US Opts Out of World Court

[TCO]

You always see the glass half empty, David...

Originally posted by David Floyd




WW2 can't be a fight for freedom given the huge amounts of lost freedom in the US, in the form of trade barriers, conscription, rationing, forced relocations, etc.

And in the Cold War we supported brital dictators around the world.

This is a great and free country and it has been a huge force for freedom in its history. Spend some time in other countries, David.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Re: GP

Originally posted by MrFun


So, are you in la-la land??

The United States was really never a "force for freedom", with the exceptions with the American Revolution, and the Union, during the Civil War. In the late 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century, we sought to become an imperial power on behalf of our "little brown brothers" and white supremacy.

We used the words "arsenal for democracy" during World War I, because that sounded better than fighting to maintain economic and capitalistic interests, which was the real reason.

Just in case this was missed.

[TCO]

already responded by telling you to stop with the silly revisionaism. That school of history is passe...

[David Floyd]

This is a great and free country and it has been a huge force for freedom in its history. Spend some time in other countries, David.

Wow, way to address NONE of my points

We had to pick our battles, stud.

Which battles are those? Supporting dictatorships with little populae support, ie the Korean and Vietnam Wars?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GP
already responded by telling you to stop with the silly revisionaism. That school of history is passe...

So then you never heard of the imperial policies of United States in the guise of "our little brown brothers" that was based on white supremacy??

Right, I forgot -- the true history of our country is that we NEVER had any wars of conquests and our country was NEVER internationally racist.

[David Floyd]

I like this - a former member of the military telling two history majors that the US wasn't aggressive and imperialist, and that it didn't oppose freedom in many cases

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I like this - a former member of the military telling two history majors that the US wasn't aggressive and imperialist, and that it didn't oppose freedom in many cases

Go figure, David.

In fact, the reason why we had to suppress the rebellion in the Phillipines in the early 1900's, was because our "little brown brothers" were not capable of ruling themselves.


Oh, and that bit about Amerindians --- they ALWAYS attacked us, and we NEVER attacked them.

Oh, and that bit about Latin American countries --- it's NOT economic colonialism and exploitation, it's our Good Neighbor policy.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and don't forget WW1, making the world safe for democracy

[TCO]

glass still half empty

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and don't forget WW1, making the world safe for democracy

You're like a little child who sees every flaw in his parent's actions. But misses the overall things that they do for him...

[TCO]

Originally posted by MrFun


So then you never heard of the imperial policies of United States in the guise of "our little brown brothers" that was based on white supremacy??

Right, I forgot -- the true history of our country is that we NEVER had any wars of conquests and our country was NEVER internationally racist.

Take a historiography course.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP



I know you feel that way. I disagree with you as do most Americans. Being subjected to control by people with these kinds of beliefs makes me that much less interested in participating in this court.

FYI: You should at least parrot Roland's statements regarding Saddam versus Bush. It gives you more traction to push this thing through. If you insist that it's all about restraining the evil eagle, you're not gonna get anywhere...

I think the court should be used to restrain the evil anybody, and I honestly don't see its major target as the US. Now, would you please list the specific problems with the agreement as it stands now (the ones that would prevent you from signing)?

There's been a lot of bluster that the court wouldn't be fair, would simply be an anti-American tool, etc. Why? Are the protections for defendants insufficient? Has the proposed judicial pool demonstrated bias? Are the rules too harsh?

I get the feeling that you only want this if you are given a guarantee nothing bad would be said about the US in the court...

[Ecthy]

I'm shocked, I can't say more.

Maybe just this: Glo-ba-li-za-tion.

[TCO]

I've just seen that a "kangaroo court" the UN can be...

Sorry, Kitty will have to be off for a while this evening. Am cooking dinner for the neighbors...

[KrazyHorse]

GP, UN general assembly can be kangaroo court (highly political, not judicial).

What examples of UN judicial commissions are you referring to?

[Shi Huangdi]

Damn- leave a thread alone for a little while, and accumulates pages.

"
They would all have to follow international law."

Well here in the USA, SCOTUS has to follow the Constitution. That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of different interpretations of it.

"And US states all have different laws. Should we only have justices from a certain area for the SCOTUS?"

Different laws, yes, but generally the same legal system. All states save for Louisiana have the common law tradition and a legal system that is generally the same. It is no where near as drastic as a system that will have party judges, Sharia Judges, etc.

"It is much smarter to increase political globalization if we are promoting economic globalization."

How does a court designed to try war crimes go along with increased trade.