Is it a coincidence that both Francestan and Belgistan have the largest Arab Muslim population in Eurostan?
Home | Is it a coincidence that both Francestan and Belgistan have the largest Arab Muslim population in Eurostan?
Wasn't King Leopold accused of treason for so quickly surrendering to the Nazi's?Originally posted by takeo some observations:
1)Belgian autorities didn't collaborate with the nazi's, on the contrary belgium was a military occupied zone, and the entire government went into exile in London.
You seek to lay this at the feet of the US, but the conspiracy went much wider. France did nothing to stop it.Originally posted by takeo
2)Yes, Belgians behaved very badly in its colonies, as ALL imperialist nations, including the us and Great-brittain (and France). Currently there has been an investigation about belgian crimes in the past, such as the murder on the first former prime minister Lumumba, suspected of communist sympathies. Conclusion: he has been murdered by Belgians, in FULL cooperation with the us-autorities...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ent/974745.stmHe appealed to local UN troops to save him. The UN refused on direct orders from headquarters in New York.
No double standard. I don't think we have that right either. Oh, and by the way, you should probably go back and study your history a little better. Panama was not bombed and the "invasion" was limited to the capture of their criminal leader. Iraq was the result of a request of our ally calling on us to aid in their defense and liberation. (Remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait and set up torture chambers, burned their oil wells and pillaged their country. But that was OK, they were allies and clients of France.)Originally posted by takeo
3) You think Belgium doesn't have the right to be the international judge of the world. Perhaps you're right... but you don't have the right to say so coming from a country that thinks it has the right to bomb and invade countries to pieces because they don't like the leader of that country (panama, Iraq, just some examples...). This is a clear case of double standars!
Kissinger for killing Vietnamese? Kissinger was not the policy maker. Find a different dog to kick.Originally posted by takeo
4) yes the arbitrary judgement of former dictators and war-criminals is very at random... for example Milosevic is to be trialed, but kissinger ISN'T for killing millions of Vietnamese...
What branch of the IDF did the Maronites come under?Originally posted by takeo
5)the incidents in Libanon were not just arab versus Arab incidents... Sharon was the military commander of Libanon ("liberated from palestinian oppression", as your unbiased source puts it). in this function he was responsible for every action inside his controlled area. He did send the falangists into these popular neighbourhoods, and could have guessed the outcome of such a decision. Milosevic is been jailed for much less than this.
And the French response? There comes a point where diplomacy is of no further value. At that point our "big stick" diplomacy takes over.Originally posted by takeo
6) Europeans have been hit by terrorism as well in the latest years. Remember the attack against French employees in Pakistan? In Algeria as well French targets are targetted by the terrorists. But Europe is cooperating with the non-terrorist Arab governments, while the US doesn't make any distinction between terrorists and independant arab countries who do not accept us-dictates or troops.
LOLOriginally posted by humus_sapiens
Is it a coincidence that both Francestan and Belgistan have the largest Arab Muslim population in Eurostan?
Yes, Europeans have experienced terrorism, but they didnt experience it on the scale of 11/9. When (I hope not!) a European country is attacked big scale by terrorism, one will definetly see a change in the governments policies.Originally posted by takeo
6) Europeans have been hit by terrorism as well in the latest years. Remember the attack against French employees in Pakistan? In Algeria as well French targets are targetted by the terrorists. But Europe is cooperating with the non-terrorist Arab governments, while the US doesn't make any distinction between terrorists and independant arab countries who do not accept us-dictates or troops.
The US does make a distinction between terrorist states and non-terrorist states. The problem is that there are too many terrorist Islamic states
Originally posted by elreason4
Our Real Friends in Europe
From the August 26, 2002 issue: To find them, start at the old Iron Curtain and go east.
by Charles Krauthammer
08/26/2002, Volume 007, Issue 47
THE EUROPEAN UNION has just warned any country hoping to join the E.U. that it had better not make any arrangements with the United States promising not to extradite Americans for trial at the new International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The ICC is Europe's pet project for bringing justice and truth to the world. Its origin is the experiment in war crimes trials for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, two places where the Europeans stood firmly in repose while the massacres raged. (They raised not a finger against Serbia until the United States entered the fray and carried the fight.)
