The Hague Invasion Act

[Jack the Bodiless]

If Bush signs, that's the end of NATO.

What is this, some sort of massive outbreak of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

The Taliban have been smashed, OBL is either dead or in hiding, but now the US administration is becoming increasingly irrational.

[faded glory]

"would immediately be expelled from NATO and have war declared on them, and with the rest of the world joining in"

Such juvenile wet dreams as these. Do you have any idea what we can do to you? Or for that matter, what the world could do to us?


I also thing this is a case of silly propaganda from the leftist dutch media trying to instill anti-americanism in people. Sad, such brainwashed masses will make such a big deal about somthing that hasnt been reported as serouis or specified as anything more than harsh wording.

"Somehow i get the feeling that you really believe that. "

Believe what? the dutch posters are the ones going hysterical about all this. I soon would expect such brainwashed people to start building trenches around there cities if the media told them an invasion was imminent.

Besides, if you buy what Marcus is saying, Ive got a bridge I wanna sell ya.

Im trolling, question is. Are YOU?

[Richelieu]

There's one quick way of really uniting Europe...

[Gatekeeper]

Threads like this make me think America really would be better off returning to isolatism in terms of international affairs. Trade wouldn't be affected if I had my druthers, but we wouldn't get involved in international disputes. Not a one. Including World War III, should the aggressors stay away from North and Central America. Unfortunately, nations have a way of linking trade to other issues, so isolation would have to be complete or it would be kaput out of the gates.

It's a good thing these types of threads are somewhat rare.

Gatekeeper

[Arrian]

This whole thing is moronic.

-Arrian

[faded glory]

and destroying it again......

Just remember, if you kids start another world war you will never regain your independence. Ever.....and that is official policy

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by faded glory
Such juvenile wet dreams as these. Do you have any idea what we can do to you? Or for that matter, what the world could do to us?

Exactly. You are powerful, but you are not the sole power.

And also remember, this debate (at least in my eyes) is purely hypothetical.

[faded glory]

"Exactly. You are powerful, but you are not the sole power. "

I know, its all talk. You could get a declaration of war and all that. Maybe sink a few american frigates caught off your coasts. Get some kind of imaginary European nationalism thing going. But when the bombs start falling, and there are 400 American warships, including 14 carriers off your coast. you wouldnt last long. A simple bribe or invasion of Iceland would bring us within distance of all of you. Cruise missiles knock out your air defenses and power, and your exposed.

"now the US administration is becoming increasingly irrational."

No its just you people (assuming your dutch?)getting hysterical and frazzled up to the point of no return. Not very civilized, actually.


"And also remember, this debate (at least in my eyes) is purely hypothetical."

Of course this whole thread is a troll. Did you know we have clauses to invade 90 other nations who detain americans? Notice we havent done so?

Just typical BS fieldmarshal marcus trying to rally his army of anti-american trolls.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by faded glory
"Exactly. You are powerful, but you are not the sole power. "

I know, its all talk. You could get a declaration of war and all that. Maybe sink a few american frigates caught off your coasts. Get some kind of imaginary European nationalism thing going. But when the bombs start falling, and there are 400 American warships, including 14 carriers off your coast. you wouldnt last long. A simple bribe or invasion of Iceland would bring us within distance of all of you. Cruise missiles knock out your air defenses and power, and your exposed.

"now the US administration is becoming increasingly irrational."

No its just you people (assuming your dutch?)getting hysterical and frazzled up to the point of no return. Not very civilized, actually.


"And also remember, this debate (at least in my eyes) is purely hypothetical."

Of course this whole thread is a troll. Did you know we have clauses to invade 90 other nations who detain americans? Notice we havent done so?

Just typical BS fieldmarshal marcus trying to rally his army of anti-american trolls.

YEAH!!

[Saint Marcus]

note from paiktis, who can't post at the moment:

"if the US ever attacks Holland, I'll be amongst the first volunteers to join the Dutch army!"

Thanks paiktis, I know we can count on the Greeks to aid us.

[Eli]

Didnt we have an identical thread last week?

[Arrian]

Hmm, maybe we should attack Holland. We could get rid of Marcus and Paiktis in one go. What's the saying? "Kill two trolls with one stone?"

-Arrian

[Frankychan]

is this for real? Why would America use military action against Holland anyway?

Can you supply an official link that says if the U.S. Congress actually passed a bill that say this?

Too many questions.....aaah!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by frankychan
is this for real? Why would America use military action against Holland anyway?

The American Servicemembers’ Protection Act:
An Overview
CICC Bulletin
June 21, 2001

The House of Representatives of the United States passed the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2001" (ASPA), which restricts U.S cooperation with the International Criminal Court, on May 10 as an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2001. A vote in the Senate may occur this month (see Regional Update section). The following is a summary of the key provisions of the bill:

* The bill restricts U.S. participation in any peacekeeping mission and prohibits military assistance for those nations that ratify the ICC Treaty, with the exception of NATO member countries and other major allies (Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand were cited as members of this category). In addition, the bill authorizes the President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to bring about the release from captivity of U.S. or Allied personnel detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court.

* The President may waive this restriction for countries that ratify the treaty if he reports to Congress that such cooperation is in the national security interest of the U.S. and the country has entered into an agreement with the United States protecting U.S. personnel from extradition to the Court.

* The U.S. may not participate in any peacekeeping mission unless the President certifies to Congress that the Security Council has exempted U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution and each country in which U.S. personnel will be present is either not a Party to the ICC or has an agreement with the U.S. exempting U.S. Armed Forces members from prosecution; or that the U.S. has taken other appropriate steps to guarantee that U.S. Armed Forces members will not be prosecuted.

* No governmental entity in the United States, including State and local governments or any court, may cooperate with the International Criminal Court in matters such as arrest and extradition of suspects, execution of searches and seizures, taking of evidence, seizure of assets, and similar matters.

* No agent of the ICC may conduct in the US any investigative activity. The President should use the U.S. voice and vote at the Security Council to ensure that each resolution authorizing any U.N. peacekeeping operation permanently exempts members of the U.S. armed forces from prosecution by the ICC.

* No classified national security information can be transferred directly or indirectly to the ICC or to countries that are Party to the Rome Statute.

* The President is required to transmit two reports on allied command arrangements. The first must describe the degree to which members of Armed Forces may be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to ICC jurisdiction and evaluate the degree of risk in such arrangements. The second must describe modifications to command and operational control arrangements with allies to reduce such risk.

These provisions are in addition to existing U.S. law (the 2000-2001 Foreign Relations Authorization Act) which prohibits any U.S. funds to the ICC, once it has been established, unless the Senate has given its advice and consent to the Rome Treaty.

[Buck Birdseed]

Does anyone have a decent article on this? I just remembered that I'm supposed to bring in a press article on "International Law or Diplomacy" to my seminar group tomorrow, and this subject seems ripe with both.