The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 15, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Nations Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US vs. UN
Phoenix Rising    7/1/2002 7:25:16 AM
Here we go again.

What exactly is Europe's problem? They want to both use and abuse us at the same time ... and they seem to think that we should not only go along with it, but we should thank them for the opportunity.

They want to use us as peacekeepers. Then they want to use us as patsies.

I've never really felt as angry at Europe as I have in the past few days, looking at some of the things Europeans are saying about America and our demands for immunity. If they don't like the way we peacekeep, they can do without us. America is under no obligation to submit our men and women in uniform to the mockery of the International Kangaroo Court to satisfy the ego and bolster the image of some faceless unelected European bureaucrats. The thought of American peacekeepers on trial in the Hague for trying to do our job is simply repulsive. If they Dutch don't like the way we peacekeep, then they can bloody well think on Srbernica and try to do a better job of it themselves.

I really think this ICC is going to do more damage to international justice than just about anything the UN has done in its history. It's going to keep the U.S. from being able to form new peacekeeping commitments, and may even force us to back down from peace enforcement operations that we would otherwise be able to launch to stop oppressive regimes in the future. I wonder how aggressive we would have been in Kosovo had there been a risk of seeing American servicemen on trial.

--Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Final Historian    RE:US vs. UN   3/17/2003 2:26:39 AM
Troll Alert! Troll Alert! Warning! Warning! Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!
 
Quote    Reply

tomanbeg    RE:US vs. UN   9/5/2003 6:05:16 PM
Who makes the Law? If it's some a$$hole in Brussels, then America will be at war with Europe befor the end of this decade, regardless of who is president. The American president who tries to sign away jury trials and the 5th amendment is going to end up swinging from a tree limb in front of the white house. That is what joining the ICC would require. It is impossible for the USA to Join the ICC, it would negate several amendments in the bill of rights. Like the First Second, fifth, just to get started. It will never happen. America will fight first. T.
 
Quote    Reply

Rosecroix    RE:US vs. UN   9/6/2003 3:08:04 AM
would it? i thought thoose only applied to american courts. there's not even a fifth in your military courts. i know. i watch tv. youre really into this kill all europeans huh? /R
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    Killing Europeans   9/6/2003 4:33:22 AM
Americans have no wish to kill Europeans, although we are tired of watching Europeans killing Europeans. I'm not sure I understand the other part of your post. "i thought thoose only applied to american courts. there's not even a fifth in your military courts. i know. i watch tv" By "those? did you mean jury trials, or the concept of ?innocent until proven guilty?? Is it true in France that once charged with a crime, one is guilty until proven innocent? Were you referring to the Fifth Amendment? The right not to incriminate one?s self. Does your knowledge that US military are judged under a different system offer you the opportunity to point out France?s military is afforded greater justice than France?s citizenry? Is this another Herculean leap in Rosecroixian logic, or are you succumbing to an iconoclastic temptation? BTW, American TV is NOT a good reference source for substantiating an argument.
 
Quote    Reply

Rosecroix    RE:Killing Europeans   9/6/2003 7:42:56 AM
just pointing out tomanb don't need to go to europe or for that matter out of his own country to find courts judging the military that don't allow you the right to not witness even if that would incriminate you. then again as you said that was from some movie (high crime or that JAG tv-series). the "thoose" meant the amendments only applies to civil law. don't know anything about french courts or military courts but it doesnt seem right, so i would guess they follow the rest of the westernized world in assuming innocense. actually i didnt really catch the sentence at all. /R
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus    RE:Killing Europeans   9/6/2003 3:23:39 PM
I apologize. For some reason I thought you were a French national. I must be confused. I thought you would be able to correct me if I were wrong about the French justice system.
 
