U.s. makes plans for invading the netherlands

[hneel 0]

Strange that this topic hasn't come up here yet. The U.S. congress has accepted a law which would allow the U.S. army to invade the Netherlands in case american war crimes would be brought to trial for the international war crimes tribunal. The dutch government is of course furious about the idea.

Unfortunatly I haven't been able to find a english-language source. For sites like CNN this is probably no big news.

I think Bush has gone crazy now. Why should american soldiers, if they commit war crimes, stand above the law? Should they be allowed to do things that other soldier would get punished for? This nationalist way of thinking is repulsive.

No wonder so many people all over the world hate the US. Would George W Bush have any clue about why?  

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (hneel @ June 11 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Would George W Bush have any clue about why?  <span id='postcolor'>

Nope

[Tex -USMC- 0]

lol... just be glad the Netherlands arent part of the SIOP

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Let them come, we poison them with Belgian beer and gene-manipulated roses from Holland and "mad-cow-desease" sausages from Germany!!

[FW200 0]

i really get pissed of that guy that you americans call president!!!

BTW the us wouldnt have the guts to attack NL!!!

They would get the entire nato after them!!

FW

(Born and raised in NL and proud of it)

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

No, not all the NATO! The germans wouldnt help, they would say they would but then again...why the hell helping the dutch? No more dutch means no more caravans on german roads!

Dankje well!

[RedRogue 0]

-http://www.stopworldwar3.com/features/hrw101301.shtml

There is one English site on it, but I do not know how impartial the site is as I have never been there before, nor verified their articles.

All I can say on the topic is, who makes the rules and laws of this war crimes tribunal? If I where a nation that has managed to garner a general mislike in the world I would be very skeptic on something like this. It would seem to easy for someone to make laws and arrest overseas personnel for reasons other than true war crimes if there are any.

As for a reality of invading any NATO European nation. I would highly doubt that because I don't see anyway you could sugarcoat that enough to feed it to the American people in a way that they would support you. Economic and military sactions on the other hand are more likely.

[ran 0]

FRANCE WOULD USE ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINE AND WOULD CLEAN WASHINGTON j/K

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

If the US would like to invade Holland they would do it! They dont need no regulations for that? When did the US ever care about the law-issue of a war?

In a deep voice:" either you are on our side or you are on the side of terorists"

THis is the law that counts, the law of the saloon!!

[Epyon9283 0]

old news. Anyway, I really don't understand why the hell the US would have a problem with the ICC.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Epyon9283 @ June 11 2002,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">old news. Anyway, I really don't understand why the hell the US would have a problem with the ICC.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably for the same reason it might have a problem with the UN when the US gets voted off the Human Rights Council and the Sudan takes our spot. This is a country that still has a slave trade.

I do think its pretty ludicrous that we even have a plan for an invasion in the Netherlands. I think going through France would be so much more satisfying, and I think Europe would mind less

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ June 11 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FRANCE WOULD USE ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINE AND WOULD CLEAN WASHINGTON j/K<span id='postcolor'>

lol, you can't even play soccer!          

We danes fried your asses today

[DestroyerX 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ June 11 2002,19:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, not all the NATO! The germans wouldnt help, they would say they would but then again...why the hell helping the dutch? No more dutch means no more caravans on german roads!

Dankje well!  <span id='postcolor'>

Wanker

[Indychuck 0]

Last I checked the US has plans to invade all countries in case of a "worst case scenario" came up. So what's the big deal? Just because we have a plan doesn't mean we will use it. Besides the Netherlands are not a high prize target. There is nothing there that would benefit us any. So why bother? Now if I was Saudi Arabia I would be worried. Also, who told you all that George Bush is in charge? In any presidency there are people behind the scenes that pull the strings. The president is only a figure head that is told only what they want to tell him. Thought you would've figured this out by now

[RedStar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Epyon9283 @ June 11 2002,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't understand why the hell the US would have a problem with the ICC.<span id='postcolor'>

This is why

William Clinton, ex-President,

For his merciless bombing of the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights, taking the lives of many hundreds of civilians, and producing one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history; for his relentless continuation of the sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and for his illegal and lethal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,

For his direction of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with an almost sadistic fanaticism ... "He would rise out of his seat and slap the table.  'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'"

George Bush, ex-president, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including many thousands of children, the result of his 40 days of bombing and the institution of draconian sanctions; and for his unconscionable bombing of Panama, producing widespread death, destruction and homelessness, for no discernible reason that would stand up in a court of law.