Europe now wants to generalize this soothing balm of bringing bad guys to court post facto. Hence the invention of a permanent International Criminal Court. Prosecutors in The Hague can now pursue soldiers, commanders, or political figures from anywhere in the world for whatever "crime against humanity" they fancy.
This presents a real problem for the United States. Americans do not dislike courts. We respect law. If anything, we are the most over-lawyered, judge-driven democracy in the West. (We are the only Western democracy, for example, to have legalized abortion not through popular or parliamentary vote, but by court fiat.) Nonetheless, we hold to the quaint idea that in a democratic system, prosecutors must be answerable to democratically elected leaders. The ICC has nothing like our system of checks and balances and review. Once the ICC judges and the prosecutors and the lawyers get the machinery going, they essentially have carte blanche.
We got a taste of runaway prosecution four years ago when a Spanish judge nabbed Augusto Pinochet on a medical visit to England and had the former Chilean dictator detained for months on human rights charges. Fidel Castro happened to have been in Portugal at precisely the same time. He was not arrested. Surprise! It would not have occurred to the Spanish judge to charge him for the blood on his hands. That is not how European human rights politics works. The prosecutions are selective. And the prosecutions are political. Tomorrow, some grandstanding prosecutor will try to cuff Henry Kissinger for Vietnam, George Bush Sr. for the Gulf War, or maybe even Gen. Tommy Franks for the conduct of the Afghan war.
But beyond the hypocrisy is the issue of responsibility. We have a legal system in the United States for punishing crimes committed by Americans. These laws apply to crimes committed by Americans abroad, even in military uniform. Our code of military conduct is particularly strict. We don't need European prosecutors who answer to no one running around the world putting American soldiers in jail and forcing them to defend themselves on whatever charge the human rights activists of the day find convenient.
That is why last month we had a big fight with the Europeans at the U.N. We said we would not continue to expend money and personnel on peacekeeping if American soldiers were going to be subject to trial before the ICC. We threatened to terminate the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia altogether unless Americans were granted an exemption. The Europeans refused. The Bush administration decided that the eve of an Iraq war was not the best time to go to the mat on this one. So it chose to temporize and punt. It accepted a one-year exemption.
In anticipation of the expiration of the year, however, the administration has gone to more friendly countries seeking bilateral agreements not to extradite Americans to the ICC. On August 1, Romania was the first to sign up. (Israel quickly followed suit.) That piqued the pique-prone Europeans. First, the European Union expressed "regret" over Romania's action. Then, on August 12, European Commission president Romano Prodi issued a warning to "other candidate countries which have also been approached by the United States" not to "make any more moves to agree to sign such an accord." The "candidate countries" being mostly poorer Eastern European countries whose economic future lies with acceptance into the tariff-free club of rich West Europeans, the warning carries weight.
The ironies here are stark. The East Europeans are poor and the West Europeans are rich precisely because one side had the protection of the United States during the Cold War and the other side did not. The military umbrella, economic aid (beginning with the Marshall Plan), and other goodies dispensed by the United States permitted Western Europe to become the island of wealth that it is today. Having achieved that wealth on the back of the United States, Western Europe is now using it as a club to make Eastern Europe distance itself from the United States.
The irony gets richer, though. The West Europeans have been full throated in their complaints about the American "hyperpower," the arrogant unilateralist that uses its power to get other countries to do its bidding. Now, however, finding itself with the upper hand vis- -vis its eastern cousins, the E.U. has not the slightest hesitation about threatening their economic futures, which are necessarily tied to the E.U., to ensure that Americans remain subject to extradition and prosecution for their exertions abroad.
This is not the first time that Western Europe has threatened its Eastern European cousins to shape up and do as they do. Six months ago, the prime minister of the Czech Republic said some very true and therefore necessarily rude things about Yasser Arafat. Among other observations, Milos Zeman said that Arafat was a terrorist and that Israel should not be forced to negotiate with him. Zeman was a little ahead of his time. The United States has by now said precisely the same thing. But for that, and for the indiscretion of comparing Arafat to Hitler and Palestine to the Sudetanland, Zeman incurred the wrath of the E.U.
