Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Longinius

Bosnian un forces veto'ed

Recommended Posts

"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."

It would probably be based on the same principles as any other court. If you comitt a crime and are found guilty, you get sentenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 02 2002,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me what prosecutions on international scale are not politicized!<span id='postcolor'>

That's right - even forum bannings. wow.gifbiggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we need WWIII and billions of dead bodies to remind

all the citizens of peaceful countries what war is really about.

Then nations might work together again, to achieve something good.

(By "peaceful country" I mean a country that is not in war..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I think that we need WWIII and billions of dead bodies to remind

all the citizens of peaceful countries what war is really about.

Then nations might work together again, to achieve something good. <span id='postcolor'>

Right, and WWI was supposed to be "the war to end all wars"

In any case, as denoir has pointed pointed out, those with position of strength will always dictate the rules to those who are not. At least a hundred years ago the nations were still honest about it (gunboat diplomacy and all that  smile.gif ), whereas now the process has to be covered with patina of legitimacy. The principle, however, remains the same...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever might be the polticial reasoning behind the US withdrawal.... Fact is that the US never ever dares to take a step forward, always protectionism of its own rights. Could someone please tell those american politician that this thing is not a kind bargaining game. There is a community of countries that want to change something for the future. Sometimes I seriously ask myself if the US will be the USSR of the future (in symbolic terms)?    sad.gif I say yes so you will say no!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ July 02 2002,04:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

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

this is exactly what the U.S sees happening not far down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ July 02 2002,07:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But justice doesnt have error-margins. If you cross the borders, it is no longer justice.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying the Bosnia operation was not "just"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys ever heard of the United Nations Genocide Treaty? You can read it here if you want. Article 2 defines genocide as:

----------

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

-------------

This is just one example of the sheer idiocy of UN treaties. Under this treaty, if a B-52 pilot accidentally drops a bomb on an Afghan village, he can be pulled in and prosecuted. What if someone speaks against Islamic fundamentalism on a TV show? Under this treaty they're causing serious mental harm to a group.

It's because of stupid treaties like this, as well as anti-American sentiment, that the US doesn't want any part of the ICC. I would have no problem if the US left the UN.

BTW, zverushka, Russia has one aircraft carrier. It's a Kremlin/Kuznetsov class. All of their other carriers have been stricken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 02 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under this treaty, if a B-52 pilot accidentally drops a bomb on an Afghan village, he can be pulled in and prosecuted.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the same thing as in normal life. If you run over a person with your car by accident, you will be prosecuted.

The same goes for the B-52 pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is exctly what i've been pointing out.

damned if you do, damned if you don't

if US is problem to world affairs, then kick it out. US doesn't want to get involved? then let it be. those who are critical of US's action in this world should be happy to help US kick itself out. no US, no problem.

so why are they holding US from kicking itself out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 02 2002,17:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">this is exctly what i've been pointing out.

damned if you do, damned if you don't

if US is problem to world affairs, then kick it out. US doesn't want to get involved? then let it be. those who are critical of US's action in this world should be happy to help US kick itself out. no US, no problem.

so why are they holding US from kicking itself out?<span id='postcolor'>

It would be one thing if the US said: OK, we won't join the ICC and we will from now on stay out of international military affairs.

The problem is that USA says: We will continue to wage war internationally and we don't care about your rules.

I really cannot see what is so wrong setting up some ground rules on how war is conducted, regardless of what country it applies to. I fully understand the US point of view: We can do whatever we want so we will do as we like. Just spare us then the talk about 'justice'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 02 2002,17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I fully understand the US point of view: We can do whatever we want so we will do as we like. Just spare us then the talk about 'justice'.<span id='postcolor'>

And then wonder why they get attacked like they did...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 02 2002,17:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that USA says: We will continue to wage war internationally and we don't care about your rules.<span id='postcolor'>

funny thing is that when US politicians(those so-called ultra-conservative-idiots) claimed that US should not get involved in world affairs, EU in turn criticized it.

so even if US decides to stay away from international action, they are criticized. stay in, criticized, stay out criticized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 02 2002,11:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so why are they holding US from kicking itself out?<span id='postcolor'>

because they can't give up their overreliance on the U.S (and conversely, the U.S government enjoys the leverage that it gives, so it goes both ways).  I think the ICC will effectively reduce the U.S's willingness to act internationally and it will actually be detrimenta. Most of our allies have shown that they are unwilling or unable to conduct international operations themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to that I think the word they are striving for is 'Moderation'.

We could argue for hours about both sides slagging each other off, but this concept of 'on/off' doesn't work. No-one wants the US to walk round the world blasting everyone is sight, nor lock themselves away from everyone else. The middle line is a very fine line, and one the US needs to be able to walk.

Previously we have seen theUS opt for the two extremes. Everyone wants to get on with the US, but they make it really hard to do so. Hopefully if you guys do the right thing and get that retarded monkey out of the White House things will change for the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 02 2002,20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hey! don't offend the monkeys! tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

I knew you would take it as a personal insult tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 02 2002,17:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ July 02 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Under this treaty, if a B-52 pilot accidentally drops a bomb on an Afghan village, he can be pulled in and prosecuted.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the same thing as in normal life. If you run over a person with your car by accident, you will be prosecuted.

The same goes for the B-52 pilot.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, let's just compare apples and oranges then!

If you run someone over with your car, that's because of your personal negligence. If you're a pilot and you drop a bomb on a village, it's not a "war crime" it's an accident. Under this treaty, the pilot is guilty of genocide. That's ridiculous. You cannot have a war without some collatoral damage. We send our troops all over the world in peacekeeping missions. Sometimes, civilians die. The USA is looking after its own interests by staying out of the ICC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you run someone over with your car, that's because of your personal negligence. If you're a pilot and you drop a bomb on a village, it's not a "war crime" it's an accident. Under this treaty, the pilot is guilty of genocide. That's ridiculous. You cannot have a war without some collatoral damage. We send our troops all over the world in peacekeeping missions. Sometimes, civilians die. The USA is looking after its own interests by staying out of the ICC."

The difference, I think, is intent. Surely the court cant differ between an accident and intentional genicide. If the pilot intended to kill civilians though, then yes, he should be taken to court. If his superiors intended for him to kill civilians, then THEY should be taken to court aswell. If there was no intent, then no one should be sentenced. Same as with a car. If you intentionally run someone down, its murder. If it was an accident, it was an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Longinius: one word "Criminal liability" well two actually smile.gif Even if something isnt the result of an intentional act on your behalve you still can be punished for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×