U.S. immune to Security Council

[drastik]

HEy y'all what does everybosy think about the vurrent U.S. refusal to be subject to the UN Security Council and the threat from Rumsfield that the US will not participate in further PEacekeeping duties if something is not done. Is this a fair response to a threat on U.S. sovergnty, or is it another sign of the administratins intent to take a unilateral go-it-alone stance on world issues?

[eyelikeart]

ha ha ha....and yet...another political discussion thread...:D

no worries from me....like I said before....politics isn't my strongest point...so I'll bid u farewell now ;)

[job]

I don't think the US should be subservient to anyone or any governing body. Yes, we may have obligations to the international community, however I do not think it is right that the US be subject to the Security Council. You really want them to be running the United States? The ICC in particular would be detrimental to US sovereignty. (See my other thread for a very interesting link.) What gives them the right to preside over us?

hitman

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman
I don't think the US should be subservient to anyone or any governing body. Yes, we may have obligations to the international community, however I do not think it is right that the US be subject to the Security Council. You really want them to be running the United States? The ICC in particular would be detrimental to US sovereignty. (See my other thread for a very interesting link.) What gives them the right to preside over us?

hitman

Man, you should inform yourself about what you are talking. Did you ever actually read how that ICC will work?

The US administration always acts "america first" under Bush!!! Did you ever think about it that actually the actions of the US are maybe violating the souvereignity of other countries? I could name you several laws from the last few years where US american law is tried to make world law and not only inside the USA. Best example is the DMCA, which allows to imprison people (wo are not US citizens) for violations of copyrights that were done outside the US, even the law at the place were the violation took place after US law wasn't one there! Wonna talk about violating souvereignity???

It is funny! The USA were forcing globalisation for decades, but now when it starts to "work" they show their real face. All the time the only goal was to get advantages out of it. As soon as there are some disadvantages they cry "national interests"!

It doesn't work like that buddy! No country alone can make the rules of the whole world, no matter if it is armed like the US or not!

You guys will learn your lesson about globalisation sooner or later, don't worry! And it seems to me it will be the hard way when I read comments like yours!

groovebuster

[SoarEyes]

Groove one word........ bloodpressure :p

Just one point I’d like to make (s)hitman (hehe you were asking for it)
you do realise america was once for the worldcourt and would be part of it.
Don’t know whether you know this, but on this issue america is now shouldering with country’s like north-Korea, libia, israel and irak not a list of buddies to be proud of.
Again this has nothing to do with my view on americans just on shrimpface.

;)


I love the Northern and southern hemisheres the best

[drastik]

The Us is definitely reversing an ealier position with this, and I agree that they should not try to enforce US laws where other Countries have no such laws. That is blatently a play to support big business in this o****ry alone, and has nothing to do with the good of the people in those countries.

However, a sift from globiliztion and a refusal to take part in Peacekeeping is a different thing, and much more dangerous. In effect, we are aying that we will do it on our own, which we probably are capable of doing, but at the expense of the rest of the world. Other countries already dislike our poitics of globalization. If we now intend to carryout our past heavy handed enforcement of our principles across the world, but decline to take part in world security, we're not only going to upset nations, we are going to make enemys.

I think that most people don't understand what it is the United Nations does. In essence, they are a humanitarian aide organization, they help fight AIDS in Africa and all of that good stuff. They really have no authority over any nation besides the threat that they will no longer recieve UN services. As far as peacekeeping goes, that is largely the US providing those services. I think that this move negates our mandate to fight terrorism across the globe.

[sturm375]

Everybody should realize by now, that the US way system is the best around, and all should adopt it. Better yet, every country in the world should just become another US State.:D














For those without a sense of humor, this is sarcasim. ;)

[sparkleytone]

the british and american systems of government are the only ones in this world that you can truly call successful, and they are both in political and economic power because of it. get with the program. the peaceful passing of leadership responsibilities is the most beautiful part of our government.

[iH8Quark]

I think that NOBODY should be above the law, and we do need some type of global court.

However, in light of the recent global situation, I think global red tape is ill timed. Particularly is the US is attacked again, I think some SERIOUSLY heavy ***** is going to go down. I would hate to see beaurocracy derail actions we may need to take. Europeans (no offense to any on this board) are a bunch of pandering puss!es. They always want to "talk it over", or "negotiate" with dangerous regimes or organizations. (not that I blame them. 2 world wars takes its toll on a people). IMHO, the world doesn't really have time for beaurocracy. We have to prevent chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and, even worse, being used.

No time to talk, no time for political maneuvering. We just need to act. I think this is where the administration is coming from. On that front, I whole-heartedly agree.

just my $.02 ;)

I really wasn't trying to offend anyone. sorry if i did. :(

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by drastik

As far as peacekeeping goes, that is largely the US providing those services. I think that this move negates our mandate to fight terrorism across the globe.

I hate to be a wise-ass and I wouldn’t have beleived if I hadn’t just read it....... BUT

At this moment there’s 15 peacekeeping operations going on. On 8 of those operations uniformed Americans join in. At this moment there’s 704 americans on a total of 45.159 uniformed UN workers . not including civilian workers.


sorry but....... sorry :confused:

[iH8Quark]

...of course, it could have a lot to do with the fact that every time there's a global conflict, or two third-world countries can't get along, it's mostly US troops and US taxpayer dollars that go to assist. We give more than any other nation on earth. But then again, we should.

2 more cents. FWIW

[drastik]

Your right on that sore, but half is still half. And as far as UN workers go, many are civilians and they count as well. The UN is a huge organization, and its sad that people in this country write it off as a do nothing body, if everyone werebetter informed, there would probably be more civilians working for the UN.

I'm not saying that The US is the end all of the UN, but I do think that if you remove the US from Peacekeeping, the ability to Peacekeep signifigantly decreases, along with the threat factor.

The point here is: should the US be accountable to a higher body? We don't run the wrold. I personaly believe that we should not be accountable to anyone except the citizns of the US as long as it applies on our soil. Outside the US, its not our rules no matter how hard we try to make it that way.

The administration tries to be unnaccountable to its own citizenry (shadow gov. secret tribunals, office of misinformation, etc.) I am not surprised that they don't want to be accountable tothe rest of the world. Does this mean we have to abandon the rest of the world?

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
...of course, it could have a lot to do with the fact that every time there's a global conflict, or two third-world countries can't get along, it's mostly US troops and US taxpayer dollars that go to assist. We give more than any other nation on earth. But then again, we should.

2 more cents. FWIW

yes and no

Yes:
you guys have a way of doing the things you say.
Afghanistan is dealt with in the best possible way and I applaud
you for it. Also the way you go after terrorism has my respect.

No:
I don’t wan’t to be to cynical but there’s sometimes other things
besides moral outrage that decide when america goes to war.
Naming: American interests oil and other commodities let’s not forget the arms industrie.

America is not unique in this respect all politics in any country
contains a certain level of hypocrisy.

In that sense man behaves exactly like a bunch of apes fighting over a banana with america being the biggest ape

:D

[TimDaddy]

Originally posted by groovebuster



The US administration always acts "america first" under Bush!!!


Ummm... Duh!!! The administration of the US should act US first!!! Canada should be Canada-first, Britain should be Britain-first, Dubai should be Dubai-first, and so on. Why elect a leader if he or she is only going to worry about other countries. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help others, nor am I commenting on the topic of the thread. I just get sick of my president getting dogged for looking after his nation first.

[drastik]

I'm gonna make a T-shirt from this thing I saw on the Simpsons. Homer was wearing it in Brazil. It had a picture of Uncle Sam taking a big bite out of the planet and it said "try and stop us" over him. Anybody want one?:D

[Taft]

First, the court will not dictate how the US acts internally. Our domestic business is our own.

The court would judge our policies and actions against other nations. This is a VERY GOOD THING!!! For years our actions have been above question by any other body on earth. We have been able to do whatever we want to whomever we want and as long as we say that it is in the interest of our democracy it was OK. It is not OK.

