Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 According to todays issue of "Metro" the US got immunity for their soldiers from ICC over a period of one year. So, I guess their blackmail worked. Well done! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 Wtf is Metro and Wtf is ICC? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 15 2002,07:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wtf is Metro and Wtf is ICC?<span id='postcolor'> hhmm..i'm guessing you are an American. I think 'Metro' is the name of a newspaper, while 'ICC' was an hot issue here on the forums often. AFAIK International Crime Court is what ICC stands for. It's basically a court for international community. US has been refusing to sign the treaty claiming that it would open ways for US soldiers abroad to be persecuted in political incentive. I doubt if US got a break from this. But if they did, show how much Europeans are lousy too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 What exactly are US soldiers doing that is a problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 it's not problem, but it's what US argues are based upon. i guess what US is afraid of is politically charged prosecution. Let's say US gets into some peace keeping mission. Then there will be some upset factions that will try to claim that US military action resulted in such and such atrocities and take it to ICC. that means US will spend more time dealing with those than actually trying to find out about what really happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 "i guess what US is afraid of is politically charged prosecution. Let's say US gets into some peace keeping mission. Then there will be some upset factions that will try to claim that US military action resulted in such and such atrocities and take it to ICC. that means US will spend more time dealing with those than actually trying to find out about what really happened." Yeah, cause the US don't have the resources to both send people to the ICC AND to investigate what really happened? Come on, that is a bad excuse if I ever heard one. Could it be more along the line that every once in a while the US is actually responsible for atrocities, just like every other armed force in a combat zone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 well, US does make stupid decisions, but other nations acting as if they are holier is fun to watch too. heck, why not isolate US from international actions? then they don't have to worry about US exclusion or giving in to US's demand! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 Might aswell kick them out of the UN to. As I understand it, they still havent paid their bills ;P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Might aswell kick them out of the UN to. As I understand it, they still havent paid their bills ;P<span id='postcolor'> Maybe they are waiting for Europe to pay back their bills first ;P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 "Maybe they are waiting for Europe to pay back their bills first ;P" Yeah, makes sense. Because we all know that if someone you lent money to didn't pay back, you don't have to pay your debts to other people... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 eh, I always wondered why UN building was in US...not the best part of the world...move it to Switzerland! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 Its in the US because America veto'ed every other suggestion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 15 2002,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its in the US because America veto'ed every other suggestion <span id='postcolor'> ROFL!!!! That is SOOOOOOOOOO true! and other nations didn't have guts to stand up to US and be a leader... EDIT: typos Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ July 15 2002,08:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">eh, I always wondered why UN building was in US...not the best part of the world...move it to Switzerland!<span id='postcolor'> Switzerland isn't in the UN, they have observer status. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 isn't WHO(World Health Organization) Part of UN? I know Switzerland is not an UN member. that's why Switzerland makes great place for UN. host country's influence is minimal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 I actually could care less about the UN, if it were broken up I could still sit on my ass and do what I want. PS: Why on earth would you choose your uniform to be a combination of a light blue helmet with the rest camoflauge, they might as well get helmets with big targets on them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted July 15, 2002 They have the helmets so they are easily distinguished from other combatants. Without the blue helmets and white vehicles American pilots would mistake them for muslim terrorists and bomb them silly... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 15 2002,08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have the helmets so they are easily distinguished from other combatants. Without the blue helmets and white vehicles American pilots would mistake them for muslim terrorists and bomb them silly... <span id='postcolor'> in ideal scenario, that would....but considering it's US bombing, you can bet your ass that bombs will be duds... but that is the problem with UN troops. your hands and legs are tied and you have to do your mission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 15, 2002 UN peace keeping troops are not combat soldiers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have the helmets so they are easily distinguished from other combatants. Without the blue helmets and white vehicles American pilots would mistake them for muslim terrorists and bomb them silly... <span id='postcolor'> Not like it matters they will bomb them anyway just in case. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UN peace keeping troops are not combat soldiers.<span id='postcolor'> In that case they dont need helmets or guns or camouflage or boots or apc's what a waste of money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In that case they dont need helmets or guns or camouflage or boots or apc's what a waste of money. <span id='postcolor'> They need to be able to defend themselves, and the UN observers. They also act as police and as such require weapons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDRZulu 0 Posted July 15, 2002 Then give them police uniforms a handgun and a baton. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 15 2002,10:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then give them police uniforms a handgun and a baton.<span id='postcolor'> Against hostile militias? Are you trying to make some kind of point or are you just monumentaly ill-informed abot the UN? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EveronVetsAgainstTheWar 1 Posted July 15, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ July 15 2002,02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They have the helmets so they are easily distinguished from other combatants. Without the blue helmets and white vehicles American pilots would mistake them for muslim terrorists and bomb them silly... <span id='postcolor'> Too busy bombing weddings to bomb the silly UN Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InRange 1 Posted July 15, 2002 Personally, I think those 'peacekeeping missions' are a bit irresponsible. I mean, you send soldiers in between two hostile sides that want to have a go at each other. Then, the soldiers get little equipment to defend themselves with and they can't shoot first. Plus, they get nice blue helmets and flashy white apc's and trucks. Very dangerous and irresponsible on behalf of the UN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