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

For his prominent role in the attacks on Panama and Iraq, the latter including destruction of nuclear reactors as well as plants making biological and chemical agents.  It was the first time ever that live reactors had been bombed, and ran the risk of setting a dangerous precedent.  Hardly more than a month had passed since the United Nations, under whose mandate the United States was supposedly operating in Iraq, had passed a resolution reaffirming its "prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities" in the Middle East. In the wake of the destruction, Powell gloated: "The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished." He was just as cavalier about the lives of the people of Iraq.  In response to a question concerning the number of Iraqis killed in the war, the good general replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."

    And for his part in the cover up of war crimes in Vietnam by troops of the same brigade that carried out the My Lai

massacre.

General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central

Command,

For his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage; for continuing the carnage two days after the cease-fire; for continuing it against Iraqis trying to surrender; for burying soldiers alive, deliberately.

Ronald Reagan, ex-president, for eight years of death, destruction,

torture, and the crushing of hope inflicted upon the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Grenada by his policies; and for his bombings of Lebanon, Libya and Iran.  He's forgotten all this, but the world shouldn't.

Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state under Reagan,

For rewriting history, even as it was happening, by instituting lying as public policy.  He was indispensable to putting the best possible face on the atrocities being committed daily by the Contras in Nicaragua and other Washington allies in Central America, thus promoting continued support for them; a spinmeister for the ages, who wrestled facts into ideological submission. "When history is written," he declared, "the Contras will be folk heroes."

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense for seven years under

Reagan,

For his official and actual responsibility for the numerous crimes against humanity perpetrated by the United States

in Central America and the Caribbean, and for the bombing of

Libya in 1986.  George Bush pardoned him for Iran-Contra, but he should not be pardoned for his war crimes.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, assigned to Reagan's National Security

Council,

For being a prime mover behind the Contras of Nicaragua,

and for his involvement in the planning of the invasion of

Grenada, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians as well as supplying Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

Henry Kissinger (who has successfully combined three careers:

scholar, Nobel peace laureate, and war criminal), National

Security Adviser under Nixon and Secretary of State under Nixon

and Ford,

For his Machiavellian, amoral, immoral roles in the US interventions into Angola, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, and

Cambodia, which brought unspeakable horror and misery to the peoples of those lands.    

Gerald Ford, ex-president,

For giving his approval to Indonesia to use American arms to brutally suppress the people of East Timor, thus setting in motion a quarter-century-long genocide.    

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense under presidents Kennedy

and Johnson,

a prime architect of, and major bearer of responsibility for, the slaughter in Indochina, from its early days to its extraordinary escalations; and for the violent suppression of popular movements in Peru.

General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff,

for the numerous war crimes under his command in Vietnam.  In 1971, Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor at the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, cited the "Yamashita" case as grounds for indicting Westmoreland.  Following the war, a US Army Commission had sentenced Japanese General Tomayuki Yamashita to be hanged for atrocities committed by his troops in the Philippines.  The Commission held that as the senior commander, Yamashita was responsible for not stopping the atrocities.  The same ruling could of course apply to General Powell and General Schwarzkopf. Yamashita, in his defense, presented considerable evidence that he had lacked the communications to adequately control his troops; yet he was still hanged.  Taylor pointed out that with

helicopters and modern communications, Westmoreland and his commanders didn't have this problem.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Indychuck @ June 11 2002,19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now if I was Saudi Arabia I would be worried.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep go for the countries with resources. Oil, money. Partly a reason why Iraq is a target(oil wise). Securing resources.

[Postduifje 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Indychuck @ June 11 2002,19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last I checked the US has plans to invade all countries in case of a "worst case scenario" came up. So what's the big deal? Just because we have a plan doesn't mean we will use it.<span id='postcolor'>

Might be so, but just the idea of them passing a law which even thinks about invading the Netherlands, makes me angry.

I live in the Netherlands, and building a bunker with machineguns at the beach at Scheveningen right now, so c'mon you yanks, give me your best shot!

[Indychuck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Might be so, but just the idea of them passing a law which even thinks about invading the Netherlands, makes me angry.

I live in the Netherlands, and building a bunker with machineguns at the beach at Scheveningen right now, so c'mon you yanks, give me your best shot!<span id='postcolor'>

We pass tons of useless laws that are on paper but don't hold any weight. I seriously doubt we would ever invade. If the US wanted to take over the world I think we would've tried it by now. I don't know any American that would support invading especially if the person is suspected of war crimes. I think you guys watch way too much TV. Not every American is war hungry. Hell over half of us don't even vote because we don't trust our own government. It's just a bunch of rhetoric to make people look good for up coming elections.