The fact is that the US needs to learn how to play well with others. Look at our system of law. Lets say that a person was threatening you. Under law, there needs to be proof that this person is actually posing a danger to you. You cannot just have the person arrested because they may or may not be dangerous. You need proof.

Similarly, if you are charged with a crime, the system takes over and detains you until you can be given a fair trial. The rights of the accused are protected. This is how an optimal international court would work. Nations must be able to solve their problems without a single nation dictating what the rules are.

Right now, we pretty much do what we want. This generally mean that we act in OUR best interest. This only makes sense. People and countries act in their own best interest. The point of having laws is to make sure that order, individual rights, and peace exist while people are trying to act in their best interest. The result is that you must consider how your actions effect other people.

What an international court would provide is accountability. Nations would have to consider the rights of other nations and their people when they make decisions. This would apply to both military actions as well as other international problems like trade, business, criminal acts by individuals, etc.

What we need to remember is that if we really believe in our republic of the US, we need to apply the same principles to how nations interact. Should we let the majority of nations or the strongest nations walk all over the rights of the minority?? Not if our system of law in this country is any guide.

Taft

[job]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
Groove one word........ bloodpressure :p

Just one point I’d like to make (s)hitman (hehe you were asking for it)
you do realise america was once for the worldcourt and would be part of it.

And you do realise that was under the Clinton admin. and times do change. Clinton signed the Rome treaty during one of his last days in office without realising what he was getting us into. I'm not saying that the United States should be given free reign throughout most the world; however I do find it unsettling that foreign countries may have the capacity to dictate and perhaps even bend at their discresion, American foreign policy. No matter what country you are from, foreign policy is dictated in the best interest of the country in question.

And I refuse to stoop to your level and begin throwing petty insults. ;)

peace

[job]

Originally posted by SoarEyes


I hate to be a wise-ass and I wouldn’t have beleived if I hadn’t just read it....... BUT

At this moment there’s 15 peacekeeping operations going on. On 8 of those operations uniformed Americans join in. At this moment there’s 704 americans on a total of 45.159 uniformed UN workers . not including civilian workers.


sorry but....... sorry :confused:

It is called the United Nations for a reason. It is supposed to be a joint effort between all the nations in the world. So what if there are only 704 American personal? Are you saying that America should play the role of world police man?

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by TimDaddy



Ummm... Duh!!! The administration of the US should act US first!!! Canada should be Canada-first, Britain should be Britain-first, Dubai should be Dubai-first, and so on. Why elect a leader if he or she is only going to worry about other countries. I'm not saying that we shouldn't help others, nor am I commenting on the topic of the thread. I just get sick of my president getting dogged for looking after his nation first.

You don't get the point! If you do that on your own soil it is OK, but not in the rest of the world. Then it is just "hey, I am stronger than you, so what do you wonna do about it?" The world isn't as simple as you seem to be. Think about it twice before you reply...

groovebuster

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by iH8Quark
...of course, it could have a lot to do with the fact that every time there's a global conflict, or two third-world countries can't get along, it's mostly US troops and US taxpayer dollars that go to assist. We give more than any other nation on earth. But then again, we should.

2 more cents. FWIW

Naw ofcourse not wally........ I was merely responding to iH8Quark’s quote



:rolleyes:


I still say the rest of the world is crazy
-Bush-

[mischief]

The reason Bush doesn't support the world court is because **** Chaney, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, Oliver North and a whole laundry list of other ex-spooks and corrupt politico's would be up on trial before you could say "Karma's a bitch, aint it?"

As to peacekeeping:

Most UN Peacekeepers are (guess who) CANADIANS. The point of pointing out how few American Peacekeepers there are is that, for the sheer mass of the US millitary the proportional # of personnel and resources dedicated to true Global Security is PAWLTRY. Canada has a tiny millitary that dedicates thousands of volunteers to the UN every year.

This was never about Sovereignty. This is about the responsability that goes with emmense power. Time to pay the ****ing piper boys.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman


It is called the United Nations for a reason. It is supposed to be a joint effort between all the nations in the world. So what if there are only 704 American personal? Are you saying that America should play the role of world police man?

It is already playing that role since a while by itself, following almost only their own interests. Did you know, that 2/3 of the heroine sold in the US came from Afghanistan before? Tell me one reason why the US didn't take measures before to protect their citizens? I am pretty sure that the heroine killed more people than the attack on 9/11. But a few drug addicts more or less don't count, right? ;)

The US is choosing allies not based on morals, but on tactical (economical and military) reasons, they always did. They supported e.g. Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and now they don't get rid of him again. Maybe you should count for yourself how often that already happened in the last 100 years!??!

I am happy to read some decent comments from US americans here who don't seem to be as brain-washed like a lot of others across the big pond.

Have fun.

groovebuster

[job]

The ICC claims jurisdiction over citizens all over the globe, including U.S. citizens accused of a politically motivated crime on foreign soil – again, whether the U.S. is a signatory to the treaty or not!

And these judges could arraign Americans accused of wrongdoing in foreign lands, seize them and try them by the ICC tribunals, which serve not only as court but also as prosecutor, jury, appeal entity and enforcer of the U.N. "law."

The protection afforded to Americans by our Bill of Rights would be of no use to Americans tried under this foreign jurisdiction. There would be no protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" (Amendment IV); no right against self-incrimination or double jeopardy (Amendment V); no right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" (Amendment VI), etc.

In fact, there would be essentially none of the protections afforded in our Bill of Rights – and the natural rights philosophy and English common law upon which our founding documents are based. It would indeed be a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution.

Furthermore, if one considers that many "authorities" claim that the treaty power supersedes the Constitution of these United States, notwithstanding the formidable requirement of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2), which reads "… and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. …" Notice "under," meaning that no treaty is above the Constitution.

Indeed, "if the treaty power is unlimited then we don't have a Constitution," wrote Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton agreed and wrote, "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."

I think that states clearly enough why I am against the ICC.

peace

[SoarEyes]

Originally posted by drastik
As far as peacekeeping goes, that is largely the US providing those services. I think that this move negates our mandate to fight terrorism across the globe.

whoops meant this one

sorry iH8Quark

[job]

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. …

"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

"For abolishing the free System of English Laws … establishing therein an Arbitrary government. …

"For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: …"

Recognize these statements? They just happen to be the grievences in the Declaration of Independence. These issues, through the ICC, may once again afflict the citizens of our country.

peace

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster


It is already playing that role since a while by itself, following almost only their own interests. Did you know, that 2/3 of the heroine sold in the US came from Afghanistan before? Tell me one reason why the US didn't take measures before to protect their citizens? I am pretty sure that the heroine killed more people than the attack on 9/11. But a few drug addicts more or less don't count, right? ;)

So would you be willing for American soldiers to knock down doors in countries where drug crops are being grown and imported to the United States just so we can protect our own citizens? I think not. Had we stopped any sort of drug traffic coming from Afganistan, we would have been accused of violating the sovergienty of the country. It seems a bit hypocritical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :rolleyes: Happens a lot these days.


The US is choosing allies not based on morals, but on tactical (economical and military) reasons, they always did. They supported e.g. Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and now they don't get rid of him again. Maybe you should count for yourself how often that already happened in the last 100 years!??!

I don't exactly think that any government anywhere chooses things because they are morally right. America even supported the mujhaden in Afganistan during their war against the Soviets because it was in our "best" interest. We funneled finanical aid to the rebels in Afganistan and look where that got us. If you really think that alliances, especially military, need to be based off of morals and ethics, then I think you need to take a long hard look at the world around us. A quick history lesson : The United States during the 1940s knew full well that the Soviet Union was sending hundereds of thousands of its own citizens to the gulags to die as slave laborers, yet when fascism threatened to engulf the world, America and the Soviet Union created one of the most powerful alliances in the world. America did not care that Soviet citizens were dying by the thousands, they were only interested in deafeating National Socialism. In politics, and especially world politics, ethics and morals don't mean ******. Deal with it.

peace

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster I am happy to read some decent comments from US americans here who don't seem to be as brain-washed like a lot of others across the big pond.