Quote    Reply

flanker    USUN proposal   11/21/2003 8:48:42 AM
Maybe this is the solution link
 
Quote    Reply

LogicRules    RE:USUN proposal   11/21/2003 8:53:10 PM
Nice, flanker. That?s pretty funny. Anyway I?m splitting my argument into 2 pieces. Please keep in mind I have not read the ICC or the Kyoto treaties. The Pro section is longer because I felt that the pro is not properly represented. Except by trolls. Anti-UN: The ICC has no right to imprison or punish American Soldiers. They are American nationals and can be disciplined by their own government if need be. The American judicial system is, in my opinion, one of the fairest in the world. It?s not perfect, but it?s pretty darn close. America is one of the moral nations and its food donations are almost unparallel. Pro-UN (To the Americans here, I?m sorry. I am being pretty cynical here, and I personally don?t think this is the character of America.) If the UN has no right to prosecute American soldiers, what right does the US have to imprison the Terrorists at Gauntanomo?(Look, I know the soldiers didn?t do crap half as bad, but one does need a level playing field for ALL countries? peoples) ?These are the guys who put Sudan and Syria in the human rights committee!? Umm didn?t the US put quite a few of these ?tin pot? dictatorships in place? Six impossible things? How about: All or most Iraqi people will welcome us. No. The oil will pay for reconstruction. Umm no.There will be Weapons of Mass Destruction. Still open but no as of now .There?ll be more safety and less chance, if not none, of getting hit by WMD. Guess again. It will help the Economy. No. The US economy is still roller coasting. That?s five the American people held. I could, if I wanted to split safty and WMD apart. On the issue of landmines, if the thing about canceling programs was monetary, the US could never tell India or Pakistan to cancel their nuke programs. Ditto for quite a few other issues. As for the Peacekeeping operations, what would it curtail? Quite a few American operations are with the UN and this link shows the number there: link ?Slobbo was not sending peacekeepers into the most Godforsaken areas of the world to try to keep warring parties from destroying each other and destabilizing entire regions of the world. Slobbo did not have a unified command hierarchy that addressed every single square inch of the globe, the way America does. No country in the world sends more forces abroad, either in absolute or proportional terms, than America.? True. Unfortunately, most of these troops are not in a peacekeeping operation. They are in bases and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the link above. The US does lead in Global Arms sales, especially to third world nations, who use it against their neighbors. After which the US steps in. And what does the ?unified command hierarchy? have to do with the UN or Slobbo? Please explain. ?Destabilizing? That word again. Don?t US arms destabilize areas of the world? Doesn?t the CIA putting in regimes like the Taliban destabilize the world? ?You say you don't want a world policeman that operates outside the rule of law. I respect that. However, why don't you trust the American court-martial system and civil justice system to deal with American offenders? If we don't have the kind of standards of justice that you want to see enforced, then it is probably best that America withdraw from all peacekeeping actions.? Sure we trust them to deal with American offenders. Just not when they do something abroad. Heard of Tiger battalion in Vietnam? The History Channel had a special I believe. The US stepping aside from Peacekeeping operations is laughable. The US does some good work there, and many politicians do like helping people. However, stepping aside means that US losses the kind of power that keeps it the Intel and Economic power of the world. Can?t do it if it wants to survive. ?France and Germany had nothing to lose, because they don't WANT to send their armies anywhere and they will be glad to use the court as an excuse not to if necessary.? France does quite a bit of peacekeeping. It send its armies all over the place. Germany, I can understand you saying that. ?I would also pose the question to the U.N. General Assembly: how many times have you [collectively] actually followed through on those resolutions passed so nearly unanimously when it would mean serious material sacrifice on your part? ("You" in this case is in no way directed at the British, just any random individual member of the GA.)? Try India. It backed off the LOC. It even gave Pakistan part of Kashmir. That?s a very big material sacrifice. Besides the General Assembly has NO POWER. Brow beat the Security Council if you wish. Especially the Permanent members. ?Outside the Western countries which I will include Japan, South Korea and Singapore you have no internal enforcement mechanism.? Hah. There are quite a few countries that follow through on their treaties. India for example. While the child labor situation is bad, it?s improving everyday. That?s follow through. You can?t eradicate such a huge problem in a few years! ?Hey John, has the UN tried to implement it's global gun grab in your country yet? Hah? What does that mean? The UN has taken away WMD from Iraq. It has yet to take US? weapons. To WWW.NYCBOY92020@yahoo.com . Man, you got some serious social issues. ?Ignorant Europeans??The British helped you. They are Europeans. Why are you insulting an entire continent of people? One country cannot defeat the US but a coalition of a few can. ?NO NATION CAN MATCH THE AMERICAN MILLITARY? True. But many units can match any other in the world and many aren?t American. For example, the British Royal Marines. I don?t think there?s a nation that can stop an invasion by them. Or the Indian Ghurkha rifles regiments in the mountains. WWW.NYCBOY92020@yahoo.com you are patriotic (and that?s good) but don?t blinded by it. The American military is unmatched but it is not unbeatable. Notice no one Screamed Troll! when WWW.NYCBOY92020@yahoo.com posted? That?s one of the reasons I felt I should help the ProUN side. Remember this is my opinion. I didn?t insult anyone here except for WWW.NYCBOY92020@yahoo.com. And he?s a troller. RESPOND to my arguments, not insult them!
 
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:USUN proposal   11/21/2003 9:04:36 PM
Theoretically, I support the idea of an ICC. But I do not believe that it is supportable at this time. There are too many who would abuse it, for nothing more than political gain. And I would rather not bring in a dysfunctional ICC that would be much more difficult to replace in the long run than wait until an effective one can be formed.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy