alt="food for euts.">nother speriment
| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Africa: Horn | |||||
| France puts US in tight spot on Sudan trials | |||||
| 2005-03-24 | |||||
| UNITED NATIONS - France put the United States in a tight spot on Wednesday by calling a vote on a measure referring perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region to the International Criminal Court, which Washington rejects. The French draft, expected to be brought up in the UN Security Council on Thursday afternoon, would also exclude nationals of any state that had not ratified the treaty setting up the Hague-based court—including American citizens—from prosecution for participating in any UN operation in Sudan. The United States, which on Tuesday split its draft resolution on Sudan into three parts in an effort to break a Security Council deadlock on Sudan, decided to seek a vote on Thursday only on the part authorizing 10,000 peacekeepers for southern Sudan, which was virtually assured of passage. That would delay action on the two other resolutions dealing with Darfur—one offering three options on how to prosecute Darfur atrocities and one seeking sanctions targeting government and rebel leaders involved in fighting there. Diplomats said as many as 10 of the council's 15 members could end up backing the French draft.
After closed-door talks, council members said Russia, China and Algeria appeared to back the US approach. The nine council members that have ratified the ICC treaty—Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania and Tanzania—expressed support for the French draft. Japan and the Philippines were uncertain, they said. But the Bush administration proposed a new UN-African Union tribunal as an alternative. President George W. Bush wants nothing to do with the ICC, fearing US officials and soldiers serving abroad could be targets of politically motivated prosecutions. The US peacekeeping resolution would authorize a UN mission to monitor an accord ending a separate 21-year civil war between the Khartoum government and rebels in south Sudan. The second US draft resolution, which is not now being put to a vote, would strengthen an arms embargo on Darfur and order sanctions against human rights violators and those who undermine a cease-fire in the region. Russia and China, which have veto power, as well as Algeria and other nations have objected to some of those measures. ÂÂ
| |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #69 Aris In your later years you will be surprised how much your views change. It's the way of man. You start life young and full of energy and drives. For some they are drives for a better world. As you discover more about the background behind issues the dirty dealing and the politics you become more jaded and conservative. This is not just on the global level. You will find it in companies, in clubs even in the clergy. Somebody will find a way to gain advantage from the best of ideals and pervert them in the process. That's where the beauty of the US Constitution was. Implicitly it understands that so it enshrines checks and balances. Maybe that's where the US loses it over the ICC. It shreds the checks and balances we have spent ages creating for only a minor result. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-03-24 11:56:32 PM |
| #68 [moderator hat ON] And now for the sternly worded resolution: Rantburg is a forum for "civil, well-reasoned discourse," as well as the personal website of one extremely busy man. We are fortunate that Fred has used his mad web design skillz to create an interactive blog that has the best commentary in the 'Sphere and the easiest comment registration system possible. I hope that you each will take a moment to reflect on your participation in Rantburg discussions. Fred can choose to uninvite any or all of us for any reason or no reason at all. These long discussions full of personal attacks and insults waste his bandwidth and other readers' patience. Thank you and wishing you good blog karma, Seafarious [moderator hat OFF] |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-03-24 11:12:11 PM |
| #67 Aris, as I have said already, some posters are no angels here and if they attack you ad hominem, they should apologize as well. You'll have to swallow quite a bit in the army, because, at least in the first week, you'll be a nobody, the guy who gets kicked around. That's how it is with the military all over the world. I always respect your opinion, Aris, sometimes I even share it, more often I share it with reserves, and quite a few times not at all. This happens with other Rantburg posters as well. Rantburg is a civil, tolerant forum, compared to most others. With your attitude, you'd be banned at LGF AND Kos before your third posting. Some posters may not have treated you fairly but you always had a forum that would hear your arguments. I guess that's one reason you stick around here. If you prefer to leave because you are unable to apologize, then unfortunately I won't miss you. If you are able to realize that your cup runneth over for a minute, I'll gladly continue to hear your arguments, if you chose to make them here. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 10:45:50 PM |
| #66 Why do I not trust Aris? Because he said he'd leave before, and came back anyway. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-03-24 10:38:45 PM |
