U.s. makes plans for invading the netherlands

[Armpit 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 12 2002,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This whole debate was started by an outragous claim that the US was going to invade the Netherlands to save GI Joe from ICC. Quite a few people have asked for sources on this and NONE have been forthcoming.<span id='postcolor'>

As I already mentioned the law in question is The American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). You can find a truckload of links with any search engine.

This seems to cover the key issues.

[PitViper 0]

One thing which particularly torques me about the ICC is how it can claim jurisdiction over countries which have not signed nor ratified the treaty. how convenient. What is the point of having signatures if it really doesn't matter? That's incredibly disturbing.

[Akira 0]

The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court. In other words, the President is authorized to invade the Hague.

That is more of a commentary then in the text of the bill. As already stated, anyone who thinks that the US is going to invade the Hague is delusional.

http://www.house.gov/interna....ml=http

Is what I found after looking for the Bill itself (and not from reading from a pro-ICC web page.....and don't get me wrong...I support the ICC...if it is clear). And given the fact that we haven't ratified the treaty, I'm not surprised by any of it. All that basically says is "We didn't ratify, so we are not co-operating...yet." Why should we give up US citizens to a court that we are not apart of...yet (we are on the advisory board). Again...I refer to the bill I posted earlier. The main concerns the US has are proper due process and rights of citizens which the Rome Statute failed to outline.

Now give me like 6 hours to look through that bill...it has 144 pages of "legislative-ise".

These provisions are in addition to existing U.S. law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any U.S. funds going to the ICC once it has been established unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

Again...UNLESS the Senate ratifies....

Merely stating US citizens shouldn't be subject to a treaty that the US hasn't ratified. I see nothing wrong with it and your governments would do the same (don't kid yourself).

No wonder I couldn't find it before....its an Amendment to the bill HR1646.

[Akira 0]

Found this on a website.

Let me just say that, from experience, a bill going to conference committee where the Senate and the House have to agree is.....less than easy and means it ain't goin' no where for awhile. Also note the text of the original bill (the one every is crying about) was substituted by the Senate.

HR 1646 Headed to Conference

On May 1st, the Senate passed HR 1646, the State Department Authorization Bill. The bill was originally passed by the House on May 16, 2001 and sent to the Senate for consideration, where no further action was taken on it until this week. On May 1st, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) agreed by unanimous consent (i.e., no roll call vote) to send the measure to the full Senate, which amended the measure by deleting the entire House text adopted and substituting the text of S. 1801, the Security Assistance Act of 2001, which the Senate had adopted by unanimous consent on December 20, 2001. (Earlier in that year, on September 4, 2001, the SFRC sent another bill, S. 1401, "The State Department FY2000-2003 Authorizations bill" to the floor, but there has been no further action taken).

Passage of HR 1646 in the Senate clears the way for a House-Senate conference - where members of each body will work together to iron out differences in their versions of the bills. The agreed-upon text will then be voted on in each body, and once approved, will be sent to the President. The Senate appointed conferees on May 1st - Biden (D- DE, Chairman of the SFRC), Sarbanes (D-MD), Dodd (D-CT), Kerry (D-MA), Helms (R-NC, SFRC Ranking Minority Member), Lugar (R-IN), and Hagel (R-NE).

During the conference, all provisions included in either the House or Senate version of HR 1646 will be on the table for debate and possible inclusion in the final version of the bill. The original House version contains a number of measures that relate to Israel and the Middle East, including:

provisions that would change U.S. policy on the Jerusalem (no waiver provided). (NOTE: in its Statement of Administration Policy, the Office of Budget and Management singled out these provisions as "objectionable provisions that conflict with the constitutional authority granted to the President..."

a provision that would cut aid to Lebanon unless the President certifies that Lebanese armed forces have deployed to the border with Israel and the Government of Lebanon "is effectively asserting its authority in the area in which such forces have been deployed." (NOTE: The provision was adopted as an amendment to the original House bill, proposed by Rep. Lantos (D-CA), and reportedly opposed by the Administration).

a provision that would create a mandatory annual report on U.S. efforts to convince other countries to normalize relations with Israel.

a provision requiring a report "on terrorist activity in which United States citizens were killed..."

a Sense of Congress calling on the International Committee of the Red Cross to recognize and grant full membership to the Magen David Adom society.

a Sense of Congress condemning Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for anti-Israel statements.

a Sense of Congress calling on the Secretary of State to review the current travel warnings for Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip "to determine which areas present the highest threat to American citizens in the region and which areas may be visited safely."

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just had a huge lump of dark bread with semi-hard boiled eco eggs, mayonaise, salt & pepper. It was great. Yum.<span id='postcolor'>

It would have been better with a slice of AMERICAN cheese.  Heh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why didnt they stick in it and keep trying to help out in Somalia? When the shit hit the fan everyone pulled out.

Politics sent the US to Somalia, not the will to help others. If it was the will to help others, the US wouldn't have pulled out in a hurry. They would have stuck with it and seen it through.