"Such language is not what we expect from a future member state," declared the European Union in a not so subtle message that if you want to join the club you had better parrot the club's prejudices. By May, the Czechs were apparently on board. After a Brussels meeting with Zeman, E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana declared with satisfaction that the Czech Republic had aligned itself with the E.U.'s Middle East policy.
It is no accident that Romania should have wanted to sign on with the United States on the ICC or that the Czech Republic would have expressed a position on the Middle East more in accord with the American than with the West European view. It is perhaps the greatest irony of the post-Cold War era: America's closest friends in the world are those nations that were once Soviet colonies. We can count far more on the goodwill and support of former Warsaw Pact countries than on our longtime West European allies (with the occasional exception of Britain).
The reason is not hard to see. East Europeans retain a residual pro-Americanism that derives in part from gratitude for America's half century of struggle to end their enslavement to Moscow. Whatever gratitude Western Europe might have had for its liberation 50 years earlier has quite dissipated.
But it is more than just a question of gratitude. East Europeans have the immediate, almost current, personal experience of having lived under tyranny. They have a much keener appreciation of the value of liberty, the price that must be paid to sustain it, and the role of the United States in securing theirs and everyone else's.
West Europeans, after half a century under the American umbrella, have come to believe that their freedom is self-generated. It is by now, they feel, a simple birthright, as natural as the air they breathe. When they see the United States slaying dragons abroad--yesterday Afghanistan, today Iraq, tomorrow who knows who--they see a cowboy whose enthusiasms threaten to disturb the perfect order of things, best symbolized, of course, by the hushed paper-shuffling at the International Criminal Court.
The East Europeans suffer none of these illusions. They emerged from the Cold War chastened and realistic and, above all, acutely aware of the power and presence of evil. The West Europeans, having been spared that history, make dialogue with evil their mission. They seek accommodation--and lucrative oil contracts--with the Iranian mullahs, the chief sponsors of terrorism around the world; they make the case for Iraq, first for lifting sanctions, now for preventing American-led regime change; and more generally, they advocate a "nuanced" and "sophisticated"--surtout pas trop de zele--approach to international miscreants.
Except for Mexico's Vicente Fox, the only world leader to have been given a formal state dinner by this administration was the president of Poland. Some thought this odd. On the contrary, it was a perfectly pitched acknowledgment of the new reality in Europe--of where America can today expect to find real friends as the war against the new totalitarians and the new barbarians grows more intense and more dangerous. I was at that state dinner. Looking around the room, I noted to a friend of mine on the absence that night of the rancor and animosity that we have come to expect from the West Europeans. "Imagine how many real friends we'd have in the world today," he observed wickedly, "if we'd let the Soviets have Western Europe for fifty years too."
Charles Krauthammer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard
Last edited by elreason4; 02-15-2003 at 02:32 PM.
The Europeans have regrettably been incapable to honestly come to terms with their less than honorable imperialist past. These European kangaroo courts show no ability to work free of political motivations, shamefully selecting arbitrary targets while blatantly ignoring the real tyrannical war criminals. These systems are so flawed that they are forced to continuously re-write their laws AROUND the facts to justify their outrageous behavior.
As such the Belgium and ICC procedures disregard any semblance of judicial ethical accountability. No judicial system which disregards objective and blind application of law can hold any credibility. All systems of true justice must apply blind universal standards of ethics.
Such genuine ideals upholding a sound moral judicial system are best demonstrated by the United States and Israel themselves.
Last edited by elreason4; 02-15-2003 at 03:22 PM.
actually i think german and english Muslim-population is larger?Is it a coincidence that both Francestan and Belgistan have the largest Arab Muslim population in Eurostan?
Not to mention Bosnia, Albania or Turkey...
Yes he was, especially by the socialists and communists, he finally resigned.Wasn't King Leopold accused of treason for so quickly surrendering to the Nazi's?
That's right, but the us had a bigger part in it.You seek to lay this at the feet of the US, but the conspiracy went much wider. France did nothing to stop it.
i beg your pardon? Panama was limited to the capture of their criminal leader... so... Isn't this the principle of international justice? wasn't it one country imposing its laws and values to another country? belgium isn't going to invade Israel as far as I know to capture Sharon and bring him to justice as the us did in Panama... , who exactly thinks to be the judge and jury of the world?????????? No double standards? Come on!No double standard. I don't think we have that right either. Oh, and by the way, you should probably go back and study your history a little better. Panama was not bombed and the "invasion" was limited to the capture of their criminal leader. Iraq was the result of a request of our ally calling on us to aid in their defense and liberation. (Remember, Iraq invaded Kuwait and set up torture chambers, burned their oil wells and pillaged their country. But that was OK, they were allies and clients of France.)