Just because I hold a different opinion that you, due to the fact that I respect what my forefathers fought and died for, as well as my Consitution and Bill of Rights, does not, by any means, mean that I am "brainwashed."

peace.

[SoarEyes]

Sure all true points when you view them from that narrow perspective.
However when you think about it. All participating countries have to
surrender some degree of souvereinty. In order for this court to have any
Authority. Think about it, It‘s not just america that’s bound by these laws.
One other point... the court also states that only when the case can’t or won’t be tried in the country the problem arises from, will the worldcourt take over. Why be so anxious about it, when the thoughts behind this court are so noble. It’s not either a lefty European idea, this worldcourt idea stems from the beginning of the UN era. Most constitutions are pretty much the same anyway.


Pledge of compliance: Now Bill repeat after me ....... :confused:

[job]

Originally posted by SoarEyes
Sure all true points when you view them from that narrow perspective.
However when you think about it. All participating countries have to
surrender some degree of souvereinty. In order for this court to have any
Authority. Think about it, It‘s not just america that’s bound by these laws.

True, all other countries will have to abide by these laws. However, America is not yet a partcipant.


One other point... the court also states that only when the case can’t or won’t be tried in the country the problem arises from, will the worldcourt take over.

That is understandable, however, what about American service personel stationed overseas. I understand that the intentions of this court are honorable, however, just as easily they can be twisted and abused. And that is where my concern stems from.

hitman

[iH8Quark]

Originally posted by groovebuster
You guys will learn your lesson about globalisation sooner or later, don't worry! And it seems to me it will be the hard way when I read comments like yours!

groovebuster

Sorry, but i get really p*ssed when europeans blame "globalization" on the US. It's like some evil buzz word over there. Any time you get pissed because your government makes a bad decision and we capitalize on it, you scream "globalization". Whatever. If it weren't for "globalization", your collective economies would faulter and die leaving you jobless, penniless, and desperate. Same with Japan. Even China realizes that "globalization" is the key to prosperity. NOBODY forced them to enter the world economic stage. As a matter of fact they have everything to LOSE.

So stop with your "you're forcing globalization on people to oppress them" bullcrap.

sorry... :rolleyes:

[job]

Originally posted by iH8Quark


Sorry, but i get really p*ssed when europeans blame "globalization" on the US. It's like some evil buzz word over there. Any time you get pissed because your government makes a bad decision and we capitalize on it, you scream "globalization". Whatever. If it weren't for "globalization", your collective economies would faulter and die leaving you jobless, penniless, and desperate. Same with Japan. Even China realizes that "globalization" is the key to prosperity. NOBODY forced them to enter the world economic stage. As a matter of fact they have everything to LOSE.

So stop with your "you're forcing globalization on people to oppress them" bullcrap.

sorry... :rolleyes:

Nice point. Why so sorry? :D j/k

In all seriousness though, America is already part of a so-called "global community." Examples of which are the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund.

hitman

[groovebuster]

I don't know where you get your information, but it is fascinating how things can be twisted...

Can you please tell me the source of that crap you posted?

Originally posted by hitman
The ICC claims jurisdiction over citizens all over the globe, including U.S. citizens accused of a politically motivated crime on foreign soil – again, whether the U.S. is a signatory to the treaty or not!

That is already totally wrong because it tells only half the truth. The ICC is only going after a person, if the home-country is not able or willing to bring the caseto justice. Why should the USA be worried then as long as it is going after soldiers who comitted war crimes?

Originally posted by hitman
And these judges could arraign Americans accused of wrongdoing in foreign lands, seize them and try them by the ICC tribunals, which serve not only as court but also as prosecutor, jury, appeal entity and enforcer of the U.N. "law."

I already explained that already above...

Originally posted by hitman
The protection afforded to Americans by our Bill of Rights would be of no use to Americans tried under this foreign jurisdiction.[/B]

Good joke! :D Again I recommend to study how that court would work! You probably never really got into the subject.

Originally posted by hitman
There would be no protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" (Amendment IV); no right against self-incrimination or double jeopardy (Amendment V); no right "to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State … and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" (Amendment VI), etc. [/B]

I really wonder who wrote that bull-*****!?!?! You should be ashamed to quote something like that without being informed at all about the court. I don't wonder anymore that most americans think the court is something bad, when populistic politicians tell them such a crap!!

Originally posted by hitman
In fact, there would be essentially none of the protections afforded in our Bill of Rights – and the natural rights philosophy and English common law upon which our founding documents are based. It would indeed be a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution. [/B]

Wrong! I still can't believe it...

Originally posted by hitman
Furthermore, if one considers that many "authorities" claim that the treaty power supersedes the Constitution of these United States, notwithstanding the formidable requirement of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2), which reads "… and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. …" Notice "under," meaning that no treaty is above the Constitution. [/B]

I see! So no international treaty is worth anything if it is made with the US!! Interesting statement! That explains a lot!

Actually it says that the Law of a treaty signed by the US is at the same time national law! What a word-twister!!

Originally posted by hitman
Indeed, "if the treaty power is unlimited then we don't have a Constitution," wrote Thomas Jefferson. Alexander Hamilton agreed and wrote, "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."[/B]

The problem is just that this is not the case... ;)

Again I recommend to get informed about the court before you post something embarassing like that!

groovebuster

[Backtothemac]

Sorry, but our membership in the UN is unconstitutional. There are obvious reasons for this statement. Also, the world court. Please! Would you want someone from Saudi Arabia deciding the fate of American civilians or servicemen? Not I.

As for being the worlds 911. Well, if it isn't in our national interest, then we should not be there. Perfect example. Somalia.

That is my take. I am sure that you will think that I have been brainwashed by the conservatives. Oh, if so, then why did Clinton never send the world court treaty to the Senate? Could it be that he knew it would not fly?

[drastik]

hitman: You make a good point about servicemen overseas, but I thin that those instances would be handled by the US. I'm pretty sure that violating the laws of the country you are stationed in is a big offense in the military. If the ICC keeps their hands off of trials that can be conducted by the Nations themseklves, and I read this to mean anywhere in the world, not just on American soil, then I have no problem with the plan. If The UN is taking a stance thet they are going to be the Rulers of the World, then its crap. Somehow I think that the UN doesn;t have time to try individual citizens for everylittle thing. I think the intention of this court is to settle disputes that affect other nations, basically making a nation responsible for its actions as they affect others. Just like in teh U.S. itself, ie. the rights of my fist ends where my bosses nose begins. If a nation is acting in a detrimental way towards another nation that has not infringed upon it, then the first nation should be held accountable. We go after Iraq because the have negatively afffected our rights, we don't go after Cannada becasue tehy haven't

iH8Quark: you are rght on the money. Globilization is not the U.S.'s fault. I think you're taking kind of a hard line on other countries, though. Personaly I believe in globalization as a process that gets us to overall equality. Things like the ICC should exist to keep tabs on that globaliztion, make sure no one is just exercising their agenda over the world.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by iH8Quark


Sorry, but i get really p*ssed when europeans blame "globalization" on the US. It's like some evil buzz word over there. Any time you get pissed because your government makes a bad decision and we capitalize on it, you scream "globalization". Whatever. If it weren't for "globalization", your collective economies would faulter and die leaving you jobless, penniless, and desperate. Same with Japan. Even China realizes that "globalization" is the key to prosperity. NOBODY forced them to enter the world economic stage. As a matter of fact they have everything to LOSE.

Your problem is that you don't get what other people are saying! If you read my posts carefully you will find out that I am 100% pro globalisation! So you wasted your powder for nothing!

The opposite is the case! The US are blocking any globalisation at the moment with their policy. For them it was only interesting as long as it was for their advantage, but now they refuse to go the next step! Get my point now?

