12-05-2002 13:45									#91
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sure darling, if I had something to reply to.

	12-05-2002 14:32									#92
	Suffering from ads?

Why are you so anti-American, Dalgetti?

	12-05-2002 14:56									#93
	Get a bigger avatar today!

1) kropo , how about my previous post?

2) Ecthelion , while I didn't state in this thread that I am anti many US actions , I am against many of them. This has nothing to do with the real thread subject , which is , what good is the UN for ?

	12-05-2002 14:58									#94
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Don't even try to cover it up. The thread subject is the US blocking UN suggestions in order to keep up hegemony attempts, not what the UN is good for. Which is easily said, namely communication and peace between nations.

	12-05-2002 16:39									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Dal: I thought I already did. Just below your post on page 2.

	12-05-2002 17:46									#96
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

pages depend on posts-per-page

	12-05-2002 17:52									#97
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Oh well herr besserwisser, page two with the deafult setting, something like post 48...

	12-05-2002 17:54									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

that's page 5 for me

	12-05-2002 20:22									#99
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

--"and if the most powerful country in the world would have guts to uphold a good treaty and not just plain avoid it"

Which good treaty would that be, then? I must have missed that one somehow.

--"The US blocked passage of a recent treaty that would have set minimum military age at 18 because of its heavy reliance on 16 and 17 year-old soldiers."

You sure you're talking about the US? I thought you had to be 18 to enlist. Heck, you have to be 17 to join ROTC and Selective Service sign ups aren't until 18 (IIRC).

Wraith
Vuja De': the strange feeling you get that nothing has happened before

	12-05-2002 22:33									#100
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Wraith You sure you're talking about the US? I thought you had to be 18 to enlist. Heck, you have to be 17 to join ROTC and Selective Service sign ups aren't until 18 (IIRC)

I seem to recall there being many US servicemen <18 in Viet Nam. Have the rules changed recently? If so, then I'd postulate the US challenged the treaty before the rules changed.

	12-05-2002 22:40									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Half the countries who signed arent even gonna do anything, as usaul.


UN has credibilit left. After what they have done to Israel.

	12-05-2002 22:47									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Exactly what is that, faded?

	12-05-2002 23:17									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

--"I seem to recall there being many US servicemen <18 in Viet Nam. Have the rules changed recently?"

Haven't seen anything about a changed age requirement in a long time. The current rules seem to have been in place for quite a while.
In any case, I did finally find some basic enlistment requirements. It seem the US military will accept applicants aged 17, but require parental permission. 18 is the open enlistment age.

Wraith
I'm really quite pleasant until I'm awake

	13-05-2002 01:30									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse I seem to recall there being many US servicemen <18 in Viet Nam. Have the rules changed recently? If so, then I'd postulate the US challenged the treaty before the rules changed.

Guess how many 18 year olds died in Viet Nam. I.e. about what percentage of the 55K deaths were 18 years old?

	13-05-2002 01:34									#105
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Guess how man 17 year olds died. approx percentage...

	13-05-2002 01:42									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Kropotkin , I meant my page 3 post.

	13-05-2002 01:53									#107
	Got spare money?

it's aimed at strangelove and it's about UN documents etc, I don't see any point in making any replies at all.

	13-05-2002 01:56									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And I don't see any point in discussing on whether a post is worthy to be replied to or not...

This is getting truly pathetic, guys... Kropotkin, if you post in this thread, stick to the topic.. and Dal, if others don't want to talk with you, they just don't want to!

	13-05-2002 02:00									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

you should really brush your teeth before grinning that bluntly

	13-05-2002 02:12									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The U.S. delegation had pushed the Bush administration's agenda against abortion and in favor of sexual abstinence before marriage and of the traditional family

Just how naive can a modern country like the U.S. be!!!?!?!? This is ridicilous!! sexual abstinence before marriage!!

Now.. after recovering from my first laughter and thinking about this matter... it is actually pretty scary

	13-05-2002 03:47									#112
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Maybe you can find something to really be scared about, you effete little Eurocom...

	13-05-2002 08:28									#113
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Ecth: Arnie speaks American with a preposterously phony Austrian accent.

OT: Why are so many people upset over a treaty that was readily signed by nations like Sudan, Chad, Libya, etc.? Do you think these nations are somehow suddenly overcome with concern for children?

	13-05-2002 08:44									#114
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GP Guess how man 17 year olds died. approx percentage...

GP, you've already posted the stats for 17 year-old conscipts dying in action. This "shmarty" pays attention...

	13-05-2002 09:10									#115
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse GP, you've already posted the stats for 17 year-old conscipts dying in action. This "shmarty" pays attention...

good, shmarty!

This old troll only has so many tricks in the bag...

	13-05-2002 10:00									#116
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Doesn't international law supercede domestic law? It does here.

No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S. International law never will supercede domestic law in the U.S. in any great way unless something drastic happens in the international situation. The logic behind the arguments for signing the bill doesn't amount to much. Why should we sign something just because others have signed it? Follows along the same line of thinking as the old cliche "if everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you?" If we don't agree to everything in the treaty, then why should we sign it? Besides, how well will Iraq and Pakistan follow the provisions of the treaty? The U.S. will undoubtably fufill most provisions of the treaty better than the vast majority of the signatories. To me this action does two things: it emphasizes the impotence of the U.N. and it provides Europeans and wannabe Euros another oppurtunity to ***** about the U.S. Go ahead and *****. No one cares.

	13-05-2002 10:03									#117
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S

According to the resident legal experts, treaties supercede all domestic laws except the Constitution.

	13-05-2002 10:07									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse quote: No, international law doesn't supercede domestic law in the U.S According to the resident legal experts, treaties supercede all domestic laws except the Constitution.

The Constitution is the ultimate in domestic law.

	13-05-2002 10:09									#119
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Your point being?

	13-05-2002 10:21									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

My point is that as long as international law is superceeded by the Constitution, international law will never play a dominating role in U.S. domestic policy. We always have the option of amending the Constitution to avoid following any international law. Granted, this would only happen in a drastic situation. However, the knowledge that that option is avaliable takes away much of the strength of international legislation in the U.S. The bottom line is that the U.S. is not going to accept any law that doesn't benefit it. At most the U.S. will accept a law that prvides no benefit, but avoids hindering U.S. activities.