thanks to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the burden would be on me to prove that those troops *did* round up and kill those civilians. No proof, no conviction.
If the US recognized the ICC then all an enemy would have to do is recreate a situation like this.
See, that's the whole problem: the US seems to have this wacked notion that US troops will be considered guilty until proven innocent.
> >France, and Russia (the countries who still do buisness, often black > >market buisnes contrary to UN resolutions) > > One word: Halliburton.
One phrase - "only expert option".
This wasn't about US companies trying to get post-war contracts. Halliburton was doing business with Iraq despite UN sanctions.
> Basically, what would happen is that the oil sheiks and the Bush clique > would get very upset and that the Middle East would have to find other ways > to keep their economies going.
No their economies would colaps.
Not likely, unless their oil sales would drop by at least a few dozen percent.
"Do you really think that your success means that your pre-war attitude will be forgotten?"
Once again what attitude?
Already explained, but nevertheless: statements to the international community like "we're going to war, with or without you", "we'll ignore the UN if we don't like its decision" and "if you're not with us, you're against us".
Not exactly a friendly attitude.
Did you ever go see a football (and I mean football, wehre you catuly use your foot on the ball) game and one side was yelling "we're number one".
That's what we call "soccer", and no, I've never been to a game. In fact, I hate soccer. Lots of my tax money is spent on it, but I get nothing back in return.
> Foreigners are forgiven if they walk hand in hand, but Sonja and I > nevertheless respected that local custom and did not walk hand in hand. > Other example: Thai have a particular custom when greeting each other > (certain stance, certain phrase). As a foreigner, you'll get away with not > following that custom. However, we *did* copy it and we noticed that our > attempts to adapt were very much appreciated.
Or laughed at.
In our experience, it was certainly appreciated. And if they *did* laugh at us, it certainly wasn't where we could see it -- they're way too polite for that.
> which in turn, when it happens enough times, can lead to the impression > that Americans generally are all arrogant and intolerant.
Hay now, we are NOT intolerant! :) ...arrogant yes. But what's wrong with being arrogant? It's a good thing isn't it?
Maybe arrogance is considered a good thing in the US, but if you come over here I recommend you leave the arrogance at home. It is not appreciated on this side of the Atlantic.
Jeroen van Baardwijk
_________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
[Sponsored by:] _____________________________________________________________________________ The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