The first Gulf-war was entirely different, Iraq violated international law and was attacked by an international force with un-mandate, an effort in which france participated. Today however the uS plans to carry out its plans without any international mandate, which means it thinks it is the judge and jury of the world.
wasn't the policy-maker??? he was the highest responsible for us foreign policy during a few years of the Vietnam-war. He ordered lots of criminal decisions in violence of the Geneva-conventions.Kissinger for killing Vietnamese? Kissinger was not the policy maker. Find a different dog to kick.
None, but they, at that time, were under controll of Sharon, the military commander of Beirout, and he ordered them into these refugeecamps.What branch of the IDF did the Maronites come under?
Yes, but in this case this is clearly not true. Inspections are working, iraq did a lot of concessions and the inpectors see a lot of progress. Iraq can be disarmed trough inspections, if iraq has weapons at all.And the French response? There comes a point where diplomacy is of no further value. At that point our "big stick" diplomacy takes over.
if diplomacy can work in the case of North Korea, India or Pakistan it certainly can in the case of Iraq, that did a lot more concessions than those three last countries.
Europe has been experiencing terrorism long before the us did, we have lived trough a lot more than the US during our history. i think that's precisely why our approach is and always has been since the last 40 years more peacefull and diplomatic than the us-policy, before and after 11/9. (face it, the us-policy concerning Iraq was already very tough even before 11/9, the us just used it as a usefull excuse to "finish unfinished business")Yes, Europeans have experienced terrorism, but they didnt experience it on the scale of 11/9. When (I hope not!) a European country is attacked big scale by terrorism, one will definetly see a change in the governments policies.
the us makes a distinction between client-states and independant muslim countries, between countries friendly to us-economical and geo-strategical interests and countries who aren't, completely independant of the issue of terrorism. Terrorist-supporting countries such as pakistan and saoudi Arabia get a free hand, while countries such as Iraq, that never sponsered terrorism against the US, get a very tough treatment.The US does make a distinction between terrorist states and non-terrorist states. The problem is that there are too many terrorist Islamic states
OK, but that was exactly the same during the yugoslavia-tribunals, which were very usefull to pressure us-ennemies, in this case the us didn't had any concerns. International justice, fine, but only for our ennemies!This presents a real problem for the United States. Americans do not dislike courts. We respect law. If anything, we are the most over-lawyered, judge-driven democracy in the West. (We are the only Western democracy, for example, to have legalized abortion not through popular or parliamentary vote, but by court fiat.) Nonetheless, we hold to the quaint idea that in a democratic system, prosecutors must be answerable to democratically elected leaders. The ICC has nothing like our system of checks and balances and review. Once the ICC judges and the prosecutors and the lawyers get the machinery going, they essentially have carte blanche.
Yes, prosecutors are selective. But again during the yugoslavia-tribunal you didn't make a fess of it, on the contrary the us was the greatest supporter of this court that didn't prosecute NATO or the kla for committing war-crimes but only serbians... once however international could endanger the us or allies the us seems to be a lot less enthusiastic about selective international justice... again a clear case of double standards, this time so obvious that the us makes itself ridiculous every time it asks countries to "hand over war-criminals to international justice"...We got a taste of runaway prosecution four years ago when a Spanish judge nabbed Augusto Pinochet on a medical visit to England and had the former Chilean dictator detained for months on human rights charges. Fidel Castro happened to have been in Portugal at precisely the same time. He was not arrested. Surprise! It would not have occurred to the Spanish judge to charge him for the blood on his hands. That is not how European human rights politics works. The prosecutions are selective. And the prosecutions are political. Tomorrow, some grandstanding prosecutor will try to cuff Henry Kissinger for Vietnam, George Bush Sr. for the Gulf War, or maybe even Gen. Tommy Franks for the conduct of the Afghan war.
yeah right, particularly strict... how much years in prison did the butchers of mi lai received? How many other war-crimes in indochina had been prosecuted???But beyond the hypocrisy is the issue of responsibility. We have a legal system in the United States for punishing crimes committed by Americans. These laws apply to crimes committed by Americans abroad, even in military uniform. Our code of military conduct is particularly strict. We don't need European prosecutors who answer to no one running around the world putting American soldiers in jail and forcing them to defend themselves on whatever charge the human rights activists of the day find convenient.
