The rest asnwered in other posts
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Here we go, specifics. Why we don't go along with it. Once again we supply
>
> >the majority of troops to any peacekeeping mission. So we have greater
> >exposure to possible suits. There are no previsions which keep rediculous
> >acusations from being used to tie american servicemen in ICC litigation
> >for years.
>
> 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?
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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. And yes, that was a statment that was made, but it was
made to make a point. We do not beleive the ICC is a good model.
I could easily say, certain countries are essentially saying that the
opinions of the united States are inconsequential in determining
international law. But I didn't becouse it isn't that simple. Just like the
statment you made isn't that simple.
We aren't against ~an~ ICC, just ~this~ ICC.
It's not that we think we should be exempt and that this law should hold for
everyone else, we don't think any nation should recognize the ICC!
>
> >Put quite simply, if we were to recognize this court our fighting force
> >would lose effectiveness. We would have to constantly be making dicisions
> >in war based on _expeediant_ proovability of no wrong doing rather than
> >saving lives and bringing peace.
>
> Ridiculous, as it is impossible to make such decisions. You can make
> decisions all you want, but you can never rule out the possibility that
> individual soldiers will commit war crimes.
True, but we do have courts and military police to take care of these issues
when they do happen. Crime is crime whether it happens in war or not. War
crimes are things like genocide and the like. Rape and murder are rape and
murder and can be handled as a gernal crime not a "war crime".
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? The fog of war is real.
If the US recognized the ICC then all an enemy would have to do is recreate a
situation like this. Even in Iraq Baths were using US style uniforms to make
their troops think that surender was not an option. The fog of war is real.
> >We do not agree with the rules of process and precedings for the court. We
>
> >will not allow an international body to set the US fourin policy, and we
> >do not agree with all of the governing laws.
>
> US foreign policy is not affected by this. Regardless of what your foreign
> policy is, you can not control the behaviour of all individuals who work
> for you.
That is why we have the Judge Advocate General. But you know that crime among
US service personell is extreamly low.
> > > Insisting on launching a war against Iraq even though the international
> > > community didn't think it was a good idea.
> >
> >1) This inernational community being who? We had a coilition. It was not
> >just the US, it was 1/2 the world.
>
> Until very close before the war, there was very little support for an
> invasion.
BS. Name countries who shifted just before the war. Besides what if they did?
They did shift.
> >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".
1) Our polititons come from and return to industry. You would be hard pressed
to find a single company that did not have some ties to government officals.
That's just the way it works here in the US.
2) Halliburton was the only expert option. Name another expert option.
3) When you don't provide funds or troops in a war, and especialy when you
are not providing funds for rebuiding the country afterwards (an american
idea of ethics btw) then your country is not going to get any of the
contracts. Simple as that.
> > > The US has refused to sign a number of treaties which were aimed at
> > > protection of the environment.
> >
> >True we have, but their are as many scientists who think that there is no
> >globabl warming comeing as their are who beleive there is.
>
> There are also lots of people who still believe that evolution theory is
> nothing but a questionable theory and that the world was created by god.
But they are not reputable scientists.
> >However, What woudl happen to the middle east if we seriously cut the use
> >of Oil? What do you think would happen? What kind of povety would that
> >throw the middle east into?
>
> That's short-term thinking. I'm thinking long-term.
Long term is you do it more gradualy. Besides what about short term
Middle-easterners?
> 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.
> They'll have to do that sooner or later
> anyway -- the oil fields in the Middle East are huge, but they are not
> infinite. Those oil fields are going to run dry *some day*.
And long before they do the US will have stoped buying it. That is a given if
you look at US environemntal law. It is simply that it can not be done as a
revolution. It has to be a steady gradual change. And that change is
happening.
> Middle East: lots of uninhabitated areas, plenty of wind, massive amounts
> of sunshine. Sounds like they could eventually make a fortune from
> alternative energy sources.
No more than anywhere else though. But they will have to find something else.
There are a lot of US dollars being spent trying to figure out what they can
do when Oil is no-longer the economic backbone.