| #65 Frank G, I also remember that you apologized without reserves (although I'm sure you weren't really sorry). But that's not the point. I have often discussed with people who I believed were assh****. (Happened a lot around 1980 when the Pershing II discussion was in full swing). Occasionally I got carried away. After that I apologized. We're humans. Those people were still assh*** in my opinion. Aris, apologies are part of civil discourse. But the apologies I have heard very often and always found worse than no apology at all was the typical "political apology" along the line: "Im sorry if I offended you by calling you an assh***". You'll run into trouble in the army with that. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 10:31:11 PM |
| #64 Goodbye and good luck in all you do, Aris. I meant what I said (in a good way)- that your service committment may really do you good, and I admit you should be congratulated on fulfilling it. Frank |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:24:45 PM |
| #63 *sigh* TGA, I'll sorry you feel that way. You are by far the poster I respect the most. Crossed the line I may have -- but I think they're crossing the line 20 times a day. There was a thread recently, started by .com. Once again people there focused on the superficiality (my use of foul language) and not the actual attitude by .com, more obnoxious than anything I said. What I considered shameful, was the way he had started with trollery, proceeded with lies and ended up with him descending to incoherency and posting an ugly photo of me. What he found shameful is the fact I may have a mistake about judging the nature of Kyrgyzstan's revolution. Look, I'll make it easy to Fred and take the decision away from him. Whether cultural or personal or ideological or whatever, clearly I don't belong here any longer. And this time it's not just a statement of intent, it's a clear promise I'm making -- I promise I won't post again in any other thread on any day. A couple more posts in this one perhaps, but once this day is over you won't see me in Rantburg again -- if you see my name here it will definitely be someone faking me. Cheers and goodbye to those deserving it. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:20:34 PM |
| #62 yes, TGA, we talked, and you were right, I still believe. and always welcome to discuss separately, remove NoSpam. from my email addy Frank |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:17:05 PM |
| #61 And the only time I ever compare America to the Caliphate is within the exact same threads that Europe is foolishly compared to it. Indeed in much fewer ones. And you can't seem to see the contradiction you just posted. Aris, whether statistically you post in every Europe thread is moot. The perception I have is that you act like a newly house-broken cat that regards any thread about the EU as your personal litter box. My perception of you is that you have failed in school, totally and abjectly for you failed to take the one lesson every professor wants you to take: To expand upon your learning and experience, to learn more, primarily through experience, reading and conversations. You seem to be the person who gets through school and they have come to the inescapable conclusion they need to learn nothing else. That's doesn't make you stupid, but it does make you look ignorant. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-03-24 10:08:37 PM |
| #60 *shrug* Whatever Fred decides. But to summarize the rules: Comparing Europe to Caliphate -- acceptable. Comparing USA to it -- unacceptable. Wishing for the destruction of Europe -- acceptable. Wishing for the destruction of America (which I've never done) -- unacceptable. Wishing death on a fellow poster -- unacceptable. Wishing France to be nuked -- acceptable. Trolling for me in random threads -acceptable. Actually appearing when my name is discussed - unacceptable. Whatever Fred decides. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:08:30 PM |
| #59 I don't know why Aris prefers this forum over others. I can only tell you why I post here: Because Rantburg is one of the few forums that have always welcomed posters who hold different views as long as they stayed civil in their discourse. I for one welcome this because this fact can lead to interesting discussions. To wish speedy death on someone who annoys you (and I think I had a few words with Frank G over that already) simply crosses the line. It will disqualify you. You gave an "apology" that even the worst politicians do better. Nobody can force you to be sorry if you aren't. But in that case, just shut up or react like an adult: "I apologize for my remarks. They were uncalled for." Best yet, don't post full of anger and annoyance. Take a deep breath first. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 10:08:04 PM |
| #58 Let's make one thing clear - avoiding you and your mobius strip arguments doesn't mean I will refrain from commenting on ANY topic, in ANY thread I feel like. Your hyper-sensitivities will not censor my voice. Clear? Happy Good Friday, from a Catholic, and a better man than you'll be, it seems, despite my faults |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:04:49 PM |