Come on, do you really think the us will prosecute its own leaders and troops for committing warcrimes?
It is as if you would ask yugoslavia to prosecute warcrimes in Kosovo...
international justice for everyone except Americans???That is why last month we had a big fight with the Europeans at the U.N. We said we would not continue to expend money and personnel on peacekeeping if American soldiers were going to be subject to trial before the ICC. We threatened to terminate the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia altogether unless Americans were granted an exemption. The Europeans refused. The Bush administration decided that the eve of an Iraq war was not the best time to go to the mat on this one. So it chose to temporize and punt. It accepted a one-year exemption.
Come on! Do you really believe this would be fair?
Come on, on the back of the us!The ironies here are stark. The East Europeans are poor and the West Europeans are rich precisely because one side had the protection of the United States during the Cold War and the other side did not. The military umbrella, economic aid (beginning with the Marshall Plan), and other goodies dispensed by the United States permitted Western Europe to become the island of wealth that it is today. Having achieved that wealth on the back of the United States, Western Europe is now using it as a club to make Eastern Europe distance itself from the United States.
The marshall-plan was as much in the advantage of the US as it was in the advantage of Europe... the us is not a wellfare institution... we could of course also mention French help in the liberation of the us from Englisg rule... gratitude is not how politics is like, if not we should still honous Stalin for his large contribution in the defeat of the nazi's...
the US uses exactly the same economic policy, only much more bluntly, for example in Cuba...The irony gets richer, though. The West Europeans have been full throated in their complaints about the American "hyperpower," the arrogant unilateralist that uses its power to get other countries to do its bidding. Now, however, finding itself with the upper hand vis- -vis its eastern cousins, the E.U. has not the slightest hesitation about threatening their economic futures, which are necessarily tied to the E.U., to ensure that Americans remain subject to extradition and prosecution for their exertions abroad.
Currently Romania is almost an American colony with an economic situation far worse than 12 years ago and incredible corruption. by the way the current president was entirely a part of the communist establishment, and Romania under Ceaucescu was never a soviet-ally. learn your history...It is no accident that Romania should have wanted to sign on with the United States on the ICC or that the Czech Republic would have expressed a position on the Middle East more in accord with the American than with the West European view. It is perhaps the greatest irony of the post-Cold War era: America's closest friends in the world are those nations that were once Soviet colonies. We can count far more on the goodwill and support of former Warsaw Pact countries than on our longtime West European allies (with the occasional exception of Britain).
Absolutely BS. Eastern Europeans still live under autocratic or semi-autocratic and very corrupted regimes. Most eastern Europeans today have a much lower living standard than 12 years ago. Some Eastern European countries however see the us as allies in their fear of much stronger neighbouring countries, this is certainly the case of Poland and Romania (Russia). Ceaucescu by the way was a big fan of the US as well and had better relations with the Americans than with the soviets...But it is more than just a question of gratitude. East Europeans have the immediate, almost current, personal experience of having lived under tyranny. They have a much keener appreciation of the value of liberty, the price that must be paid to sustain it, and the role of the United States in securing theirs and everyone else's.
The Us isn't perceived as a freedom-country in Europe. We all know the uS actively supported dozens of cruel dictators during the cold-war and still, the europeans who will certainly not believe that the us is a freedomloving country are the Greeks, who suffered from a us-supported military regime. Latin-Americans don't believe either the us is a freedomloving country...West Europeans, after half a century under the American umbrella, have come to believe that their freedom is self-generated. It is by now, they feel, a simple birthright, as natural as the air they breathe. When they see the United States slaying dragons abroad--yesterday Afghanistan, today Iraq, tomorrow who knows who--they see a cowboy whose enthusiasms threaten to disturb the perfect order of things, best symbolized, of course, by the hushed paper-shuffling at the International Criminal Court.