But don't worry, I am not resentful! ;)

groovebuster

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
Why should the USA be worried then as long as it is going after soldiers who comitted war crimes?

How can we be certain whether or not that is all they are going after. American soldiers have the right to be tried by an American court of law, not an international tribunal, specifically stated in the Constitution.

The comments I quoted were not based on what is currently happening, only what could happen. That is my concern, not that it is happening already, but the fact that it could.

peace

[job]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sorry, but our membership in the UN is unconstitutional. There are obvious reasons for this statement. Also, the world court. Please! Would you want someone from Saudi Arabia deciding the fate of American civilians or servicemen? Not I.

Agree. We have a comitment to the international community as I previously stated in my first post. We cannot isolate ourselves, however I agree with b2tm, as I would not care for foreign and possible hostile countries deciding the fate of American citizens overseas.

@ drastik : Yes, hopefully crimes committed by American servicemen and women would be handled by American authorities, however, what would stop the host country from filing a war crimes claim in the ICC?

hitman

[drastik]

I have to be honest Groove, and say I didn't get that impression the first time I read your post. no matter, though.:)

[iH8Quark]

Originally posted by groovebuster
The US are blocking any globalisation at the moment with their policy.

Interesting thought. Curious to hear why you think so. It doesn't seem to me as though we're blocking globalization, but I'd like to hear why you think so.

Also, I think this decision on the part of the US is a timing thing. I really feel like we're getting ready to give a few countries an attitude adjustment...if you know what I mean. Scary, but necessary. I think Bush just wants to be able to take care of business.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman
So would you be willing for American soldiers to knock down doors in countries where drug crops are being grown and imported to the United States just so we can protect our own citizens? I think not. Had we stopped any sort of drug traffic coming from Afganistan, we would have been accused of violating the sovergienty of the country. It seems a bit hypocritical. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :rolleyes: Happens a lot these days.

I don't see a difference to the action the US took after 9/11. It was a terroristic act by an organisation and not a war declaration by another country. So you violated the souvereignity of Afghanistan anyway.

Originally posted by hitman
I don't exactly think that any government anywhere chooses things because they are morally right. America even supported the mujhaden in Afganistan during their war against the Soviets because it was in our "best" interest. We funneled finanical aid to the rebels in Afganistan and look where that got us. If you really think that alliances, especially military, need to be based off of morals and ethics, then I think you need to take a long hard look at the world around us. A quick history lesson : The United States during the 1940s knew full well that the Soviet Union was sending hundereds of thousands of its own citizens to the gulags to die as slave laborers, yet when fascism threatened to engulf the world, America and the Soviet Union created one of the most powerful alliances in the world. America did not care that Soviet citizens were dying by the thousands, they were only interested in deafeating National Socialism. In politics, and especially world politics, ethics and morals don't mean ******. Deal with it.

If you really think so, why don't you kill yourself right away? I think that morals should be important in politics! I remember that especially Bush is talking a lot about morals since 9/11. So why is he doing that when morals are not important to him?

That statement of you is hypocritical! On one hand you are talking about the constitution and that it shouldn't be violated (the constitution is providing a moral base on which the people in your country should live together) and on the other hand morals don't mean anything?? So morals only count inside the US or how did you mean that?

I think every human should at least try to follow some morals. Otherwise this planet won't exist for long anymore as we know it...

groovebuster

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I don't see a difference to the action the US took after 9/11. It was a terroristic act by an organisation and not a war declaration by another country. So you violated the souvereignity of Afghanistan anyway.

There is no distinction made between the terrorist cells and the countries that "harbored" them, i.e. allowed them to operate within and outside of their borders. Afganistan, and specifically the Taliban, allowed Al-Queda to operate out of Afganistan, thereby supporting the terrorist network.

I think that morals should be important in politics!

True, morals are important and should be included in politics, but sadly are not.


That statement of you is hypocritical! On one hand you are talking about the constitution and that it shouldn't be violated (the constitution is providing a moral base on which the people in your country should live together) and on the other hand morals don't mean anything?? So morals only count inside the US or how did you mean that?

The Consitution states rights and a system of government, not any specific moral code that all American citizens must follow. The absence of morals in the Constitution allows for the seperation of church and state. The Consitution assumes a moral population, whereas the Declaration of Independence provides for a small moral basis. Morals are extreamly important in life, understand that I believe that, however many politicians across the world are not. It is hard to combine the two, morals and politics into "honest politics."

peace

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by iH8Quark


Interesting thought. Curious to hear why you think so. It doesn't seem to me as though we're blocking globalization, but I'd like to hear why you think so.

Globalisations is not only always getting the cheapest resources for my local market, it is also about prosperity and good chances for everybody in every country. It is a global thinking that requires everybody to give up some priveleges to serve the world community! On the long run every country will profit from it and one day country borders will become obsolete (the EU is trying that for Europe and it works pretty well so far)! And that is exactly what the US is blocking at the moment. I don't think that I have to go deeper into that subject, you got the point already...

Originally posted by iH8Quark
Also, I think this decision on the part of the US is a timing thing. I really feel like we're getting ready to give a few countries an attitude adjustment...if you know what I mean. Scary, but necessary. I think Bush just wants to be able to take care of business.

Attitude adjustment...? Well, sometimes I think the US would need one too. The US has the arrogance of power meanwhile.

groovebuster

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I think every human should at least try to follow some morals. Otherwise this planet won't exist for long anymore as we know it...

groovebuster

Please understand that I am not trying to pick a fight or force you to believe in something you don't. I respect your opinion and agree that some points are indeed valid. I also agree that everyone, no matter who they are, should work off of a code of ethics and morals.

peace

[iH8Quark]

yo, groove, I'm talking about countries that sponsor militant extremist groups. Or countries that sell chemical and biological weapons on the black market, or nuclear know-how, etc. I agree we are arrogant, at times.

[job]

also groove :

The comments concerning the ICC I quoted were not based on what is currently happening, only what could happen. That is my concern, not that it is happening already, but the fact that it could.

peace

[drastik]

I think that everyone should operate on a system of morals, yes, I think that most people would agree with that. I believe that Government should not legislate morals, and as to Seperation of Church and State, I believe it should be total.

However, I think that the ICC would be concerned with violations of Rights, and would have to entail some overall code of said rights. Since it is a UN measure, everyone in the UN would be included in this code making. Like Geneva Conference and the rights of POW and what constitutes a war crime. There are not that many Warcries that people commit on a regular basis, most of them are pretty freaking horible. I think that any Nation agressing against another that has done no wrong to the first, is in the wrong.

As to giving an attitude adjustment to the rest of the world, that's the most hypocritical of all. The U.S. Government has no business telling the rest of the world what to do or how to do it. I think we can retaliate and condem agression uppon us, put pre-emptive strikes are unethical and unhummanitarian. (Inhummaniarian?)

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman
There is no distinction made between the terrorist cells and the countries that "harbored" them, i.e. allowed them to operate within and outside of their borders. Afganistan, and specifically the Taliban, allowed Al-Queda to operate out of Afganistan, thereby supporting the terrorist network.

I see... so we are close to WWIII then!

That definition was just made by the US to have a justification for military actions. It is still a violation of souvereignity. Period! There is a reason why we have international laws...

Originally posted by hitman
True, morals are important and should be included in politics, but sadly are not.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try at least!

Originally posted by hitman
The Consitution states rights and a system of government, not any specific moral code that all American citizens must follow.

Rights are always based on morals! Without morals any right is just a random shallow obligation you have to follow because you are forced to do so. I guess we just have a different understanding of the word morals.

Originally posted by hitman
The absence of morals in the Constitution allows for the seperation of church and state.

No. It just doesn't promote the morals of a specific religion, it is giving the moral context as a minimum to co-exist in a community.

An atheist is not religous at all and has morals anyway. There is no necessary connection between morals and religions.