| #57 "To TGA, Aris, and Fred and any other editors: I don't think an apology is good enough." I concur. Fred, please get this Aris jerk out of here, NOW. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-03-24 10:02:49 PM |
| #56 Phil, I've never issued a death *threat*. The statement "I wish you dead" is different than a *death threat*. And "any thread having anything with Europe"? Not so by far. And the only time I ever compare America to the Caliphate is within the exact same threads that Europe is foolishly compared to it. Indeed in much fewer ones. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:59:22 PM |
| #55 You always bother with me, Frank G, no matter how many dozens claims you've made that you'll ignore me from now on. The respect of someone like TGA I may care for, but yours I don't desire nor wish to ever gain. If someone doesn't use protective gear that doesn't give you automatic permission to hit below the waist. The fact you can't understand as something as "the power to do something doesn't mean the automatic moral right to do something" is the very reason you are contemptible to be. You'll never get why googling for peoples' photographs and making fun of their physical appearance is wrong for example. You'll never get why trying to increase any anxiety I may have for going to the army may be wrong. I've never seen you show the slightest hint that you perceive the difference between *ability* and *rightness*. If you can use something, you'll do it. You call yourself Catholic, but you behave as someone who's in the Church of Satan instead. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:56:12 PM |
| #54 Right now, with anger and annoyance both in full, sincerety demanded that I qualify my apology. I'm sorry about *that* fact. A qualified apology is no apology. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-03-24 9:52:01 PM |
| #53 To TGA, Aris, and Fred and any other editors: I don't think an apology is good enough. We go through this *rusted junk* every time. You literally ejaculate over any thread having anything to do with Europe, eventually degenerating to accusing America of being the new Caliphate and/or issuing death threats to other posters on the thread. (I wonder if that former bit had its origin in the fact that the US stopped the Greek Orthodox in the former Yugoslavia from an attempt to ethnically cleanse Moslem Bosnians and Kosovars from that area). And after flamewar after flamewar has driven off all the *interesting* comment posters, he offers a little "I'm sorry" about one or two of the dozen or so gratuitous insults in the thread, and pretends it makes everything OK. Scroll upward. The mountain of rust is still there. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-03-24 9:50:21 PM |
| #52 Let me put this straight to all: I see the EU as a giant mistake, with unelected bureaucrats making decisions that will kill/bankrupt some nations/parties in the interests of a "favored few". I am not an expert in the minutiae, nor do I pretend to be. I merely speculate on the potential negatives (the Euro-propaganda press makes sure the other side is heard), and in particular, their effects on NATO and in particular, the hated hegemonist (USA) in coming in and cleaning up the mess AGAIN. I hope we don't do it. I hope Aris is right and all will be hunky-dory, but I remain a skeptic. That said, Aris is a hyper-sensitive arrogant ass of insufficient wisdom and years, who, like beetlejuice, arrives at the invocation of his name. His website shows the glimpses he wants the world to see, and for the life of me I don't fathom why. I welcome his departure upon his national service, and hope it will change him into someone I can respect, nothing more. Should he remain the same, I will not bother with him, he's not worth it. Happy Easter |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 9:47:44 PM |
| #51 The ICC would be overwhelmed with "war crimes" of Bush, Rumsfeld etc, and have no time left to deal with real war crimes. Sooner or later they would be forced to take a US case just to show that they're not "biased". Wouldn't necessarily be just 'war crimes'. Very likely an incident in Okinawa would get leveraged beyond the Status of Forces Agreement into an ICC case. Okinawa seems to have lots of "friends" when there are problems or situations to exploit (like the offshore landing strip). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-03-24 9:47:33 PM |
| #50 Argentina, Benin, Brazil, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Romania and Tanzania- those signatories of the ICC are pushing for our agreement to the ICC because in the end their populaces' lust for American blood was not sated by the Iraq War. Not enough Americans died for them to feel that justice in life has been done. We are right to recoil from it. The ICC is a coliseum ticket for members of the "international community" to draw American blood. Americans agreeing to such a thing would be the equivalent of putting our heads into nooses. Va te faire foutre, la France. "May I suggest that the ICC could be seen in that part of the world as a legacy of oppressivist attitudes toward former African colonies by Western European elites..." A quite cogent diagnosis, Aris; and now, that Western European legacy has morphed, making the US the natives against a global political mob. We are the new "colony" and are rightfully suspicious of those "Western European elites". Worth considering, the restraint by Japan and the Phillippines. A small sign of hope for the Asian alliance trend? |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-03-24 9:40:27 PM |