> > > America's behaviour in the international community has done great
> damage
> > > to its reputation and to the trust the rest of the world has in the US.
> > > Especially America's attitude of "we'll do whatever we want, with or
> > > without you" during the pre-war Iraq debates, and the "if you're not
> > > with us, you're against us" rhetoric hasn't exactly gone down very well
> > > with the rest of the world.
> >
> >Attitude? come one, what about actions? what about results?
>
> Actions and results don't count for everything. Okay, so you managed to
> overthrow the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (although you've still not managed
> to capture either Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein). Do you really think
> that your success means that your pre-war attitude will be forgotten?
I wasn't just talking about war, but...agg.
"Actions and results don't count for everything." Well then we have nothing
further to discuss if we disagree on such a level.
"although you've still not managed to capture either Osama bin Laden or
Saddam Hussein"
what "na, na ,na ,na, na". Come on lets act like adults.
"Do you really think that your success means that your pre-war attitude will
be forgotten?"
Once again what attitude?
> > > We all live on the same planet, and we all need to work together to
> > > prevent it from going to hell. Unfortunately, we cannot trust the US to
> > > behave like a team player, not while it continues to put its own
> > > interests ahead of global interests.
> >
> >BS! the world is not going to hell.
>
> It will if we (the human race) don't clean up our act.
The sky is not falling, we are cleaning up our act.
> >And we don't put our own interests ahead of the worlds, it is quite the
> >other way around.
>
> When the US refuses to sign international environmental treaties because
> doing so would harm America's short-term economic interests, it *is*
> putting its own interests ahead of the world's interests.
Just becouse we don't sign that treaty doesn't mean we are not making the
hard decisions (at an economic impact) and doing hte right thing for the
environment. It isn't all black and white you know. That teaty has a lot of
problems and the one the US proposed reduced invironemntal impact by more
than twice Kyoto. Why was that one turned down?
> >And who, BTW was keeping Sadam from commiting geniside on the kurds and
> >shiat? Oh yea, that was us wasn't it?
>
> Only since the second Gulf War. In the decades before that, the US didn't
> seem to particularly care about it.
I don't think that was true, but we were rather preocupide with the cold war.
> And the US still doesn't seem to care
> much that it's ally Turkey is still being very aggressive towards its
> Kurdish citizens in Eastern Turkey.
I know this is not true, why do you think that it is?
> > > >We are, once again, the leading the world, making a difference. We are
> > > >given a new fight, a new burdon of terorrism and we are willingly
> taking
> > > >it. We could after all close up and let others in the world deal with
> > > >the terrorism themselves.
> > >
> > > Er, that *is* what we've been doing. There has been no noteworthy US
> > > involvement in dealing with some *four decades* of terrorism in Europe.
> >
> >I'm sorry, you wanted us to come over to your country and stop the
> >terrorism in your country?
>
> It looks like we've been fairly effective at dealing with it ourselves.
Yes it does.
> That's not the point, however; your statement sounded as if the US is the
> only country who ever had to deal with terrorism within its borders.
I don't know how you got that idea, I certainly was not thinking, insinuating
or stating as such.
> > > > > Other behaviour includes endless praise of the US as "the greatest
> > > > > country in the world" (which can become quite annoying when you
> hear
> > > > > it often enough)
> > > >
> > > >I am sure it does, but is it not true?
> > >
> > > Nope. Not in my opinion, anyway.
> >
> >Which is the greatest in your opinion?
>
> The Netherlands, of course! :-)
Well then say it more often. And then all the Yanks who state otherwsie won't
sound so egotistical :) It's not like Yanks go about saying that your country
is bad.
Besides the Netherlands is a greate place I undrstand.
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".
Yanks are just greate cheerleaders you know. Don't take it the wrong way.
> > > And it never hurts to learn a few words in the local language. You'd be
> > > surprised how much it is appreciated if you can say "good morning",
> > > "please" and "thank you" in the local language.
> >
> >Americans for the most part hear one and only one language their whole
> >lives and that makes it dificult to learn others languages.
>
> You don't have to learn a whole language for a short vacation; learning
> just a few basic phrases like "good morning" and "thank you" will suffice
> and make your stay more pleasant.