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedStar @ June 11 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Epyon9283 @ June 11 2002,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't understand why the hell the US would have a problem with the ICC.<span id='postcolor'>

This is why

William Clinton, ex-President,

For his merciless bombing of the people of Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights, taking the lives of many hundreds of civilians, and producing one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history; for his relentless continuation of the sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and for his illegal and lethal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Afghanistan.

General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe,

For his direction of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with an almost sadistic fanaticism ... "He would rise out of his seat and slap the table.  'I've got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign -- now!'"

George Bush, ex-president, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including many thousands of children, the result of his 40 days of bombing and the institution of draconian sanctions; and for his unconscionable bombing of Panama, producing widespread death, destruction and homelessness, for no discernible reason that would stand up in a court of law.

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

For his prominent role in the attacks on Panama and Iraq, the latter including destruction of nuclear reactors as well as plants making biological and chemical agents.  It was the first time ever that live reactors had been bombed, and ran the risk of setting a dangerous precedent.  Hardly more than a month had passed since the United Nations, under whose mandate the United States was supposedly operating in Iraq, had passed a resolution reaffirming its "prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities" in the Middle East. In the wake of the destruction, Powell gloated: "The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished." He was just as cavalier about the lives of the people of Iraq.  In response to a question concerning the number of Iraqis killed in the war, the good general replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."

    And for his part in the cover up of war crimes in Vietnam by troops of the same brigade that carried out the My Lai

massacre.

General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central

Command,

For his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage; for continuing the carnage two days after the cease-fire; for continuing it against Iraqis trying to surrender; for burying soldiers alive, deliberately.

Ronald Reagan, ex-president, for eight years of death, destruction,

torture, and the crushing of hope inflicted upon the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Grenada by his policies; and for his bombings of Lebanon, Libya and Iran.  He's forgotten all this, but the world shouldn't.

Elliott Abrams, assistant secretary of state under Reagan,

For rewriting history, even as it was happening, by instituting lying as public policy.  He was indispensable to putting the best possible face on the atrocities being committed daily by the Contras in Nicaragua and other Washington allies in Central America, thus promoting continued support for them; a spinmeister for the ages, who wrestled facts into ideological submission. "When history is written," he declared, "the Contras will be folk heroes."

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense for seven years under

Reagan,

For his official and actual responsibility for the numerous crimes against humanity perpetrated by the United States

in Central America and the Caribbean, and for the bombing of

Libya in 1986.  George Bush pardoned him for Iran-Contra, but he should not be pardoned for his war crimes.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, assigned to Reagan's National Security

Council,

For being a prime mover behind the Contras of Nicaragua,

and for his involvement in the planning of the invasion of

Grenada, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians as well as supplying Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.

Henry Kissinger (who has successfully combined three careers:

scholar, Nobel peace laureate, and war criminal), National

Security Adviser under Nixon and Secretary of State under Nixon

and Ford,

For his Machiavellian, amoral, immoral roles in the US interventions into Angola, Chile, East Timor, Vietnam, and

Cambodia, which brought unspeakable horror and misery to the peoples of those lands.    

Gerald Ford, ex-president,

For giving his approval to Indonesia to use American arms to brutally suppress the people of East Timor, thus setting in motion a quarter-century-long genocide.    

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense under presidents Kennedy

and Johnson,

a prime architect of, and major bearer of responsibility for, the slaughter in Indochina, from its early days to its extraordinary escalations; and for the violent suppression of popular movements in Peru.

General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff,

for the numerous war crimes under his command in Vietnam.  In 1971, Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor at the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, cited the "Yamashita" case as grounds for indicting Westmoreland.  Following the war, a US Army Commission had sentenced Japanese General Tomayuki Yamashita to be hanged for atrocities committed by his troops in the Philippines.  The Commission held that as the senior commander, Yamashita was responsible for not stopping the atrocities.  The same ruling could of course apply to General Powell and General Schwarzkopf. Yamashita, in his defense, presented considerable evidence that he had lacked the communications to adequately control his troops; yet he was still hanged.  Taylor pointed out that with

helicopters and modern communications, Westmoreland and his commanders didn't have this problem.<span id='postcolor'>

And this is perfect proof that if you want to anything can be turned in the most negative way possible.

You could not name 1 person in a command position involved in a war that does not fall under someone's definition of a war criminal.