Originally posted by hitman
The Consitution assumes a moral population, whereas the Declaration of Independence provides for a small moral basis. Morals are extreamly important in life, understand that I believe that, however many politicians across the world are not. It is hard to combine the two, morals and politics into "honest politics."

By assuming something I already need to have a picture of it, otherwise I can't assume it. This is like discussing what was there first, the egg or the henn.

groovebuster

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
I see... so we are close to WWIII then!

Probably. :rolleyes: :D


That definition was just made by the US to have a justification for military actions. It is still a violation of souvereignity. Period! There is a reason why we have international laws...

They supported the network and allowed them to operate. In my opinion that makes the Taliban just as guilty.


But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try at least!

"All you need is love." :D I agree that we need to consider morals more often, but sadly, the people that need to consider it the most do not.


Rights are always based on morals! Without morals any right is just a random shallow obligation you have to follow because you are forced to do so. I guess we just have a different understanding of the word morals.

Are all rights based off of morals? Is the right to bear arms based off of any moral views or belief? Freedom of speech? Self determination? Right to hold private property? These rights came from the Bill of Rights, and as far as I can see, are not based off of any moral code. My own personal belief is that rights are not "forced" upon anyone, as you can choose to accept them.


There is no necessary connection between morals and religions.

Although you must admit that there is a certain connection between religious values preached in church/temple/synagoge etc that connect to any sort of morals and ethics that we have today. "Thou shalt not murder...." etc.

peace

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sorry, but our membership in the UN is unconstitutional. There are obvious reasons for this statement. Also, the world court. Please! Would you want someone from Saudi Arabia deciding the fate of American civilians or servicemen? Not I.

As for being the worlds 911. Well, if it isn't in our national interest, then we should not be there. Perfect example. Somalia.

That is my take. I am sure that you will think that I have been brainwashed by the conservatives. Oh, if so, then why did Clinton never send the world court treaty to the Senate? Could it be that he knew it would not fly?


For my own information, what part of UN membership is unconstitutional? This is not an attack on your stance, I just want to know the reasoning. I have heard this statement many times before, but never found the reasoning behind it.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by sturm375



For my own information, what part of UN membership is unconstitutional? This is not an attack on your stance, I just want to know the reasoning. I have heard this statement many times before, but never found the reasoning behind it.

Well, the biggest is that by joining the UN, you forfit your right as a Nation to declare war, and grant that only the UN can. According to the US Constitution, only the Congress can declare war. They have the power to deploy our troops. Only the President can order that. The UN is a good concept, but it is an inept, body, that without the US, would be powerless. It is sad really.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well, the biggest is that by joining the UN, you forfit your right as a Nation to declare war, and grant that only the UN can. According to the US Constitution, only the Congress can declare war. They have the power to deploy our troops. Only the President can order that. The UN is a good concept, but it is an inept, body, that without the US, would be powerless. It is sad really.

Thanks for the clearification. Yep, I agree, if that is truely in the UN Charter, Definatly unconstitutional. Hopefully someday this will be a mote point, and there will be no more war:)

BTW

100 POSTS!!!!!:D :D

[job]

Originally posted by sturm375


Thanks for the clearification. Yep, I agree, if that is truely in the UN Charter, Definatly unconstitutional. Hopefully someday this will be a mote point, and there will be no more war:)

BTW

100 POSTS!!!!!:D :D

Yes, if that is in the charter then it is unconsitutional as it allows other countries to dictate how we respond to foreign situations.

lol. btw 153 posts. :D :D

[Backtothemac]

Yep, it is in the charter. Only the security council can declare an 'official' war. That is why it is just wrong. Plus, the UN dictates to the US how our troops are used. For example in Bosnia our troops were under the command of foreign nations. Not a good think.

[job]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yep, it is in the charter. Only the security council can declare an 'official' war. That is why it is just wrong. Plus, the UN dictates to the US how our troops are used. For example in Bosnia our troops were under the command of foreign nations. Not a good think.

Ugh. And to think we have allowed this to happen to our men and women in uniform. Makes me sick.

hitman

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman


Ugh. And to think we have allowed this to happen to our men and women in uniform. Makes me sick.

hitman

But when the troops of other nations are under US command that is OK? How do you want to coordinate troops of several allies when everybody is their own boss???

groovebuster

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by groovebuster


But when the troops of other nations are under US command that is OK? How do you want to coordinate troops of several allies when everybody is their own boss???

groovebuster

Just to let you know, very few times in history, have other soldiers come under US command. Hey, I am for each their own.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yep, it is in the charter. Only the security council can declare an 'official' war. That is why it is just wrong. Plus, the UN dictates to the US how our troops are used. For example in Bosnia our troops were under the command of foreign nations. Not a good think.

You only see you what you want to see right?

I don't think that there is anything wrong about it, that no country should declare war just like that because it feels like it. How do you want to get to a peaceful world, if the members of the UN are not agreeing to only defend themselves and can violate the souvereignity of other countries at any time? What should be the universal codex, if it is always only for other countries, but not the US???

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What you are talking about is the right to declare war without being attacked. Tell me a situation when that should happen? Then we are back in the middle-ages. Just taking what you want! At least so far the US always tried to cover it with international law...

If you think your constitution doesn't allow that it should be changed because it sucks then! Don't forget that it was made a long time ago! And it was changed before to the better!

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Just to let you know, very few times in history, have other soldiers come under US command. Hey, I am for each their own.

You referred to Bosnia, every nation was in the same situation once in a while.

On peace keeping mission it's usual that one nation has the command over all the others, so what is your problem?

groovebuster

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by groovebuster


You only see you what you want to see right?

I don't think that there is anything wrong about it, that no country should declare war just like that because it feels like it. How do you want to get to a peaceful world, if the members of the UN are not agreeing to only defend themselves and can violate the souvereignity of other countries at any time? What should be the universal codex, if it is always only for other countries, but not the US???

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. What you are talking about is the right to declare war without being attacked. Tell me a situation when that should happen? Then we are back in the middle-ages. Just taking what you want! At least so far the US always tried to cover it with international law...

If you think your constitution doesn't allow that it should be changed because it sucks then! Don't forget that it was made a long time ago! And it was changed before to the better!

groovebuster

Damn dude, you just cannot carry on a civil conversation can you. Everyone is tired of the personal attacks, but what the hey right! Look. I really don't care what you think of OUR Constitution, for it is OURS! I don't care how you feel about whether it is constitutional or not, it is not. You don't live here, nor do you live by our laws, so don't pretend that you understand it. No, I am saying that I personally would rather not be in the UN. The right to declare war on another nation is a means to settle a political dispute. That is every nations right.

Oh, in case you did not notice, we have been attacked on 9/11, and we don't, according to the UN, have the right to declare war. That is not Constitutional. It is not within our laws! You don't seem to understand that.

And for peacekeeping. Why am I against it? Because it doesn't work. It has never moved to the next stage of nation building. Why? Because no one knows how to do it. It doesn't come to an end. Somalia proved that as soon as you have peace and move out that the enemy will come right back. Personally, I don't want American soldiers dying at the hands of people that don't even want us there.

[TimDaddy]

Originally posted by groovebuster


You don't get the point! If you do that on your own soil it is OK, but not in the rest of the world. Then it is just "hey, I am stronger than you, so what do you wonna do about it?" The world isn't as simple as you seem to be. Think about it twice before you reply...

groovebuster

I was NOT referring to any policy in particular. If you bothered to learn to read you would have seen that I stated that. I was just stating my belief that a nation (the one in which I live anyway) should put its own people first. I was not saying that I agree or disagree with the subject of this thread, because I am not sure. All I was saying is that people bash Bush because he doesn't bend over for the rest of the world.

Love,
Simple Man;)

[drastik]

Tim,

I hink you're wrong. Bush appears to the rest of the word, and to many Americans, as a spineless little rat who attaches himself to anything even slightly popular and exploits tragic events to the aide of his own power. I think that he is not as bad as this, but lets be honest, the rest of the world thougth that Bush was a joke before 9/11 and continue to think of him as a joke now.