Not if you walk around butchering those words, that would be rude.
>
> >After all, a majority of people in the world do speak english. It is rude
> >to butcher anothers language and is better to use the defacto
> >international language than to speek another improperly.
>
> It has been my experience in all the countries I've been to that people are
>
> very forgiving when it comes to that. An imperfect pronounciation of a word
>
> or phrase is not a problem, the mere fact that you at least *tried* to
> learn a few basic phrases in the local language is always very much
> appreciated.
My experience has been very differnt.
> > > I've not been to the US (yet), but I've been to several other
> countries.
> > > Each and every time I've found that those two simple rules I mentioned
> > > above make a world of difference. Try to blend in, rather than stand
> out.
> >
> >Turists will allways stand out. I can spot a chinesse turist in China
> town.
>
> Of course they'll always stand out to some extent (the video camera in
> their hand usually gives them away) -- but that doesn't mean they can't
> follow local customs.
Not when you don't know what they are, and ..your not getting it. The people
you are concerned about are the poorest most uneducated (hillbilly) (yokel)
Americans. The big differnce is that our poor and uneducated people still go
traveling about the world.
> >Besides you really are asking a people to behave as if somthing they think
>
> >is unethical were not.
>
> It's not about only major issues, it's also about the small things.
That's what I am talking about.
> Example: in western society it's completely acceptable for couples to walk
> hand in hand. In Thailand however, such behaviour is frowned upon because
> the Thai don't like touching each other in public.
I did not know that. But they have to expect that if they invite westerners
to their country that they will be holding hands etc.
> 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.
> Other example, closer to home: many Americans are Christian, and as such
> many of them will probably say a prayer before dinner. I'm not religious,
> so I don't pray before dinner. Now, let's say I'm visiting an American
> family where praying for dinner is customary. The food is served, and I
> immediately start eating without waiting for my host and his family to say
> their prayers. Wouldn't that be considered rude behaviour on my part? It
> certainly would be considered extremely rude over here.
No. it wouldn't be considered rude. They would simply ask if you could wait a
second and explain the custom of praying before eating. They also would not
expect you to pray with them, but rather you could sit quitely while they
did. I have been in the situation on both sides.
> > > Er, you're not telling me that the only preparation an American does
> for
> > > a foreign vacation is *watching commercials*, are you? It really takes
> a
> > > bit more effort than *that*! :-)
> >
> >Have you seen these comercials? Obviously not. they are 1 hour long
> >documenteries on where to go what to see and how welcome you will be.
>
> I've seen those, but one must always keep in mind that such documentaries
> are more like commercials than documentaries. Further, it's simply
> impossible to include *everything* about a country (sites to see, customs
> to follow, politics etcetera) in a one-hour show.
And the people watching them and the ones you are talking about, are generaly
the poorest and most uneducated.
That is the differnce, other countries poorest and most uneducated people
don't go galavanting around the world. Ours do.
> > > >Ok food for thought. Lets see where this leads. It is an interesting
> > > >conversation.
> > >
> > > Just be careful where you tread along this path. Earlier discussions on
> > > this topic have shown that it's easy to step on someone's toes, even
> > > unintentionally.
> > >
> >Yes that is very true. But Americans tend to expect you not to be offended
>
> >remember? Becouse they generaly are not once they understand that it was
> >unintentional. So ..If I have offended I appologize, but you know it is
> >difficult for me to see the offense sometimes. You will have to point it
> >out and give me an opertunity to clarify.
>
> This touches on one of the most basic of problems I've encountered when
> dealing with Americans (or rather: with certain individual Americans). When
>
> *they* say something, everyone is expected to realise that their cultural
> background is different from mine, but when *I* say something that very
> same aspect is ignored.
To some extent I know what you mean, but often it is your perception of their
reaction.
> And that in turn makes those individuals look very
> arrogant and intolerant,
I understand how that works but I don't know how to explain it yet. I do
beleive that some are, but I also beleive that most are actualy being
tolerant in their way, but that it isn't comeing across that way to you.
> 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?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