| #49 I didn't even know it was Good Friday for the Catholics. heh heh heh, that's what SHE said! :) |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-03-24 9:38:23 PM |
| #48 Perhaps I'll be simply "sorry" in a day or two. Right now, with anger and annoyance both in full, sincerety demanded that I qualify my apology. I'm sorry about *that* fact. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:38:11 PM |
| #47 That's your retraction? Confirming that you really meant it? Calling me superstitous? *** EDITORS, SINKTRAP FOR ARIS, PLEASE. *** |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 9:37:39 PM |
| #46 gee, thanks :-) - bad news is I'm feeling pretty f&*king good, sorry |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 9:36:34 PM |
| #45 You couldn't just say "sorry", now could you? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 9:35:07 PM |
| #44 And as a sidenote it's not Good Friday in Greece -- I didn't even know it was Good Friday for the Catholics. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:33:26 PM |
| #43 *rolls eyes* Very well, I shouldn't have externalized my desire to have ill things happen on him. I apologize that I let my feelings about Frank create a post that will mess up the thread more, and which superstitious people may consider as bad magic that may actually harm Frank. I don't think that such wishes have any actual power to harm people. That's as sincere an apology as I can make it, if sincerety still matters for anything. I still want bad things to happen to Frank, but will try to refrain from expressing such desires. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:31:21 PM |
| #42 Aris, Frank G is no angel when it comes to your person. Ignore him if he annoys you. Death wishes are absolutely uncalled for, inmature and I won't discuss with a person not adult enough for an apology when he got carried away. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 9:30:24 PM |
| #41 What I second was the demand for an apology, just to leave no doubt about it. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 9:26:21 PM |
| #40 Thanks, Aris, but a simple "no" would have sufficed as well. My question was mostly rhetorical. My issue is that I smell a conflict of interest, of jurisdiction, providing significant waffle-room for Union nations. My reading of the Constitution hasn't been thorough enough to determine what priority it would give to jurisdictional disputes involving EU signatories, either between themselves or between the collective and other Nations. Which was the second part of my question. Thanks TGA, that answers the charitable corrolary! :) |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-03-24 9:25:12 PM |
| #39 I'll second that. Not a way to start Good Friday, Aris. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 9:24:59 PM |
| #38 Let them descend, Tom. His fake well-wishes, my sincere ill-wishes. His little jokes about the "armed men who invariably won't like me". Whatever. If I'm banned no big loss for me or anyone else. I didn't violate decency anymore than he did. He always makes jabs about my personal life that oughtn't concern him. You may have your superstitious hangups about wishing ill on people, I'm much more annoyed by his stalking and his (and your) intrusion in my private life, not to mention the way he (and you) attempts to destroy any thread I enter. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:24:51 PM |
| #37 love you too, Aris. Happy Easter |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 9:16:41 PM |
| #36 Aris, you have about ten minutes to retract that "death wish" before a small mob demands that you be sent to the Sinktrap forever. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 9:15:58 PM |
| #35 Frank G, no, we two will never be able to get along -- that's because you are a troll and an asshole that stalks me around the forum. Cause and effect. You being stalker troll asshole => means we don't get along. Frank, my life doesn't and shouldn't concern you one bit, but FYI no I didn't weasel out of it. May you die very soon, Frank. Asedwich, the signatories to the ICC are easy to find. http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 9:08:59 PM |
| #34 The ICC is not a bad idea. Look at the cases they take currently. But the US reserves about joining it are understandable. Every single activist in the US (and of course outside) would make it a priority to abuse the ICC for political gains. The ICC would be overwhelmed with "war crimes" of Bush, Rumsfeld etc, and have no time left to deal with real war crimes. Sooner or later they would be forced to take a US case just to show that they're not "biased". A no win situation. Secretly they are glad that the US is not a member. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2005-03-24 8:56:58 PM |
| #33 Bad karma to invoke prior to service along with a bunch of armed men who invariably won't like you...or did you weasel out of that? Can't we all get along? Til May at least? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 8:53:20 PM |