The victor makes the rules and makes history, there are no real rules or laws to war.

[ralphwiggum 6]

can't believe there are enough ppl here to think that US will actually invade Netherlands. maybe L24A was right. Netherland is dying on its own liberal stance on drugs.

if US ever invades Netherlands, they can kiss EU support for anything good bye.

and i laughed at RedStar's list. So US shouldn't intervene? hell, fuck no! if US didn't take action against Butcher of Balkans could have finished their genocide happily.

oh wait..let me guess..Kuwait ppl were happy that Iraqi soldiers were fucking their sisters and executing ppl

[Indychuck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ June 11 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Indychuck @ June 11 2002,19:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now if I was Saudi Arabia I would be worried.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep go for the countries with resources. Oil, money. Partly a reason why Iraq is a target(oil wise). Securing resources.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. This is why the Gulf War was fought. Not because the government wanted to free innocent Kuwait. We couldn't even pick out Kuwait on a map let alone care about the people there. The reason was Iraq threatened Saudi oil fields that produce a majority of the oil resources we use. Now I am American and patriotic but I don't feel lives should be lost just because big business will be hassled. Sadly this is the way our government is going. Now believe this or not many Americans see this. Just because you don't see it on your news channel doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Some wars must be fought. I understand that but they should be fought for the right reasons

[RedStar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 11 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I laughed at RedStar's list. So US shouldn't intervene? hell, fuck no! if US didn't take action against Butcher of Balkans could have finished their genocide happily.

oh wait..let me guess..Kuwait ppl were happy that Iraqi soldiers were fucking their sisters and executing ppl<span id='postcolor'>

genocide, torture, execution, rape.

They learned those from the best.

Thats exactly what the US troops did in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.

P.s. dont give me the usual freedom and democracy sh1t the US didnt care what was happening to the people in Kuwait they just cared about the price of oil.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (hneel @ June 11 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strange that this topic hasn't come up here yet. The U.S. congress has accepted a law which would allow the U.S. army to invade the Netherlands in case american war crimes would be brought to trial for the international war crimes tribunal. The dutch government is of course furious about the idea.

Unfortunatly I haven't been able to find a english-language source. For sites like CNN this is probably no big news.

I think Bush has gone crazy now. Why should american soldiers, if they commit war crimes, stand above the law? Should they be allowed to do things that other soldier would get punished for? This nationalist way of thinking is repulsive.

No wonder so many people all over the world hate the US. Would George W Bush have any clue about why?  <span id='postcolor'>

Oh Jesus, Pete, and Mary....

People will believe anything. The US has become this big boogeyman figure that everyone points at and says "If you don't do this the US will get you!"

Puh-lease. Yeah we'd "invade" the Netherlands to save a GI or whatever. Talk about a feeling of self-importance.

We're having enough trouble just getting people to back us invading Iraq and you think we would invade the Netherlands???

Think before posting :|

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ June 11 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FRANCE WOULD USE ITS NUCLEAR ATTACK SUBMARINE AND WOULD CLEAN WASHINGTON j/K<span id='postcolor'>

"use its nuclear attack submarine"....lol

make it sound like you have ONE...lol

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedStar @ June 11 2002,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 11 2002,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I laughed at RedStar's list. So US shouldn't intervene? hell, fuck no! if US didn't take action against Butcher of Balkans could have finished their genocide happily.

oh wait..let me guess..Kuwait ppl were happy that Iraqi soldiers were fucking their sisters and executing ppl<span id='postcolor'>

genocide, torture, execution, rape.

They learned those from the best.

Thats exactly what the US troops did in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.

P.s. dont give me the usual freedom and democracy sh1t the US didnt care what was happening to the people in Kuwait they just cared about the price of oil.<span id='postcolor'>

yeah well, then what the heck US is supposed to do? let one group kill another while US does nothing? Again, this is what US calls 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. EU had no action whatsoever on Serbia and all those fucking humanitarian groups cried for international intervention. And when that failed and US got involved, those fuckers cried that US is doing genocide.

what kinda fuck is that?

of course US is no angel, but so are other fucking countries. the only reason why those fucking countries start bitching is becuase they feel like they are moral by doing it when they themselves got blood on their hands too.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They learned those from the best.

Thats exactly what the US troops did in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.<span id='postcolor'>

yeah..i bet Iraq sent special envoys to learn beauti of it. If you EVER study history, those atrocities were committed by any military regardless of time and space. and saying US is the only one doing it?