<span id='postcolor'>

Based on images of dead Rangers being dragged through streets by joyous Somalis, I'd say they didn't particularly want our help.  Or is this one of the situations when we SHOULD have used our muscle, even at the risk of more civilian casualties and "infrastructure" damage?  It's so hard to tell!  Perhaps there's another country out there that would care to step up and show us how it's done?  <looks for raised hands>  No?  Didn't think so.

And no, politics is not why we entered.  I'm not sure how familiar you are with our system, but sending American troops into third-world countries without "self-interest" at stake is NOT a good way to win votes here.  That's why I was amazed and very, very proud to see the SEALS and Marines landing back in '93 (back when I was still "College Boy" Hotel).

Politics were, however, why we left.  Maybe if the military had been given permission to use the necessary tools, things would have worked out better.    At least we tried.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That war was about preventing communism from spreading, the highest order of the day for the US at the time. Very much so about the national interest.<span id='postcolor'>

Obviously I didn't make my point very well.  By saying that we had no National interest in Vietnam, I meant that the outcome would not measurably affect the U.S.  <resolves to be more specific in the future>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Vietnam (agent orange, search and destroy missions on villages, relocation of population), Iraq (mass destruction of infrastructure effecting mainly civilians), the Balkans (again, mass destruction hitting hardest on the population)...need more?<span id='postcolor'>

Again --

Agent orange was not an "infrastructure" attack.  Sadly enough, we weren't in a position to help the Vietnamese recover from the war.  

Iraq is a similar situation.  Who in their right mind would expect us to help Saddam Hussein?

As for the Balkans, please don't attempt to blame the U.S. for destruction that occurred long before we were drawn into the conflict.

Semper Fi

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

I would just like to say that I hope the US invades and breaks all your dikes and levies so the North Sea comes roaring in to take back what is rightfully theirs. Its horrible! People think the Isreali's keeping the Palestinians out and attack them is wrong, look what the Netherlands does to the poor North Sea. Big bully. Your country is nothing but walls surrounding a seabed. Who the f*** do you think you are?

[Die Alive 0]

Maybe the US can sell the Netherlands the "Duck and Cover" films from the 1950s, just in case

Stupid monkey, you blew yourself up and the tree too.  Stupid, stupid monkey

-=Die Alive=-

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 11 2002,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ June 11 2002,23:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah but only if we could Ralph. It would be intresting to see the world have to deal with its problems all by itself for a change.<span id='postcolor'>

Ahhh yes, I agree redrogue. We have seen the world try to deal with its problems in its own way, we like to call it WW1 and WW2. And we know how that ended and who had to come in and help. USA <span id='postcolor'>

During WW2 USA was not interested untill its "own" interests were endangered. Japan attacked because USA cut their oil. The Gulf War was no different.

[Texican 0]

one i never said it wasnt about self interest, as a matter of fact i said before you came into the room countries including ours are motivated by self interest, so what is up with telling me things I already said.

two doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war. read all my statements not just one please.

[FW200 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (residuum @ June 12 2002,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would just like to say that I hope the US invades and breaks all your dikes and levies so the North Sea comes roaring in to take back what is rightfully theirs.  Its horrible!  People think the Isreali's keeping the Palestinians out and attack them is wrong, look what the Netherlands does to the poor North Sea.  Big bully.  Your country is nothing but walls surrounding a seabed.  Who the f*** do you think you are?

*cough* who walked away at the treaty of kyoto?

And who is the world's main pollutor *cough*

[ran 0]

LA HAYE not the Hague band of dummies (all those who said the Hague , forum posters , officials , dumb europeans and americans)

[FW200 0]

NOT LA HAYE OR HAGUE OR SOMETHING!!!!!!!!

Den Haag!!!!

[ran 0]

really ?

La HAYE is the french pronounciation , but La Hague is a french nuclear waste treatment center

[RedRogue 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ June 12 2002,20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">During WW2 USA was not interested untill its "own" interests were endangered. Japan attacked because USA cut their oil. The Gulf War was no different.<span id='postcolor'>

If you would do a bit more research into the growth of Japanese Imperialism during WW2. You would find that Japan's sole source of scrap iron, steel, coal, oil, aluminum, and pretty much every other material for an industrialised nation was the United States.

Japan sought to have their own national source of these materials instead of buying them from Japan. This is what started the invasion of Manchuria. In responce to Japanses aggression into Manchuria and China the United States restricted the still very much needed supply of scrap iron, steel and oil for Japan's economy and war machine.

The only nearby obtainable source of oil was the Phillipines, and to obtain them would mean going up against the United States. So the plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor was born. With the intent to render the United States inable to counter the Japanese advance until the Japanese had already consolodated their Pacific Empire.

The United States declared war on Japan but not Germany. As Germany had not attacked the United States and it would have been difficult if not impossible to get the population and the Congress to declare war on Germany. However, 2 days later after the declaration of war on Japan, Germany declared war on the United States due to their alliance with Japan. If Germany hadn't done so, it is highly questionable when and if the United States would have gotten involved in the war in Europe.

