Bosnian un forces veto'ed

[Longinius 1]

The US put in their veto against another term of UN presence in Bosnia, all because of the ICC. Nice to know the UN is all about helping people and not politics

[Oligo 1]

How typical. The brat doesn't get what it wants and so it reasons: "If I am not having my way then NOBODY will have their way!"

[Badgerboy 0]

The rest of the UN did declare the the ICC can and will prosecute anyone, including Americans if they have to. Quite why the US is scared of putting its people in front of a international democratic hearing is quite beyond me.

This osrt of action makes people think that they have something to hide. Its not particulary good PR.

[EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 0]

Well that's what happens when you have countries with veto power. If they don't like it, they could always wait until the U.S. delegate leaves the room, then lock the doors and vote. Like they used to do with Russia

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Nah, kick US out of UN. They don't grasp the concepts anyway.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ July 01 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, kick US out of UN. They don't grasp the concepts anyway.<span id='postcolor'>

Well said. The concept of "international nations working together to prevent evil and suffering" seems to translate into "international nations working together for the US to prevent evil reaching the US and stop suffering in the US", which is not quite the point.

Having said that, what would the UN be without the US? Even less would get done, as Europe has just 1 proper aircraft carrier available, the Russkies can't even pay their people, and China will be on the receiving end of the UN, so they don't count either.

I wish Tony Blair would get off his lazy voting-grabbing bum and get started on those 2 new aircraft carriers that are meant to replace the 3 through-deck cruisers the RN has currently.

[ralphwiggum 6]

so?

kick US troops out of UN troops and go ahead with it. it's not like US is asking to stop all UN activity in Bosnia, but rather it's own soldiers.

then what's the prob, kick no-good US out, and everything will be fine!

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ July 01 2002,17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as Europe has just 1 proper aircraft carrier available<span id='postcolor'>

*ran starts singing the marseillaise*

europe (france) had two before (not including the other small british and spanish *i certainly forgot some* aeronefs(sp?) carriers dedicated to light aircrafts and helicopters), but they were diesel propulsion ones then we exchanged them for a brand new nuclear ship :)the france has actually the only proper aircraft carrier capable of carrying full lenght and power "modern" naval aviation aircrafts (fighters , bombers , aew aircrafts)

the other countries are limited : only jump jets and a helos

[Satchel 0]

And once again it´s not about strength of justice and law, but only the law of the strongest.

The U.S. never did rely on the U.N. to do whatever, wherever and whenever it was in their interests (thats what is all about), but the U.N. does rely on the U.S. to make itself assertive, and the U.S. government is playing that card.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ July 01 2002,19:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ July 01 2002,17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">as Europe has just 1 proper aircraft carrier available<span id='postcolor'>

*ran starts singing the marseillaise*

europe (france) had two before (not including the other small british and spanish *i certainly forgot some* aeronefs(sp?) carriers dedicated to light aircrafts and helicopters), but they were diesel propulsion ones then we exchanged them for a brand new nuclear ship :)the france has actually the only proper aircraft carrier capable of carrying full lenght and power "modern" naval aviation aircrafts (fighters , bombers , aew aircrafts)

the other countries are limited  : only jump jets and a helos<span id='postcolor'>

When I said "just one proper aircraft carrier" ,then I did indeed mean the French one

The Royal Navy only has 3 through-deck-cruisers, which combined together don't even come close to the firepower of a TRUE aircraft carrier

I didn't know the Spanish had one too, though

[Longinius 1]

"kick US troops out of UN troops and go ahead with it. it's not like US is asking to stop all UN activity in Bosnia, but rather it's own soldiers."

Wrong, it affects all troops in Bosnia, not just the Americans.

[Cloney 0]

Sure, I say the US Pulls out of the UN. When the shit hits the fan in Bosnia you will be crawling up our leg to help you get your boys out.

Whatever. We Have to stay in the UN untill Russia gets its act together and can push you around while we scheme with insider trading and drink tequillas.

