 |
| |
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lemmy
The US however wants the ICC to ignore war crimes by any US soldier. |
That's not exactly the point, Lemmy. The US, in line with current international law, doesn't recognize the authority of a tribunal to try its soldiers when the US did not ratify the formation of the tribunal in the first place. You're statement presupposes that the tribunal has a valid basis for authority in the first place. Under international law, there is no such basis. There is only a treaty which purports to bind non-signatories. With no other basis of authority, national sovereigns are well within their rights to tell those treaty makers to stick the court up their wazoo.
While I don't agree with the US's reasons for not signing onto the ICC treaty, I fully support their stand on its enforcement. They didn't sign, so it should not bind them. If you disagree with their position, historical precedent suggests that if you want to enforce your laws on another country, and they won't agree, your only choice is to coerce them. So embargo the US or declare war. But don't try to pretend your laws apply to the US without those "minor" steps being taken.
And as for European involvement in NATO. I think that a realistic assessment of European force projection capabilities and its willingness to buy them (esp. in the command and control area) would lead Europeans to conclude that they would rather have an alliance with the US than not. Without American assistance, simultaneous missions in the Balkans, Africa and in Central Asia (all areas where Europe has interests in stability which may even exceed America's) would likely be beyond Europe's capabilities. And without American involvement in those efforts, the hostility of many third world radicals could easily be redirected to Europe, as the only area which would be using troops to keep them in check.
I think it is pretty clear that Europe is better off with America engaged. Though there is no doubt that the US isn't the most comfortable ally, it is better as an ally than as a neutral party (or even a foe).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm with you Rich, they hate us and blame us, so they can do the job.
We won't lift a FINGER to help them militarily, and our trade agreements can stand as always.
Best of both worlds for us. |
ya the USA just stands in the way every time the EU tries to form a EU military task force etc etc etc. the EU is and will be far better off without the US. In the long run the US is going down.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Hasn't this thread been done before? |
yes it has
quote:
If Europe wants to sever the bonds that tie us together, they should be permitted to do so. |
Europe isn't the one who is severing bonds, the US is, they're practically going against the entire UN.
The US is retreating their UN-peacekeeping forces, not Europe.
And with the current US policies, i'm ok with it, maybe after the next election things will change...cos i've given up on your monkey in the white house.
quote:
Im talking Now, right now. Iraq is a rising threat and you guys are yet again, turning a blind eye. You are too pussie to act. |
uhm, yeah, the US acted two times, and Saddam is still sitting there, great job  
And twice you claimed you saved the world of a great evil
Like Chris Rock in the movie Bad Company said, even a woman can find Saddam, just tell her that her husband is f***ing with him, and she will find him for you and kick his ass...well, it was something like that..
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2002 21:09
|