[TimDaddy]

Originally posted by groovebuster


You don't get the point! If you do that on your own soil it is OK, but not in the rest of the world. Then it is just "hey, I am stronger than you, so what do you wonna do about it?" The world isn't as simple as you seem to be. Think about it twice before you reply...

groovebuster

I was NOT referring to any policy in particular. If you bothered to learn to read you would have seen that I stated that. I was just stating my belief that a nation (the one in which I live anyway) should put its own people first. I was not saying that I agree or disagree with the subject of this thread, because I am not sure. All I was saying is that people bash Bush because he doesn't bend over for the rest of the world.

Love,
Simple Man;)

[drastik]

Nations do put thir people first, you'e right on that point.
But the true intention and spirit of globilizaton demands that we think of ourselves as one people, accountable to all and any for our actions, this is the beauty of intelligent thoght and deliberation.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Damn dude, you just cannot carry on a civil conversation can you. Everyone is tired of the personal attacks, but what the hey right! Look. I really don't care what you think of OUR Constitution, for it is OURS! I don't care how you feel about whether it is constitutional or not, it is not. You don't live here, nor do you live by our laws, so don't pretend that you understand it. No, I am saying that I personally would rather not be in the UN. The right to declare war on another nation is a means to settle a political dispute. That is every nations right.

Oh, in case you did not notice, we have been attacked on 9/11, and we don't, according to the UN, have the right to declare war. That is not Constitutional. It is not within our laws! You don't seem to understand that.

And for peacekeeping. Why am I against it? Because it doesn't work. It has never moved to the next stage of nation building. Why? Because no one knows how to do it. It doesn't come to an end. Somalia proved that as soon as you have peace and move out that the enemy will come right back. Personally, I don't want American soldiers dying at the hands of people that don't even want us there.

Since when are you so sensible about personal attacks? As far as I remember you are pretty good in doing that yourself...

And to tell you that I think that you only see what you want to see is not an attack, it is an observation.

You are right, I don't live in the US, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand anything about the US and their laws.

And you are totally wrong about it, that I can't have an opinion about your constitution since it also affects me as a not-american. The decisions made based on your constitution are influencing my life as well, because we are talking about foreign policy in first place. If the US decides to go to war in the middle-east it has a direct effect on my life as a european. If you can guarantee me, that I wouldn't have any disadavantge by a war and that nobody gets killed who has nothing to do with the reason why that war will be declared, I maybe would be more open-minded to your position. Another example I already threw in before is the DMCA. Actually it means that american law is used all over the world, no matter if the criminal is US-citizen or not. So it DOES affect me. Tell me, if I am wrong! I don't think that I am too stupid to understand your explanations when they are based on facts and logic.

Of course you have been attacked on 9/11! But not by a country, but by some terrorists. But that is another subject that I don't feel like discussing here. It would take weeks to talk about what led to that fundamental anti-americanism we are facing these days, especially in the middle-east.

The peace-keeping missions are a difficult subject. But tell me some alternative! Just let them kill each other? That would lead to much more instability than putting some peace-keepers in the country. I hope you know what would happen if on the balkan no peace-keepers would have been in service... The whole region would have been leveled and probably the conflict would have spread more and more, turning easily into a world-war.

The UN badly failed in Somalia. The UN say themselves that they didn't address the problems the right way over there. But maybe you should keep in mind places where it worked out and the countries are on the best way to become democratic and peaceful. This is something that you can't achieve over night, it takes years, but it is worth it. Exactly the same is done in Afghanistan now. So you would prefer to just go out again and let them do whatever they like to? Then we would have a regime like the Taliban in power again within months...

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by TimDaddy


I was NOT referring to any policy in particular. If you bothered to learn to read you would have seen that I stated that. I was just stating my belief that a nation (the one in which I live anyway) should put its own people first. I was not saying that I agree or disagree with the subject of this thread, because I am not sure. All I was saying is that people bash Bush because he doesn't bend over for the rest of the world.

Love,
Simple Man;)

I understood your post well, and maybe you should bother to learn to read yourself. In the given context you replied to a discussion referring to the subject that the US is making US law world law and doesn't want to accept laws outside the US, even the crime is comitted on foreign soil. Following that logic the US also wouldn't be allowed to use US law on non US-citizens, no matter if it was comitted on US-soil or not.

Same rights for everyone, right? ;)

groovebuster

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
......the US is making US law world law.....

There is no such thing as "world law," only international obligations that countries are meant to uphold. If there was really "world law" we would have foreign and perhaps even hostile countries dictating the way the United States conducts foreign policy.

[Backtothemac]

Groove.
Yea, when I am backed into a corner, I will let the insults fly. As far as the Constitution is concerned, yea, you can have your opinion, but it doesn't matter. That is the point that I was making. We are a soverign nation and we only should, and have to answer to the citizens of this country. Quite frankly I am tired of fixing Europes problems. Let Europe fix Europes problems. As for the middle east. We were attacked by a nation. The nation of radical Islam. That is much different than the true Islam. It is supported by the PLO, Osama, the Saudi government, Sadam, Iran, etc. We are embroiled in that conflict.

Now, as a soverign nation, we have the right, well, should, to declare war on Iraq, and take that bastard out over there, before he takes every one out. It is a matter of time before he does. If you, or your country doesn't like that, then go fight on there side. It is not a holier than thou attitude. In fact You country has fought based on its soverign decisions more than a few times. The US has NEVER fought a war in an offensive manner, but yet in response to aggression. That is a fact. Can Germany say the same? Then why the feeling that we are some great warlord running around picking on everyone. We don't want to do peacekeeping, and nationbuilding. What should we have done in Somalia. Well, lets see, if we are not there, then what? Nature takes its course. I feel sorry for those people, but when we were there to help them, they killed our men. Brave men. Screw em. I really don't care what all the 3rd world countries do with one another.

There needs to be a clear message to the world that they are either with us or against us, and if you are against us, we are going to wipe you off the face of the earth. Period. End of story. Leave us the hell alone, 'don't tread on me', and everyone will be fine.

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
The peace-keeping missions are a difficult subject. But tell me some alternative! Just let them kill each other? That would lead to much more instability than putting some peace-keepers in the country. I hope you know what would happen if on the balkan no peace-keepers would have been in service... The whole region would have been leveled and probably the conflict would have spread more and more, turning easily into a world-war.

The UN badly failed in Somalia. The UN say themselves that they didn't address the problems the right way over there. But maybe you should keep in mind places where it worked out and the countries are on the best way to become democratic and peaceful. This is something that you can't achieve over night, it takes years, but it is worth it. Exactly the same is done in Afghanistan now. So you would prefer to just go out again and let them do whatever they like to? Then we would have a regime like the Taliban in power again within months...

Yes, peacekeeping missions have sadly become one of the few thing American politicians seem to the the military is made for. True, there is no real alternative to peacekeeping, although sometimes it results in less "peace" i.e. Somalia. However for a "peacekeeping" mission to actually succeed, it may take decades, far longer than any politician is willing to wait.

However, I highly doubt that the Balkins could have turned into a World War. I was living in Germany at the time and don't really see how the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts could have resulted in a World War. The conflict itself was centered mainly in that region due to ethnic and religious tensions. There would have been little chance that the ethnic hatred would have boiled over into Europe to the extent to create a World War. Even Russia was sending troops to the KFOR peacekeeping mission.

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman


There is no such thing as "world law," only international obligations that countries are meant to uphold. If there was really "world law" we would have foreign and perhaps even hostile countries dictating the way the United States conducts foreign policy.

Please reread what I was saying about the world law... Your reply isn't at all in any connection to what I said.

