European Hypocracy

[ZoboZeWarrior]

"It's completely different thing to negotiate a one-off exemption from prosecution in the midst of a chaotic situation than to pass resolution that gives blanket exemption for everyone," a European diplomat said. "It's a ludicrous comparison."


I see the difference, don't you ?


But a U.S. official challenged that account, saying the British actively sought the exemption to "cover their own butts."


Maybe, but for covering what ? Such assumption has no value.

[Roland]

Chris:

"Many of you have been condeming the US in the threads about the world court, saying the US request that it's UN peacekeepers being exempt for it was both unreasonable and a treaty breaker."

Only unreasonable.

Adding an exclusion of international courts for ISAF is a bit odd. As far as it concerns the ICC, it is unreasonable.

So tell me, do I lack objectivity in your view ?

However you shouldn't buy the US spin on the story so quickly:

"European diplomats said U.S. military commanders insisted that the Afghan peacekeeping force, which operates under U.S. military command and includes American military liaison officers, receive assurances that its personnel would not be handed over to an international tribunal."

Hmm.... you know, it is normal that such agreements include immunity for the international personal from the authorities of the host state.

The ISAF agreement contains several such provisions, not just the one quoted in the article. So if the adding of international tribunals was instigated by european governments, then they are hypocrites.

If it was however a result of the US demanding this addition in, then it is a result of the unreasonable US position on the issue.

Now you can go ahead and accuse me of apolegitism for pointing out the facts.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Kropotkin, you are a someone who is...less then favorable, doesn't matter what the thread is.
I'll put my knowledge in the real world and my education against yours anytime tough guy, and you'll come up short, in ALL areas.

So you can beat me in any issue or area? So that's why you use attacks on my person and claim that I say things that I don't. While at the same time base my statements value on your view on me as a person instead of the arguments at hand.

I don't think I've seen you manage a serious debate against anyone about anything without sinking to that level. if you started making some reasonable arguments you could at least gain some respect but I guess that's not gonna happen.

Case closed...

[Lemmy]

The Dutch are as guilty as the Serbs for Sebrenicia

Yep, that they are. They should be tried for that.

well, the Dutch government resigned after a report got published on what happened there. And i believe there are still inqueries going on, or planned, so i think those responsible won't go free.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Chris 62
What a bunch of jack-as$es!
Reds4Ever, another "genius" who likes to attack me, did I hurt your feelings sweetums? I hope so.

See what I mean about you Red_Jon?
Childish as ever.

Spartak: Ha ha!

Umm, and this phrase fits in the with rest of the post? If you're anything like this IRL Chris I feel very, very sorry for those around you. You're an obnoxious little troll.

And trying to bypass the anti-swear feature can get you banned nowadays...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
If it was however a result of the US demanding this addition in, then it is a result of the unreasonable US position on the issue.

The ISAF opperation in Afghanistan was under British, not US, command at the time, was it not? If so, under what authority would the American have to negotiate any such exemption for them?

[Roland]

Brits had to negotiate it (although I'm not sure for whom, think for the participating countries - or the UN). The Americans obviously did not negotiate it but could make conditions for their participation and mostly cooperation. And you don't write special sausages into such an agreement, so it was for all the force or no part of it.

The "which operates under U.S. military command" in that article is an error or refers to something else.

[Ming]

Originally posted by red_jon
And trying to bypass the anti-swear feature can get you banned nowadays...

Huh....

Hmmmm... jack-asses... Hmmmm... The censor doesn't seem to care about that one.

Maybe you should do your homework before trying to play mod

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ming


Huh....

Hmmmm... jack-asses... Hmmmm... The censor doesn't seem to care about that one.

Maybe you should do your homework before trying to play mod

Actually jack-ass is a swear word over here. Whenever the show appears on TV they blank out the title, which leads to horrible confusion.

(And you say I need to do my homework? He's the one that used the $ sign so he could use that word )

[DanS]

I think the only "ass" word that is swear in the States is *******.

Roland: I guess it goes to show that accommodations can be made for sensitivities.

[Roland]

Either for all or none.

I wonder what they (whoever wanted it in) were thinking about. Supposedly preemptively against the ICC ?

[DanS]

"Either for all or none."

Hey, that's OK with us. The U.S. has made it clear that if our soldiers are involved, it will be "all".

"Supposedly preemptively against the ICC ?"

Hopefully some hotshot attorney at the Pentagon thought it up. He deserves a promotion. Our soldiers are the best diplomats.

[Roland]

"Our soldiers are the best diplomats."

Not a big achievement. They well also be your best lawyers, judging from the crap your civilian lawyers submitted in some international trials.

[DanS]

"Not a big achievement."

Well, we can gain solace in the fact that the Euro dips have just been aced on this issue.

[Roland]

"Well, we can gain solace in the fact that the Euro dips have just been aced on this issue."

So you disagree with the hypocrisy charge and replace it with a charge of having been fooled ?