.The East Europeans suffer none of these illusions. They emerged from the Cold War chastened and realistic and, above all, acutely aware of the power and presence of evil. The West Europeans, having been spared that history, make dialogue with evil their mission. They seek accommodation--and lucrative oil contracts--with the Iranian mullahs, the chief sponsors of terrorism around the world; they make the case for Iraq, first for lifting sanctions, now for preventing American-led regime change; and more generally, they advocate a "nuanced" and "sophisticated"--surtout pas trop de zele--approach to international miscreants
Come on! Eastern Europeans have a much lower "ethic" standard than Western europeans, they would sign a deal with anyone to earn some bucks, and their governments are notoriously corrupted (altough i am aware that Western, both European and american "ethic values" are mostly hypocrisy).
The us of course never sought accomodation or lucrative oil-contracts with oppressive and terrorist regimes
of course we want to avoid the slaughter of 100's of 1000's of Iraqi's just to see Saddam changed by some pro-American dictator... especially since Saddam isn't any worse a dictator than many other us-supported dictators all over the world.
Mexico is against the current war as well...Except for Mexico's Vicente Fox, the only world leader to have been given a formal state dinner by this administration was the president of Poland. Some thought this odd. On the contrary, it was a perfectly pitched acknowledgment of the new reality in Europe--of where America can today expect to find real friends as the war against the new totalitarians and the new barbarians grows more intense and more dangerous. I was at that state dinner. Looking around the room, I noted to a friend of mine on the absence that night of the rancor and animosity that we have come to expect from the West Europeans. "Imagine how many real friends we'd have in the world today," he observed wickedly, "if we'd let the Soviets have Western Europe for fifty years too."
Please! this is becoming ridiculous! the us fighting "the war against the new totalitarians and the new barbarians" ... i guess the democratic kouweiti emirs are no part of them, neither is the military genocidal regime of guatemala? But of course evil france and belgium are!!!
The Europeans have regrettably been incapable to honestly come to terms with their less than honorable imperialist past. TheseYeah right, so the us- or israeli courst are completely free of political motivations?European kangaroo courts show no ability to work free of political motivations, shamefully selecting arbitrary targets while blatantly ignoring the real tyrannical war criminals. These systems are so flawed that they are forced to continuously re-write their laws AROUND the facts to justify their outrageous behavior.
Yep that's right, but this only exists in theory, us- and israeli courts are not always impartial either... (how many percentage of American prisoners are black???)As such the Belgium and ICC procedures disregard any semblance of judicial ethical accountability. No judicial system which disregards objective and blind application of law can hold any credibility. All systems of true justice must apply blind universal standards of ethics.
Despite the unfounded attacks of US and Israeli courts, the true ideals of moral justice are best demonstrated by the United States and Israel themselves.
LOL, go to tell this to the palestinians who live for decades without even the freedom to go to vote or move freely in a land that israel conquered in 1967... or to the many palestinians who are israeli jails without a trial (AI)
Go to tell this to the many innocent Americans who have been hanged or executed after biased judges or juries were influenced by the public opinion more than by "ideals of moral justice"... loads of television-movies exist about this subject...
go to tell this to the millions of vietnamese who lost their family after the us bombed their villages...
Guit is guilt. Failure ot intervene is passive approval, as you have so often argued. Therefore, France is equally culpable. To the guillotine with you!Originally posted by takeo That's right, but the us had a bigger part in [the Lumamba assination].
You see, you don't get it. No, the US was not imposing its laws on another country. Noreiga was taken into custody for violating our laws. As the dictator of Panama, cooperation was unlikely. Today he rots in our prisons at our expense. Panama continues and seems to have recovered nicely. Belgium however is seeking to judge people for alledged offenses that have absoultely nothing to do with their nation, its far reaching persecution of soldiers and politicians is ludicrous.Originally posted by takeo i beg your pardon? Panama was limited to the capture of their criminal leader... so... Isn't this the principle of international justice? wasn't it one country imposing its laws and values to another country? belgium isn't going to invade Israel as far as I know to capture Sharon and bring him to justice as the us did in Panama... , who exactly thinks to be the judge and jury of the world?????????? No double standards? Come on!