| #32 Thanks Tom... but you know, I do care. That's why I ask. Otherwise I'd just jump in and flame. Which is fun in its own way, but I try to confine it to FARK.com. Now there's an idea... wonder if I can get a Fark thread greenlighted on Rantburg? :) |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-03-24 8:51:35 PM |
| #31 see, I told you |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 8:48:00 PM |
| #30 troll |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 8:44:24 PM |
| #29 It's inherently another Brussels thing, Asedwich. A skunk by any other name would smell as stinky. And if you actually cared, Aris would still be snippy. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 8:40:37 PM |
| #28 and if I thought you actually cared, I might be polite and respond. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 8:32:03 PM |
| #27 Has the European Union signed? Will the European nations that have signed still be bound when/if the European Union Constitution is "ratified?" :) Enquiring minds wish to know! |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2005-03-24 8:22:39 PM |
| #26 Zhang Fei, I don't think you read that correctly. It doesn't exclude Americans from participating. It excludes them from *prosecution* if they do participate. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 8:16:49 PM |
| #25 Maybe Greece, Belgium, France and Germany will crank up their formidable war machines to rescue black Muslims from certain death the only thing that could make this less probable is if the Darfur people were Joooooos |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 8:15:56 PM |
| #24 I thoght it was a feature. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-24 8:15:13 PM |
| #23 Article: The French draft, expected to be brought up in the UN Security Council on Thursday afternoon, would also exclude nationals of any state that had not ratified the treaty setting up the Hague-based court—including American citizens—from prosecution for participating in any UN operation in Sudan. I don't actually see this as a problem. If the Frogs want to fight the Sudanese without Uncle Sam's participation, more power to them. This I have to see. Maybe Greece, Belgium, France and Germany will crank up their formidable war machines to rescue black Muslims from certain death. Bring out the popcorn... |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-03-24 8:09:22 PM |
| #22 im give up on them alt things they too hard |
| Posted by: half 2005-03-24 5:08:59 PM |
| #21
alt="food for euts."> nother speriment |
| Posted by: half 2005-03-24 5:07:55 PM |
| #20 Nevermind, I suppose you are back in your own private universe, and your posts have once again started revolving around the discussions of statements I've never made. Still, would be fascinating to let me know what assurances I'm supposed to have made. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 3:24:01 PM |
| #19 Since I didn't give you any assurances, Ptah, what are you babbling about that you don't trust them or me? Tell me about *your* assurances for this UN-African Union tribunal. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 3:18:23 PM |
| #18 The big problem I have with international courts is that the judges tend to ignore the facts: witness the ICJ decision against Israel's Security Fence, where all but one of the Judges studiosly ignored the statistics indicating drops in terrorist activity where it was built. Guess which Judge, from which nation, went against the majority opinion. Will the ICC be any better than the ICJ? No. Do we trust the ICC? No. Do I trust Aris's assurances? No. Do I trust Aris? Hell no. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-03-24 3:12:07 PM |
| #17 Ihe ICC is a fact. The U.S., China, and Russia non-participation and the U.S. agreements with 98-and-counting countries to work around it are also facts. The U.S. also has a Security Council veto. All that considered, the French may go merrily on their way, drafting anything they want, knowing full well that if they don't edit to our tastes then they may as well be drafting on toilet paper -- the soft U.S. kind, not the waxy European kind. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 12:16:51 PM |
| #16 The ICC is another chunk of tranzi garbage the confederation weak sisters(the EU)would love to see the US tied to. Trying again to impose their will on countries who actually have the capacity to deal with problems, instead of a desire to spout off non stop about their moral superiority and complete inability to actually solve those problems unless of course if it involves bribery. The US is well advised to stay as far away from the ICC as possible. By the way, since when is France relevant? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-03-24 12:03:48 PM |
| #15 I was never concerned about "isolation", Aris. Pshaw, y'all (Euros) are the ones that keep bringing it up. That person was concerned, whom I first responded to, Tom. I don't know who she/he is, but I doubt he/she is a Euro. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 11:25:44 AM |
| #14 I was never concerned about "isolation", Aris. Pshaw, y'all (Euros) are the ones that keep bringing it up. France is usually long on words and short on substance, mhw. Nothing has changed. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 11:19:23 AM |