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Groove.
Yea, when I am backed into a corner, I will let the insults fly. As far as the Constitution is concerned, yea, you can have your opinion, but it doesn't matter. That is the point that I was making. We are a soverign nation and we only should, and have to answer to the citizens of this country. Quite frankly I am tired of fixing Europes problems. Let Europe fix Europes problems. As for the middle east. We were attacked by a nation. The@B Islam. That is much different than the true Islam. It is supported by the PLO, Osama, the Saudi government, Sadam, Iran, etc. We are embroiled in that conflict.

A religion is not a nation! Or is there the nation of radical christians and the nation of buddhism?

The problems you have with islam today are mainly caused by the US themselves. But I experienced a lot of times already that US memory is pretty forgetful on stuff like that.

YOU are tired of fixing Europes problems? I don't think that you in person did anything on that matter.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now, as a soverign nation, we have the right, well, should, to declare war on Iraq, and take that bastard out over there, before he takes every one out. It is a matter of time before he does. If you, or your country doesn't like that, then go fight on there side. It is not a holier than thou attitude. In fact You country has fought based on its soverign decisions more than a few times. The US has NEVER fought a war in an offensive manner, but yet in response to aggression. That is a fact. Can Germany say the same?

You mean like in Vietnam? Or the first gulf war? The question is how you define aggression. Some other patriots in here already admitted that the only reason to kick Iraq out of Kuweit again was for economical reasons to guarantee access to cheap oil. The aggression was not against the US.

My country is the Federal Republic of Germany (existing since 54 years), that never went to war. Before that republic Germany went to war by itself exactly twice without being attacked directly. But I think the time before WWII is a totally different subject and is not interesting for the momentary political situation. Or do you wonna discuss the world from 19th century here?

I also don't get why I should fight on their side, when I critizice the foreign policy of your country!?!? Exactly that kind of painting everything in black & white is stupid and is causing more trouble than it is solving anything.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Then why the feeling that we are some great warlord running around picking on everyone. We don't want to do peacekeeping, and nationbuilding. What should we have done in Somalia. Well, lets see, if we are not there, then what? Nature takes its course. I feel sorry for those people, but when we were there to help them, they killed our men. Brave men. Screw em. I really don't care what all the 3rd world countries do with one another.

You really don't get it! Maybe it's really better at this point to stop the discussion... but be sure, I start to feel sorry for your narrow-minded view of things.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
There needs to be a clear message to the world that they are either with us or against us, and if you are against us, we are going to wipe you off the face of the earth. Period. End of story. Leave us the hell alone, 'don't tread on me', and everyone will be fine.

Fine! So you admit now that everybody has to do it the US way, otherwise you'll ***** 'em!!!

Man, people like you are the reason why there is war and suffering in the world. You are not any better than the islamic fundamentalists, you are just on the other side, blinded by ideology and full of yourself!

I really feel sorry for you...

And now END OF DISCUSSION!!!! I am really sick of it!

groovebuster

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by groovebuster


A religion is not a nation! Or is there the nation of radical christians and the nation of buddhism?
The problems you have with islam today are mainly caused by the US themselves. But I experienced a lot of times already that US memory is pretty forgetful on stuff like that.
YOU are tired of fixing Europes problems? I don't think that you in person did anything on that matter.
You mean like in Vietnam? Or the first gulf war? The question is how you define aggression. Some other patriots in here already admitted that the only reason to kick Iraq out of Kuweit again was for economical reasons to guarantee access to cheap oil. The aggression was not against the US.
My country is the Federal Republic of Germany (existing since 54 years), that never went to war. Before that republic Germany went to war by itself exactly twice without being attacked directly. But I think the time before WWII is a totally different subject and is not interesting for the momentary political situation. Or do you wonna discuss the world from 19th century here?
I also don't get why I should fight on their side, when I critizice the foreign policy of your country!?!? Exactly that kind of painting everything in black & white is stupid and is causing more trouble than it is solving anything.
You really don't get it! Maybe it's really better at this point to stop the discussion... but be sure, I start to feel sorry for your narrow-minded view of things.
Fine! So you admit now that everybody has to do it the US way, otherwise you'll ***** 'em!!!
Man, people like you are the reason why there is war and suffering in the world. You are not any better than the islamic fundamentalists, you are just on the other side, blinded by ideology and full of yourself!
I really feel sorry for you...
And now END OF DISCUSSION!!!! I am really sick of it!

groovebuster

HA,HA! Man, I thought it would take a lot more than one post to make you tuck tail and run. Seriously. I have family fight and die in WWI, and fought in Europe in WWII. Germany has been the aggressor many more times than twice, but oh well. Vietnam was to stop communist aggression, and the Gulf was to stop Sadam. Sorry to inform you but he wasn't going to stop with Kuwait. He was going to continue into Saudi Arabia and get rid of their government and form a radical puppet state. You have to understand that I am not being offensive to you when I say how I feel. I just don't care to hear Germans, and French, and Saudi, etc telling me that my country should do this or that. You don't see us starting threads about how Germany should do this or that. That is the only point. Now if 9/11 had not happened it would be a different story. It did. We are very sensitive right now about our country, and way of life, so it is a subject that is better not discussed with a bunch of red blooded Americans.
Yea, I really do feel sorry for the 3rd world countries on this planet, especially for the children. I feel sorry that they live under dictatorships. That they do not have opportunity in life because their government steals everything from them. I feel sorry for them that they have not revolted against their corrupt leaders. It is not my countries responsibility to fix the worlds problems. I find it funny that when we protect our interests that the whole world calls us aggressors and the like. However, when some 3rd world country is killing another one, the UN calls us first to come in and fix the problem.

You don't want to talk about it, then lets not. I can be civil, and intelligent, but i can't stand foriegners pointing the finger at the US. I don't do it to your country and I could. But you know what? I don't have the right until your countries decisions effect me directly. There is nothing that the US is, or has done that effects you directly.

[buffsldr]

Americans, Happy Fourth of July. It is awesome that we can debate these issues today because of the blood that was spilled yesterday. Ours is not a perfect system and we must constantly strive to improve it.

To all free people everywhere: it's awesome isn't it!

Regarding the UN: We will have the amount of involvement we feel is appropriate (as spoken through our elected leaders). And if we think our elected leaders are fools, then we need to do our part to campaign for better ones. This is our system and this we will defend.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Americans, Happy Fourth of July. It is awesome that we can debate these issues today because of the blood that was spilled yesterday. Ours is not a perfect system and we must constantly strive to improve it.

To all free people everywhere: it's awesome isn't it!

Regarding the UN: We will have the amount of involvement we feel is appropriate (as spoken through our elected leaders). And if we think our elected leaders are fools, then we need to do our part to campaign for better ones. This is our system and this we will defend.

Happy 4th right back at you!:)

It is sooo! great to be able to have an open discussion even on our anniversery of Independence.

Alright, quickly before I go out and enjoy some live fireworks from my front yard:)

War sucks, I hate it. Having said that, sometimes it is necessary. And we should be able to declear war without outside approval. Especially since at this moment, I hear, the UN is heavily influenced by terrorist nations like Libya(sp?).

PeaceKeeping hasn't worked yet, because it's always been done half @$$ed. I breifly heard a proposal during the 2000 election that I agree with and would help to make peacekeeping a viable solution. Forming a 5th branch of our Armed Forces. This branch would be made up of specialists in fields like: Law enforcement, Teaching, Engineering, Construction. This way, if a nation, like Iraq, pisses us off, we go in all the way, and completely wipe out the corrupt government. Then bring in this 5th branch and rebuild what housing we can, build schools, hospitals, and government assembly centers. While all this construction is going on, temp. facilities can be used to treat sick and wounded.

Essentially we make the offending country a temp. US Territory. Once the infrastructure is in place, a public debate and allow the now renovated country to decide how to govern themselves. We then wipe the slate clean, and re-establish relations.

This is costly, I know that, and I would gladly pay more in taxes if this became a reality. Each instance we attempt this would take quite a while, and drain our resources. However, in the long run, the whole world, this includes us, would benefit.

