Scorecard of evil - Dictatorship in the making
Moderators: Fons, Crazy Bob, Phaseolus, eddydevries, Bollivierke, Ord€p, Craft, Math Murderer
-
eurobillsandcoins
- Euro-Master in Training
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 2:55 am
- Location: Hong Kong SAR
- Contact:
Yes, the USA don't accept any court. I see the parallel to the Nuremberg Trials in the fact that the nazis also didn't accept the court.Gauss wrote:Did you read the second part of my sentence which started like this? I hinted that the Nuremberg Trials were not as legal as history sees them now.Donald wrote:As you quoted the chief prosecutor: "We may never forget that the same standards that we apply now to the defendants will be applied to us by history tomorrow"The USA seem to tend towards unilateralism which implies that they would not accept anyone's accuses, in particular not from the UN. You see their fight against the war crime court because of the outspoken concern that US soldiers might be tried in this court which is deemed inacceptable.Donald wrote:So it is now much easier to try Bush.
What I want to stress: The international community has found that there was a gap in international rights at the time after WW II and they closed this gap by creating and formalizing new offenses which did not exist before. The international community has provided new laws and they have put a trial on those who violated a widely spread consensus of what is wrong and right.
I am optimistic that we can close the actual gaps in international rights in a similar way. We shall find ways to express what is going wrong with this war and what has gone wrong in Iraq all the last years. We need to handle international terrorism, we need to find ways how to deal with dictatorships who kill lots of their own people and we need to categorize what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq. Is it a brutal attack war or a liberation?
Momentarily, there is not much juridical difference between the nazis and the Bush administration, but we feel (at least I do) that Bush is not a genocidal nazi monster. We must define new offenses. The actual conflict hopefully will help clarifying the responsibilities of the future UN and the rules which the countries agree to follow in this century.
I think it is not the role of the USA to decide which is what. The UN has this role, and the GB and USA simply did not respect that. Now, who will decide if a war is "legal" or not?Donald wrote: Is it a brutal attack war or a liberation?
The US policy is a calamity. Iit would have been easy to wait a few months to disarm Irak. The USA have not found any arm of massive destruction, by the way.
I am not sure it's possible. The USA don't want to let the world oppose their new statute of Hyper power. The US administration thinks the UN is no more useful for them.Donald wrote: Momentarily, there is not much juridical difference between the nazis and the Bush administration, but we feel (at least I do) that Bush is not a genocidal nazi monster. We must define new offenses. The actual conflict hopefully will help clarifying the responsibilities of the future UN and the rules which the countries agree to follow in this century.
There is no genocidal crime (fortunately!!!), but in this case, it's a crime against peace.
Saddam and his gang should be judged for crime against humanity (the kurds genocid...); and Blair & Bush (and their gang) for crime against peace.
O.
I think they will... They can't afford being the superpower they wish to be.Skylimit wrote:No other country spends so much money on "defence" ...Antti wrote:So the Americans bring justice, but can't be taken to justice?
It's scary how some people can do whatever they want
The USSR used to do the same, now they are bankrupt ... I think the USA must follow ...
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article9448.html
O.
Bombing people, killing 3000 soldiers and civilians...Skylimit wrote:Is there really anyone in the entire world who believes that the USA would invade a country in order to "liberate" it's citizins ??? Solo, without UN mandate ?Donald wrote:Is it a brutal attack war or a liberation?
we have not seen what will happen after the collapse of the iraki regime. The occupation will follow, with a "governor" named democraticely by the Pentagon. The name of the governor is already a rumor in the whole press, though the fights are not over.
Yes, we have an official decision: the attack of a country by another one without the consent of the United Nations. It was the border line that the USA, Autralia and GB have crossed unilateraly, helped by Denmark and its two boats.Donald wrote:Still we have no official decision if it is attack war or a liberation. There are only personal opinions.
Was Iraq peaceful when the alliance invaded?
Don't you need peace to commit a crime against peace?
It's obvious Iraq was not an immediate threat on the USA, when you see the USA have reached Bagdad in only 2 weeks. It's also a good way for the USA to show the neighbours of Irak (Syria and Iran) what they are able to do. They show their muscles...
I think North Korea is more a threat: it has launched missiles over Japan... In the case of Irak, the USA are the invader and already plan to occupy a foreign territory. It's just a come back of colonialism.
Anyway, the USA won't be able to keep Irak alone with a military occupation if they don't solve the israelo-panestinian conflict before. They'l lose the little rest of their credibility if they let Sharon do what they accused Saddam Hussein to do.