Missed again, this is still the same war. Iraq has vilated the terms of surrender. Game on ... game over.Originally posted by takeo The first Gulf-war was entirely different, Iraq violated international law and was attacked by an international force with un-mandate, an effort in which france participated. Today however the uS plans to carry out its plans without any international mandate, which means it thinks it is the judge and jury of the world.
Advisers advise, commanders command. Only the President could set policy, only Congress could approve it and fund it. Kissinger may have advised several misguided actions, but it was he who was key in negotiating the final agreement for the cessation of hostilities. If history serves me correctly, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.Originally posted by takeo [Kissinger] wasn't the policy-maker??? he was the highest responsible for us foreign policy during a few years of the Vietnam-war. He ordered lots of criminal decisions in violence of the Geneva-conventions.
And you have a copy of these orders, testimony of credible witnesses ... I don't think so. It is a nice anti-Israel dream, makes good propaganda, but does not jive with the historical facts.Originally posted by takeo None, but [the Maronites], at that time, were under controll of Sharon, the military commander of Beirout, and he ordered them into these refugeecamps.
You weary me.
No, the US courts are not free of political influence, but we do have checks and balances. And on the "black" thing, the same percentage as there are perpetrators of the crimes.Originally posted by takeo
Yeah right, so the us- or israeli courst are completely free of political motivations? Yep that's right, but this only exists in theory, us- and israeli courts are not always impartial either... (how many percentage of American prisoners are black???)
Now I see where you get your education. You would do better to watch our cartoons than our leftist Hollywood drivel.Originally posted by takeo
Go to tell this to the many innocent Americans who have been hanged or executed after biased judges or juries were influenced by the public opinion more than by "ideals of moral justice"... loads of television-movies exist about this subject...
Wow, first off, to whoever wrote :
"Despite the unfounded attacks of US and Israeli courts, the true ideals of moral justice are best demonstrated by the United States and Israel themselves."
Wow, thanks for making my day. I laughed for a full 10 minutes. How about we count the amount of prisoners in BOTH countries who are incarcerated WITHOUT trial? I know there are still hundreds at Guantanomo and hundreds of Palestinians held without trial (thse in Guantanamo since a few days after Sept 11, and counting).
What country has the HIGHEST level of incarcerated citizens? What country STILL has the DEATH PENALTY? What country APPOINTS it's judges, not has them VOTED on? True ideals of moral justice indeed, ahaha.
I have another question, too.
If Belgium has no moral authority to bring war criminals to justice, who does? If the Israeli government ITSELF found Sharon to be complicit (thus forcing him to resign) why would the rest of the world have to assume his innocence? If he were innocent, why force him to resign? WHO CAN JUDGE THE GUILTY?
And yes, there are many others who are war criminals who are not being sought (Henry Kissinger being an excellent example, being directly responsible for millions of deaths (Vietnam and Cambodia to mention two countries)). But you need to start somewhere.
If Sharon is innocent then he should have nothing to worry about, but isn't it acceptable for anyone to even INVESTIGATE these things?
A trial implies legal processes. So let the legal processes determine if Ariel Sharon is guilty or innocent, I say.
Unless you have a great reason why nobody else in the world can judge him, which I'd love to hear. And nothing from Krauthammer please, he's a lunatic.
Jako
Once again
Milosevic - yes
Kissinger - yes
Sharon - yes
Robert Townsend - no
Robert Mugabe - no
Pinochet - no
Arafat - hell no
Anyone who rules Sierre Leone - no
Anyone who rules Cote d'Ivoire - no
Anyone who rules Rwanda - no
The al Aziz family - no
The Syrian emperor - no
Saddam Hussein - no no a thousand times no
The tribal warlords of Yemen - no
Hosni Mubarek - no
The mullahs - no
Musharref - no
Kim Il Jong - no
Whoever is responsible in China for Tibet - no
So basically what it comes down to is, you're a war criminal if Europe can find you, you're white (or Jewish) or, it's an empty meaningless gesture.
let me hear your "b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-uut-t-t-......" now. Thanks.
We used to have an international court, but the monkey died.
Aren't the Palestinians arrested during counter-terrorist operations branded prisoners of war? Are POW's given a trial during a war?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks