U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are

"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...1&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...&postcount=126

I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Mediocrates]

Does one doubt for a second that the moment any US troops are under UN control those commanders will suddenly forget what chain of command and command responsibility are? Of course not. Because that's what this has been all along - not civilian charges but military command structure. Since clearly no UN commanders or NATO commanders will be in any but minor token roles it's not really an issue. Can you imagine some Belgian general agreeing to come to Washington for a Congressional hearing on why his American troops got out of control? Of course not, the foot soldiers would be hung out to dry. In fact if I were a grunt in Iraq I'd be worried that my own UN/NATO commanders were trying to get me killed for no reason at all.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
Note that this is not a defeat for the US but a victory for "checks and balance" at the international level.

This is a victory for terrorists and the states that tollerate, harbor and support them, plain and simple.

As the world burns, the Eurabians shall have their pound of flesh.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Does one doubt for a second that the moment any US troops are under UN control

I sense the usual US unilateralism here: we can control troops of other nationalities, but our troops are not to be controlled by anyone not american.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
In fact if I were a grunt in Iraq I'd be worried that my own UN/NATO commanders were trying to get me killed for no reason at all.

As a matter of fact this philosophy is one of the explanations no reasonable country wants to send troops in iraq: the US control the situation and given the way they manage it, they have all chances to be killed.


So let me be more critical of your stance: you don't want to be a "grunt" under a UN commander, but you like to have brits, spanish, korean, italians.. "grunts" in iraq

And when they get killed? I never saw you writing you are sorry. ... Bah they are just grunts. And when they pack (like the spaniards) you just spit on them instead of taking into account those who died for you.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
I sense the usual US unilateralism here

For a second here, I thought that by unilateralism you were referring to a case where others sit on their behinds doing nothing.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
[B]So let me be more critical of your stance: you don't want to be a "grunt" under a UN commander, but you like to have brits, spanish, korean, italians.. "grunts" in iraq

Why are they grunts? There's a coalition. They do things together, in a group.

Maybe that's why you can't grasp the concept and its benefits.

And when they get killed? I never saw you writing you are sorry. ...

Here we go with the anti-American diatribe again.

Tell me, froggy, when Americans got killed by Nazis when freeing your homeland, did the French say they were sorry?

Of course not! It was the Nazis that killed the Americans. Why should an allie have said sorry for the enemy's actions.

Or should we discuss Vichy, perhaps?

[Mira~]

This applies only to UN peace keeping missions? Fair enough.

[Mira~]

Which UN peacekeeping missions are US troops currently engaged in? We don't have a single soldier in the mission to the Congo, that much I know. Oliver, can you guess which country is leading that mission?

Here is more info on what is happening there:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...ighlight=congo

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Olivier
I sense the usual US unilateralism here: we can control troops of other nationalities, but our troops are not to be controlled by anyone not american.

American and coalition commanders are not in fact going on the news everyday screaming that they shouldn't be there or that not enough Americans have been killed yet, as you do.

As a matter of fact this philosophy is one of the explanations no reasonable country wants to send troops in iraq: the US control the situation and given the way they manage it, they have all chances to be killed.

Non sequitor.

So let me be more critical of your stance: you don't want to be a "grunt" under a UN commander, but you like to have brits, spanish, korean, italians.. "grunts" in iraq

Non sequitor - either troops are there or they are not. If they are there they are there to do something. Operationally it makes very little sense to have 99% of your troops from one group, one language, one command structure, one operational doctrine, one training system, and have their commanders from something totally different. That's a recipe for disaster. You can dodge and say something snarky and irrelevant but that is a fact. Anyone who's worked in any government or private organization of any size understands this and if you proclaim otherwise you are a liar.

And when they get killed? I never saw you writing you are sorry. ... Bah they are just grunts. And when they pack (like the spaniards) you just spit on them instead of taking into account those who died for you.

Non sequitor. No real point here. No one's asking you to cry so go cry on someone else's shoulder. You cheer when Americans die.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mira
Which UN peacekeeping missions are US troops currently engaged in?

Many (not really much compared to the US military power - countries like france and canada do much better -).

Still it's many - there are lot of peacekeeping operations in progress -, look for that on the UN site though I'm not sure there is a breakdown by nationality.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
You cheer when Americans die.

Any quote of that?

Nope, so please back off with your disgusting claim!
What did I say when Berg beheaded ?


Oh and I add: Non sequitor. Non sequitor. Non sequitor. As you say...




PS : As for what I said about you, I never read any message from you deploring for example the loss of soldiers lives by the spaniards, the italians or the brits who payed for the US invasion of iraq (tell me if I'm wrong). And I found mention of a "aha I told you" post by you when the UN headquarters in Bagdhad was blown up.

Doh

[Mediocrates]

Thank you for scurrying around frantically looking for something paraphrase.

[Mil]

Posted by Olivier:

Many (not really much compared to the US military power - countries like france and canada do much better -).


1. US, according to our constitution, cannot give power to an outside court to supercede our own courts.

2. This only applies to UN missions where the US will make bilateral individual agreenments with each individual country before any kind of involvement. Either that or observe US scaling down its support for UN missions all across the world.

By the way neither China and Russia have signed the agreenment either though they voted against the US on the resolution.


Still it's many - there are lot of peacekeeping operations in progress -, look for that on the UN site though I'm not sure there is a breakdown by nationality.


Lets put it this way. US could have dragged the deal on the ICC forever, for lets say two three more eyars, and could have actually won at the end. The issue at stake was the credibility of the Security Council itself. Without the US the security council is as good as non-existent.

[Olivier]

tks Mil,

one more thing

The outcome, while a political defeat for Washington, will have no effect on the vulnerability to prosecution of American soldiers in Iraq. Neither the United States nor Iraq is a member of the tribunal, and its jurisdiction is limited to countries that do not themselves prosecute crimes by their military.

(..)

But the court has no jurisdiction in Iraq, which did not sign the 1998 treaty establishing it, or in the United States, which is also not a signer. In addition, backers of the court argue that since it accepts cases only when a nation is unwilling to prosecute, there is little likelihood it would ever be called upon to deal with the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/in...al/24NATI.html



I see this decision before all as a victory for international justice, but not at all as any "defeat" for the US. I just hope that the already reluctant US will not back off from peacekeeping operation in the future for fear than their soldiers might commit crimes (and that the US would be unable to punish then as needed).

[Mediocrates]

Today, or was it yesterday - what - 90 Iraqis got blown up. While I'm sure you find this an amusing statistic and largely inconsquential on its own, other than pointing out what a dismal failure America as a nation is, how does your Great Victory, fix that?