Just some thoughts



Everybody have some fun, and blow something, a firework, up for me. I live in Illinois, where I am not sure I can legally puchase a sparkler anymore:(

[job]

Originally posted by sturm375
Everybody have some fun, and blow something, a firework, up for me. I live in Illinois, where I am not sure I can legally puchase a sparkler anymore:(

Happy Fourth everyone! :D I nearly nuked my neighbor's house by launching a rocket that went horizontal, instead of taking the normal, vertical flight path. :D :D

This discussion is really going nowhere fast.

@ groovebuster : Please understand that I am not trying to make you change your beliefs or the way you live or think. We have our own opinions about our country, and you, evidently have very strong opinions about a country that you do not live in. I will make a last point by stating that had it not been for the Western Allies, and specifically the United States, you would probably be speaking Russian.

Fine! So you admit now that everybody has to do it the US way, otherwise you'll ***** 'em!!!

Man, people like you are the reason why there is war and suffering in the world. You are not any better than the islamic fundamentalists, you are just on the other side, blinded by ideology and full of yourself!


I do not think that b2tm was implying that everyone must follow the American way of life. He states that countries should keep their noses out of American affairs that they really have no right to meddle in.

And I am not planing on rising to the insult of calling us similar to Islamic fundamentalists. At least we don't send young men and women to blow themselves up in shopping centers and cafes. And we don't intend to create a one world government, an Islamic theocracy in which any non-Muslim would be killed; the idea of which has been stated by Osama bin Laden numerous times. Would you be willing to live in a world like that?

Ironically you state that we are blinded by ideals and yet just 60 odd years ago, German citizens were calling for the complete and systematic destruction of a single religious group. National Socialism blinded your fellow citizens far more than any of our ideals are supposedly doing today. I don't see much difference between that and the fundamentalists today. I am simply trying to remind you that we, as Americans, are not singularly responsible for all the conflict in the world today.

Ich habe schon genug davon gehabt. Viel spass noch und ich hoffe das es dir alles gut geht.

peace

hitman

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman
Ironically you state that we are blinded by ideals and yet just 60 odd years ago, German citizens were calling for the complete and systematic destruction of a single religious group. National Socialism blinded your fellow citizens far more than any of our ideals are supposedly doing today. I don't see much difference between that and the fundamentalists today. I am simply trying to remind you that we, as Americans, are not singularly responsible for all the conflict in the world today.

It is always the same... we are talking about today and then you get to hear: "You Germans should shut up with what you did 60 years ago!"

Hitler never had a majority behind him! 30% voted for the NSDAP, not more! I don't want to offend you, but you prove again that you don't know a lot about history (especially the german/european one) and you only talk after the typical hearsay "experts"!

Shall I start to count all the bad things your country did in the past? Where shall that end? At Adam and Eve? The reasons why Hitler came to power are very complex and actually it is also mainly the fault of the neighbour countries who kicked Germanys a** all the time after WWI instead of being interested in stability in Europe. The problem is that if you say that out loud (even after 60 years) you are entitled a Nazi right away. But it has nothing to do with that, especially since I am anything than a Nazi with my beliefs! And I am born in 1970. For me the Nazis are just something I learned in school about!

When you go through my posts again, you will find that I never said that I want to tell the US what they have to do in their own country. But everything that is done in foreign policy is not done in a vacuum and it IS affecting other people! Also me as a non US-citizen! Period. You can repeat a million times that it doesn't, it's not becoming more true because of that.

Oh, and I didn't say the US americans are not better than the terrorists in general, I said people like Back2themac. That makes a huge difference. Some of my best friends are from the US.

If B2TM says that people have to play after the rules of the US or will be wiped from the surface of this planet makes him blinded by ideology and not better than the terrorists. Period. Or do you think he would make a differemce between the terrorists and "civilians" when the show-down is coming?

By the way... how was that accidental bombing of the wedding in Afghanistan? Colateral damage, huh? As far as I know the statisitics, there have been 4000 civilians been killed after the main campaign in Afghanistan so far and even the afghan adminstration gets really pissed meanwhile at the US! I find strange when more people (civilians) get killed in the war against terror than in the terror attack itself...

groovebuster

P.S.: Doch, ich habe genug! Wenn ihr wenigstens mal genau lesen würdet, was ich zu sagen habe, dann hätte die Diskussion einen Sinn! Aber so?

[job]

Originally posted by groovebuster
P.S.: Doch, ich habe genug! Wenn ihr wenigstens mal genau lesen würdet, was ich zu sagen habe, dann hätte die Diskussion einen Sinn! Aber so?

Ich verstehe schon was du zu sagen hast. Mit manche von deine von deine Meinungen, z.B. "peacekeeping," bin ich schon damit einverstanden. Du darfst eine eigene Meinung haben. Also, es its gerade 1 Uhr morgens in Texas und ich muss schlafen. :D Wie gesagt, ich glaube diese thema ist geschlossen. Ich habe nichts mehr zu sagen. Ich hoffe das es dir alles gut geht und es tut mir Leid fur das schlechte Deutsch. :D (Ich kann Deutsche grammatik uberhaupt nicht.:D)

[TimDaddy]

Originally posted by groovebuster


I understood your post well, and maybe you should bother to learn to read yourself. In the given context you replied to a discussion referring to the subject that the US is making US law world law and doesn't want to accept laws outside the US, even the crime is comitted on foreign soil. Following that logic the US also wouldn't be allowed to use US law on non US-citizens, no matter if it was comitted on US-soil or not.

Same rights for everyone, right? ;)

groovebuster

First, I was referring only to the statement "Under Bush, It's always America first." (Or something like that. Too sleepy to go back and re-read.) I apologize for starting my post with "Umm... Duh!". That was uncalled for and childish of me. It just seems that everywhere I go I'm hearing people bash my country and the president I voted for. I get a little frustrated at times. Sorry 'bout that. I didn't bash Clinton. I don't agree with many things he stood for, but I do know his actions are what he and about 1/2 the country feels is best for the country. He wasn't trying to piss me off.:D I don't bash Germany, England, Canada, or their leaders. I'm glad we have the right to do it, I just get sick of hearing it. Nothing personal, just got a little fed up at that moment! As for the subject at hand, I honestly don't know. I could never be a politician because I always agree with some points of both sides of most issues. But, anyway, we almost got into a little flame fight, and I admit I started that. My bad...

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by hitman


Ich verstehe schon was du zu sagen hast. Mit manche von deine von deine Meinungen, z.B. "peacekeeping," bin ich schon damit einverstanden. Du darfst eine eigene Meinung haben. Also, es its gerade 1 Uhr morgens in Texas und ich muss schlafen. :D Wie gesagt, ich glaube diese thema ist geschlossen. Ich habe nichts mehr zu sagen. Ich hoffe das es dir alles gut geht und es tut mir Leid fur das schlechte Deutsch. :D (Ich kann Deutsche grammatik uberhaupt nicht.:D)

Dein Deutsch ist gar nicht so schlecht... :)

Good night! ;)

groovebuster

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by TimDaddy


First, I was referring only to the statement "Under Bush, It's always America first." (Or something like that. Too sleepy to go back and re-read.) I apologize for starting my post with "Umm... Duh!". That was uncalled for and childish of me. It just seems that everywhere I go I'm hearing people bash my country and the president I voted for. I get a little frustrated at times. Sorry 'bout that. I didn't bash Clinton. I don't agree with many things he stood for, but I do know his actions are what he and about 1/2 the country feels is best for the country. He wasn't trying to piss me off.:D I don't bash Germany, England, Canada, or their leaders. I'm glad we have the right to do it, I just get sick of hearing it. Nothing personal, just got a little fed up at that moment! As for the subject at hand, I honestly don't know. I could never be a politician because I always agree with some points of both sides of most issues. But, anyway, we almost got into a little flame fight, and I admit I started that. My bad...

Pas de problème!

C-ya!

groovebuster