| #13 "...preventing a crackdown on what the United States says is genocide by the only tribunal able to start an immediate investigation." What is needed is 10,000, maybe 20,000, armed African military backed by airpower (actually even Spanish and Italian airpower might be enough). France's idea basically allows the genocide to continue by pretending we are going to stop it by 'investigating' it. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-03-24 11:07:42 AM |
| #12 Tom, if you're not "isolated" now because of the existence of those 98 agreements, then that means you won't be isolated even if this UN resolution passes. No worry for concern then on that front. Especially if you're not quakin' in your boots. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:57:35 AM |
| #11 92 countries had signed Article 98 bilateral agreements with the U.S. by mid-July 2004. Yeah, Aris, we're isolated and quakin' in our boots. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 10:50:22 AM |
| #10 trailing wife -- yeah, that's a largely good point, and in a previous thread a couple days ago I believe I had mentioned something similar about a connected issue -- but as I mentioned even back then I have reason to distrust the current displays of supposedly anti-colonial rhetoric in the third world. Half of the time it's progressive and shows countries finally trying to solve their own problems, but half of the rest of the time it's an amoral show of solidarity in opposition to morality. Any democratic pressure they label "Western imperialism/colonialism/interventionism" In short the question is: Will such an African tribunal actually punish the guily, or show "African solidarity" and let almost everyone go? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:49:09 AM |
| #9 A so-called "UN-African Union tribunal" -- I've not seen anyone yet explain how that is any better than the ICC. May I suggest that the ICC could be seen in that part of the world as a legacy of oppressivist attitudes toward former African colonies by Western European elites, when we should all accept and moreso actively support African ability to take on the burden of self-government in the area of regional justice. ;-) Truthfully, though, it is an exercise in growing political maturity for the African nations to take onboard the concept of discerning truth and handing down justice, as opposed to the historical practice of tribe-based violence and revenge. Equally, a long overdue gesture of trust and respect on the part of the former rulers, who justified colonies there as part of the White Man's Burden to bring civilization to the benighted savages of the Dark Continent, the results of which effort have been to date considerably less than exemplary. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-03-24 10:41:21 AM |
| #8 Don't worry, Frank, you have Russia, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and the whole of the Arab League to keep you company in the anti-ICC stance. So you're not all that isolated after all. I had mainly meant you were isolated from the rest of the democratic world. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:39:50 AM |
| #7 USA isolated? Have Russia and China ratified the treaty yet, Aris? And what about the 50 or so countries that had signed Article 98 bilateral agreements with the U.S. by about July 2003? And how many are there now? It's just yet another tempest in a Euro teapot. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-03-24 10:38:47 AM |
| #6 gosh! I feel so isolated by our moral superiors! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-24 10:34:20 AM |
| #5 "or a brigade of the 82nd Airborne?" Is "a brigade of the 82nd Airborne" currently being discussed as a possibility? The issue here is that France wants to force the US to recognize the ICC. Once that happens, then we are isolated for not working in/through it. USA is already isolated on the issue of the ICC. A so-called "UN-African Union tribunal" -- I've not seen anyone yet explain how that is any better than the ICC. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-03-24 10:11:54 AM |
| #4 Being as how we aren't playing along with this ICC bullshit, we should just drop any interest we might have in the matter, step back, and watch the sideshow begin. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-03-24 10:06:49 AM |
| #3 Support the resolution and let the Frogs swing in the breeze as nothing comes of it. Then take some action (unilateral!) on Sudan and rub the Frogs noses in it. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-03-24 8:34:36 AM |
| #2 The French draft, expected to be brought up in the UN Security Council on Thursday afternoon, would also exclude nationals of any state that had not ratified the treaty setting up the Hague-based court—including American citizens—from prosecution for participating in any UN operation in Sudan. Oh, I see. They are structuring a resolution so that UN pederasts and their ICC enablers can conduct child molesting operations without fear of prosecution. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-03-24 7:47:21 AM |
| #1 Vote for the resolution. Then introduce another resolution requiring the ICC member nations to take all necessary measures to enforce it. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-03-24 7:14:51 AM |