So Long...Suckers...

WHERE IS WOBBLE!?

[zverushka 0]

Bollocks, Europe has more than 1 aircraft carrier.

Russia has at least 4 Kiev class aircraft ones, and a bunch more in the baltic and arctic oceans.

[ralphwiggum 6]

doesn't matter how much aircraft carriers EU has. as long as they are not MADE IN USA, they will run fine.

this news brings interesting points.

why the hell are other countries not kicking US out and grow UN on their own? that way when UN grows, US can't do so called 'acts of aggression'.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ July 01 2002,19<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, I say the US Pulls out of the UN. When the shit hits the fan in Bosnia you will be crawling up our leg to help you get your boys out.<span id='postcolor'>

hehe.. European countries wouldn't let us leave because their militaries are having serious problems. They have lots of outdated broken equipment and lots of green conscripts.  Their budgets have been reduced every year since the wall came down. I don't think they could support anything without the U.S.

BTW, U.S was supposed to have exited Bosnia years ago.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ July 02 2002,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, I say the US Pulls out of the UN. When the shit hits the fan in Bosnia you will be crawling up our leg to help you get your boys out.

Whatever. We Have to stay in the UN untill Russia gets its act together and can push you around while we scheme with insider trading and drink tequillas.

So Long...Suckers...

WHERE IS WOBBLE!?<span id='postcolor'>

I love attitudes like this.

Americans might love the idea of pulling out of the rest of the world, and just live on their own. But the reality is that it's not practical to be isolationist anymore. And the sooner the US gets the hang of being a good international citizenm, the faster the world will be a better place to live.

Thing is, the US seems to be an all or nothing sort of thing. Either stomp around the world like a bully, or leave the world to do it's own thing. Finding a balance would be a good thing.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 02 2002,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thing is, the US seems to be an all or nothing sort of thing. Either stomp around the world like a bully, or leave the world to do it's own thing.  Finding a balance would be a good thing.<span id='postcolor'>

A bit like a child, being egotistical and seeing everything in black and white. They're bound to grow up some day though.

Actually, US is pretty much like Cartman

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ July 02 2002,03:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A bit like a child, being egotistical and seeing everything in black and white. They're bound to grow up some day though.

Actually, US is pretty much like Cartman  <span id='postcolor'>

That is very appropriate...

As in..

RESPECT MAH AUTHORI-TAY!

Bwah-ha

[Supah 0]

This kinda pissed me off and i'm usually pretty pro US. This is George W bush the retard willing to possibly plunge bosnia back in to civil war and have all the pain anguish and terror those people went through repeated just because he didn't get his way with the I.C.C. Well thank you george! Good for you for displaying how much value you place in other peoples lives, offcourse the bosnians never payed for you or your daddies election campaing so why really give a fuck? I doubt he has an idea in hell of the consequences of his actions. The day he was "elected" president is a sad day in the US's history and may still prove to be a badge of shame. Hell if the US soldiers behave what on earth could they ever have to fear from the I.C.C.? I seriously doubt them convicting US soldiers "Just because they feel like it". If you do no wrong why fear the court? The keymembers of the I.C.C. are other NATO members, allies or even friends for over 50 years now and Bush just approves a law which gives him power to invade the netherlands? A country which has always pulled its weight in Joint operations and has, through purchases of arms, ALWAYS supported the US defence industry. Well gee thanks for the vote of confidence George! He is destroying what ever goodwill was left in the US towards america in this way. I hope the US people stille have some sence left and DONT reelect this "man"

[theavonlady 2]

For a contrary opinion, see this morning's Jerusalem Post opinion. Excerpt:

As usual, the Europeans, who are to provide three-quarters of the ICC's funding, are now in full throat over America's parallel rejection of the court. They mock the Bush administration's insistence on gaining legal immunity for US servicemen. This is rank hypocrisy: Britain and 19 other countries involved in the peacekeeping mission to Afghanistan are currently demanding a written promise from Afghan leader Hamid Karzai that the same legal immunity demanded by the US be given to their soldiers. But again, never mind.

The ICTY could not have brought Slobodan Milosevic to justice without US bombs first raining down on Belgrade. Now the ICC wants to stand in judgment of precisely the kinds of "acts of aggression" that so far have provided the civilized world with its best protection from cruelty. How very typical.

[Longinius 1]

And what? That gives the US the right to simply retaliate by withdrawing support for other humanitarian missiosn? Yeah, that makes sense.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 02 2002,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And what? That gives the US the right to simply retaliate by withdrawing support for other humanitarian missiosn? Yeah, that makes sense.<span id='postcolor'>

From William Saffire's recent essay "Enter the Globocourt" (you may have to subscribe to view it):

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld formally noted "the lack of any effective mechanism to prevent politicized prosecutions of American service members and officials." This could "create a powerful disincentive for U.S. military engagement in the world. If so, it could be a recipe for isolationism."

Read that to mean: no immunity from the globocourt for U.S. peacekeeping troops, no U.S. peacekeeping. By gleefully sticking their thumb in the eye of the superpower, Europe's UNilateralists have damaged their sore thumb more than our unblinking eye.

Globocourt enthusiasts cannot have U.S. service members both involved and indictable, its citizens both engaged and endangered.

The US has every right to protect it's citizens and military personnel from the kind of legal abuse the ICC Pandora's box is about to open up.

Makes plenty of sense.

[Longinius 1]

"The US has every right to protect it's citizens and military personnel from the kind of legal abuse the ICC Pandora's box is about to open up.

Makes plenty of sense."

So what you are saying is that the US should not have to answer to the rest of the world but the rest of the world has to answer to the US? Because that is what it boils down to. No one nation has the power to go up against the US when they comitt warcrimes, it is left to be handled by the US. And we have seen previously how well that doesn't work. On the other hand, the US can go after any other nation they proclaim responsible for warcrimes. That is a win / win scenario for the US, so of course they do not want the ICC. Because the ICC might actually mean that those Americans that are responsible of warcrimes might be brought to actual justice.

[foxer 0]

I don't really understand this court thing.let's say they accident drop a bomb on an civilian,does he go to jail ? Even though he may have got the wrong info,or bad intel,or the enemy just put civilians there to make it look like civilians did get killed and the guy has gottta stop fighting and go to court ?If one guy gets the wrong order or bad intel and kills a civilian does the guy that gave the info gotta go to jail or to court ? I'm lost.Do you get like a 10 civilian count ? As in you can kill 9,but if you cross 10 your going to jail/court.BEcause that's gotta be hard to do if a war is going on and 1 civilian got killed ,He and his platoon gotta go to court and give their side of the story ? Damn i'am soo lost.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ July 02 2002,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld formally noted "the lack of any effective mechanism to prevent politicized prosecutions of American service members and officials.<span id='postcolor'>

Lol. Tell me what prosecutions on international scale are not politicized!

Take for instance the Milosivic trial. There was no question of him being prosecuted for war crimes in ex Yugoslavia until USA took the initiative and started bombing.

Then suddenly Milosevic became the bad guy, something everybody saw already in '91 with the situation in Slovenia & Croatia. Actually it was obvious already in '89 with his rise to power and his oppression of Kosovo back then.

Everything on international level is politics that has its roots in the simple fact that on the international level it is the law of the jungle that rules; the strong dictates the rules and the winner writes the history.

The only comfort that one could have is that all counties are more or less the same hypocrites. The US dissociation with the ICC just highlights this hypocrisy. To think that everybody plays according to the same rules in the international arena is very very wrong. USA is big and strong enough to ignore the shit it is getting for its decision, so they can write their own rules. Any other country in the world would do the same if they had the opportunity and they are all doing it, just on a smaller scale.