I however believe that due to the fact that the United States would have sold supplies and materials to Britian and Russia anyway (It would have been foolish not to) that the determination of the British people would have lead to a stalemate between Germany and Britian, for Britian would not have fallen without bitter bloodshed that Germany could not hope to sustain.

And in time the Russians would have beaten back Germany and freed Europe from Nazi oppression. However the Europe that emerged under Soviet control would have been quite a different one that today.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,20:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war.<span id='postcolor'>

Only helped when it suited USA. Sure the lend lease was there, sending weapons and supplies to needing countries but they were still the ones doing the fighting against evil. Ironic how USA stays out of it untill it gets its hand cut and then it goes out stating its out to destroy evil oppression and tyranny, while before all it did was ship weapons. but what I was saying is that USA did not send any troops into the fray untill USA was provoked. If USA didn't get attacked they would have stayed out of it.

Now if USA saw Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as "evil" oppressive, tyranny, wouldn't USA have done more than just send weapons and supplies out? Many countries volunteered to go fight this evil, Australia, Canada and many others amoung them.

Also the war could not have been won without Russia. Without them the war was lost.

[Hardliner 0]

*deleted*

[Hardliner 0]

*deleted*

I really need to get a new motherboard... this ones messing up. 3 damn posts.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,20:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">read all my statements not just one please.<span id='postcolor'>

I was reffering to the one post, not all of them. I'm allowed to do that.

[Texican 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ June 12 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,206)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war.<span id='postcolor'>

Only helped when it suited USA. Sure the lend lease was there, sending weapons and supplies to needing countries but they were still the ones doing the fighting against evil. Ironic how USA stays out of it untill it gets its hand cut and then it goes out stating its out to destroy evil oppression and tyranny, while before all it did was ship weapons. but what I was saying is that USA did not send any troops into the fray untill USA was provoked. If USA didn't get attacked they would have stayed out of it.<span id='postcolor'>

WHY OH WHY do you keep telling me US acts out of self interest when I already said they did. Is this selective listening.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,20:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ June 12 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,20<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war.<span id='postcolor'>

Only helped when it suited USA. Sure the lend lease was there, sending weapons and supplies to needing countries but they were still the ones doing the fighting against evil. Ironic how USA stays out of it untill it gets its hand cut and then it goes out stating its out to destroy evil oppression and tyranny, while before all it did was ship weapons. but what I was saying is that USA did not send any troops into the fray untill USA was provoked. If USA didn't get attacked they would have stayed out of it.<span id='postcolor'>

WHY OH WHY do you keep telling me US acts out of self interest when I already said they did. Is this selective listening.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably because its gone 5am here and I'm a bit tired.

[Texican 0]

2 pm here and Im VERY tired

[Satchel 0]

The "Netherland Invasion" headline is just some byproduct of the U.S. steadily breaking away from international law and basic principles of a constitutional state totally disrespecting human rights, to do whatever action, wherever against whomever, no matter if it´s justified or covered by law, or not.

Just as they are still playing the "war on terror" wildcard, what basically enables them to go on a lunatic rampage against whoever interferes with U.S. interests, with whatever force they have in mind.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ June 12 2002,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Netherland Invasion" headline is just some byproduct of the U.S. steadily breaking away from international law and basic principles of a constitutional state totally disrespecting human rights, to do whatever action, wherever against whomever, no matter if it´s justified or covered by law, or not.

Just as they are still playing the "war on terror" wildcard, what basically enables them to go on a lunatic rampage against whoever interferes with U.S. interests, with whatever force they have in mind.<span id='postcolor'>

yeah, to me this whole war on terror is nothing but a scam. And Bush is a broken record.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ June 12 2002,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Netherland Invasion" headline is just some byproduct of the U.S. steadily breaking away from international law and basic principles of a constitutional state totally disrespecting human rights, to do whatever action, wherever against whomever, no matter if it´s justified or covered by law, or not.

Just as they are still playing the "war on terror" wildcard, what basically enables them to go on a lunatic rampage against whoever interferes with U.S. interests, with whatever force they have in mind.<span id='postcolor'>

well, it's not Germany that is getting hijacked planes flying into buildings and have bombs in shoes and worry about 'dirty' bomb.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 12 2002,21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ June 12 2002,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The "Netherland Invasion" headline is just some byproduct of the U.S. steadily breaking away from international law and basic principles of a constitutional state totally disrespecting human rights, to do whatever action, wherever against whomever, no matter if it´s justified or covered by law, or not.

Just as they are still playing the "war on terror" wildcard, what basically enables them to go on a lunatic rampage against whoever interferes with U.S. interests, with whatever force they have in mind.<span id='postcolor'>

well, it's not Germany that is getting hijacked planes flying into buildings and have bombs in shoes and worry about 'dirty' bomb. <span id='postcolor'>

Nope....just most of the planes and the terrorists (for some reason) seem to come mainly from Germany.