[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics. - Page 111

Phoenix-D · #**1101** April 24th, 2003, 05:10 PM

"But there won't be any, cause "the rules don't apply for Americans":
(Quote from the article) "In 1998, 120 countries signed up to a resolution in Rome calling for the formation of an International Criminal Court.
Only seven members of the United Nations voted against the resolution. The most prominent of these being the United States which argued that the court might be ineffective and become a tool for politically motivated prosecutions of Americans.""

Which is actually a fairly legit concern. If a court becomes politically motivated, it gets much less useful. Ussually.

"And AFAIK "the President got imunity", so its not possible to raise a civil case in the US either."

Under US law I think the President could pardon himself, making any trial a bit..pointless. (of course if it came to that he'd be commiting political suicide)

Phoenix-D

jimbob · #**1102** April 24th, 2003, 06:02 PM

[sarcasm] Right, because as we all know, UN departments and functions are never commandeered for politically motivated reasons, and are always neutral in their approach to all situations. There are of course no countries or NGO's out there that will wield a UN body to go after the USA simply because it's big, powerful, wealthy, or the Great Satan - regardless of the purpose of the UN body in question. [/sarcasm]

This may well indeed go a long ways to explaining why the US does not want to be under the authority of an international court. What keeps countries like Iraq (before GWII) from innundating the court with baseless charges against the US, while they have an incredibly bad record themselves? Unlike the Iraqi leadership, the world would actually expect that the US leadership would show up for their court dates - but would have no such expectation of the Tin Pot Dictators of this world - yet another double standard that the US (rightly IMHO) simply is not willing to endure.

Hey, them's my thoughts on it anyway.
jimbob

Cyrien · #**1103** April 24th, 2003, 08:14 PM

The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
-U.S. Constitution

However the U.S. supreme Court has ruled that it is ok to sue the President while he is in office for actions he has taken that were not related to his official duties.
IE: Couldn't sue him for firing you.

What the President and his people say about something is irrelevant. It is upto the Supreme Court to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the President or the Congress.

Resolution 57/57 expressed its opposition to an arms race in space; the United States, Israel, and Micronesia were the only no votes.

Resolution 57/58 called for nuclear weapons states to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals; the United States joined with the UK and France in voting no. Resolution 57/59 urged a nuclear-free world; the six no votes all came from nuclear weapons states: the United States, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Resolution 57/62 aimed to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocols banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The resolution called upon states which had signed the Protocols with reservations to withdraw their reservations. The only non-affirmative votes were the abstentions from the United States, Israel, and Micronesia. (The United States signed the Protocols with reservations.)

Jimbob hit a large part of everything on the head. There is no such thing as being biased. Look at things as they are. How often has the US born the brunt of cost or action but been asked to not hold the leadership position?

As to the various resolutions...

I think that looking at just that information is totally irrelevant to viewing the US votes. Also this is throwing a double standard once again. How many people actually think passing a resolution to totally ban Nuclear weapons would actually result in a nuclear weapon free world?
It wouldn't certain reputable nations would be expected to comply and demonstrate compliance. Other nations wouldn't comply and if they said the did wouldn't demonstrate that compliance in any meaningful way. Then what do you have? The "responsible" world nations don't have them and a few rogue nations, such as North Korea, do. What deterent do you have to stop them from using those weapons now? You can invade them? How effective is that when an entire invading force can be vaporized in an instant?
This is the problem of at least some (and some would argue all) diplomacy needing to be backed with at least equal or greater force.

And what about the resolutions that the US voted yes on and other nations voted against? Hrmm? Conveniantly overlooked? Such as:

Resolution for a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (57/9) only North Korea voted no.

Resolution dealing with the law of the sea (57/141) only Turkey voted no.

Resolution on conventional arms control on the regional and subregional level (57/77), only India voted no.

Resolution appealing to states to offer scholarships to Palestinian refugees for higher education (57/120) Israel was the lone abstainer and no votes of no.

You can look at other areas and see many nations that vote in what they see as their interests. Yet the United States and a few other nations are singled out for these activities and pointed at for wrong doing?

And of course there is the level of authority held by UN resolutions? How many actually do what they are supposed to effectively?

The UN has no power and each of the nations that is a member seeks to use it to gain power for themselves while controlling the power of the other nations. This easily shows why the US and other powerful nations have more vetoes in their name than other nations. They have more power to guard against and more nations want to weaken them.

The United Nations is made up of nations but it certainly isn't United and you can forget all about unbiased.

[ April 24, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

tesco samoa · #**1104** April 24th, 2003, 08:27 PM

http://cogenteur.blogspot.com/2003_0...r_archive.html

along one... but well worth the read.... on the topic of WMD....

Why?

Because this issue will not be 'buried in the sand'

I think these questions need to be asked and answered.

Alpha Kodiak · #**1105** April 24th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rextorres:
[QBThe real "propaganda" was how they duped U.S. public opinion to get behind the war.[/QB]

You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.

geoschmo · #**1106** April 24th, 2003, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.

Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

Geoschmo

Some1 · #**1107** April 24th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:

quote:
Originally posted by rextorres:
[QBThe real "propaganda" was how they duped U.S. public opinion to get behind the war.

You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.[/QB]

It has nothing to do with intelligence, Even the smartest people are influencable...

Jack Simth · #**1108** April 24th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

Geoschmo

You realize, that by that logic, it means that if you oppose the war, you open yourself up to being called naive, impractical, uneducated, decieved, a passive supporter of tyrrany, or any other number of negative characterizations? Further, using the same logic, you have closed your own doors of taking issue with them; you have volunteered to remain silent.

Of course, that all assumes that you don't hold to a double standard....

Alpha Kodiak · #**1109** April 24th, 2003, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
You realize, of course that this is a direct insult against the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans that support the war. Perhaps it doesn't occur to you that those who disagree with you might just possibly be right and you just might possibly be wrong.

Don't even bother AK. It's very important for you to rememebr that being opposed to the war does NOT mean you were supporting Saddam. But if you supported the war it's ok for you to be labeled as bloodthirsty, uneducated, naive, deceived, disingenuous, or any other of a litany of negative characterizations. You can't take issue with them, you must simply accept them. Once you understand that it will go much easier for you.

Geoschmo

Thanks Geo. I have been avoiding this sort of thing for some time, but unfortunately, I have been home from work sick the Last few days, and the low grade fever has clouded my judgment. I think it is time that I depart this thread before I work myself up too much. Speaking to those with their minds stuck in concrete is a waste of breath.

tesco samoa · #**1110** April 24th, 2003, 09:29 PM

A.K. I for one hope you do not leave this thread.

It helps keep balance here. And I believe you will have alot of thoughts / opinions / links to add to the future debates over Iraq, War and Politics. Do not feel ashamed for posting your feelings to your fellow friends at this forum. They are read and thought about and answered. Your Opinion is important and has helped shape this thread to its current position. I hope you carry on with shaping it , debating it and reading it.

Your friend and fellow poster

Tesco.

P.S.

I hope you get better soon.

P.P.S.
Another link about WMD

http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0...ion-145152.htm