The US will soon run out of allies if it keeps acting like this

[Gatekeeper]

Roland:

Complex issues such as this require articles as starting off points. I shall see what I can scrounge up on the ICC via the raw news wires when I'm at work later today (if I have time ... they got me on 1A). If I find anything, I'll post the articles (in a new thread) as time allows.

We had a wire-supplied Q and A article not too long ago on the ICC; perhaps I can find that if it hasn't been purged from the computer memory core yet.

Gatekeeper

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Sixchan
Were it not calm, I would have posted it in capitals. I thought you said you were leaving the debate?

And I wonder whether it was me or Ned who got on Marcus' ignore list. Oh well, if it was me, I've really nothing against the guy or anything, but if he doesn't like me, fine.

i also never posted in capitals.
I don't think Marcus put either you or Ned on his ignore list.
At the time i said i had nothing left to discuss, but now new points have been raised, which i do want to discuss.

Originally posted by Ned
Lemmy, what do you have to say about the French dispute with the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal?

Don't know the details, but i think about it the same way as i think about the US's policy, and about the European deal in Afghanistan, it sucks.

Originally posted by Gatekeeper Lemmy:
What is your definition of a war criminal? Would the incident a few days ago — where U.S. elements wiped out an apparent wedding party — count such?
Gatekeeper

My definition doesn't really matter, since i'm not a judge, but if you really want to know, a general description then:
Someone who intentionally kills masses (i say masses, cos otherwise it would be a murderer imo) of unarmed civilians or soldiers who had clearly surrendered, and posed no threat whatsoever.
I don't know the details about the wedding incident, but i doubt the US did it just to kill some civilians, i assume that their where known terrorists there.
Also if there wasn't any terrorist there, but the US had substantial evidence that their was one there ie. wrong infomation, their intent was still right, taking out a serious threat, and not killing civilians. Althoug then they should take more care into gathering intel the next time.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Tell me, did the US help us back in 1940 when we actually were invaded by the Germans?

Are you kidding? Your army was bigger than ours back then, what the hell were we going to do?

[Saint Marcus]

And I wonder whether it was me or Ned who got on Marcus' ignore list. Oh well, if it was me, I've really nothing against the guy or anything, but if he doesn't like me, fine.

neither. And I got nothing against you. I certainly don't have anything against Ned, he's great fun. I really like his posts.

Are you kidding? Your army was bigger than ours back then, what the hell were we going to do?

yeah may be. The US military was pretty crappy at that time.

But in all seriousness, the US could have declared war on Germany, and send (at least) his navy over to aid the British in their struggle. They could, and should, have entered the war sooner. Of course they waited till they were declared war on. That's their choice though. But it does show how inclined the US is to help us. Should Germany invade us again, as Ned predicts () the US will do exactly the same as in 1940 to help us. Absolutely nothing substantial.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus

yeah may be. The US military was pretty crappy at that time.

They weren't as crappy as they were small. The U.S. Army had 100,000 men in 1939.

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
But in all seriousness, the US could have declared war on Germany, and send (at least) his navy over to aid the British in their struggle. They could, and should, have entered the war sooner. Of course they waited till they were declared war on. That's their choice though. But it does show how inclined the US is to help us. Should Germany invade us again, as Ned predicts () the US will do exactly the same as in 1940 to help us. Absolutely nothing substantial.

Hey pick up a book sometime. Read about the Atlantic Charter and the war at sea, where the U.S. fought an undeclared war against Germany starting in 1940 in order to aid Britain in their struggle. Your accusations are completely groundless here, and your assumption that the U.S. should have for some reason guaranteed the integrity of the NL after the fact is laughable. Really, I'm laughing at it right now. No one on the planet would be willing to help you in such a situation except those countries who were already stuck in a war with Germany.

[Ned]

Yesterday the US again resurrected the Clinton plan for SC "approval" of ICC investigations, which amounts to a US veto:

From an AP story running now on CNN:

The U.S. has put forward a plan to members of the U.N. Security Council that would allow the U.S. and the other four permanent members to veto investigations into peacekeepers launched by the court -- first permanent international war crimes tribunal.

[Sixchan]

Well, that's OK, but I think that it should have to be a joint Veto, i.e. the Security Council, or at least 2 of the permanant members must agree to the proposed blociking before it become an actual veto.

[Saint Marcus]

yeah. otherwise it would be like the Cold War, in which the US blocked all Russian proposals, and the Russians blocked all US proposals. It would lead to a stalemate between, most likely France, and the USA.

Which were the 5 permanent seats again? USA, Russia, UK, France, ???

[Sixchan]

UK and Britain?

China, France, Russia, UK, USA.

[Saint Marcus]

I meant UK and France. sorry

[Ned]

We shall see about the more than "one" permanent member needed for a veto. I suspect that the US would bank on the UK to support it if push came to shove. Besides, as you say, it would "look" better.

[moomin]

"Look better". There's a compelling reason indeed.

[Ned]

Hey, Saint Marcus, here is post from VetLegion, a Croatian:

DT are ****ING NAZI SCUM OF THE EARTH!!!

quote:


In Germany as customer of the German Telekom:



that same telecom bought croatian telecom (hrvatski telekom - HT) for petty money and rised the prices emediatelly!!
now it is known among the people as Hitler Telekom - and rightly so

they have a monopoly and they do stuff here they would NEVER dare do in germany!!

- they increased prices immediately after they bought the company

- they wanted to charge the listing of calls you get with bill

- they spend huge amounts of money on commercials although they are a MONOPOLY

- they kill internet with huge prices and lack of competition and intentionaly slow on new technologies

quote:

€12.99/month for a DSL line
€25.00/month for unlimited in time and traffic volume internet access (768k down).



I just checked...
DSL is now introduced in croatia
basic package (384/64) is for 35 euro per month with maximum upload + download = 1 GB per month

it costs 200 euro to install

compare that with domestic prices in GERMANY !!!! Then compare German salaries with ours!!!

****ing colonial scum!

PS Sir Ralph, nothing personal I hate DT with a reason so I had to let it out

[Lemmy]

ADSL cost in the Netherlands:
~25 euro for the line
~25 euro for the subscription
fair use data limit. (512/128)
modem costs vary from 174 euro to 274 euro.

[Sixchan]

Wrong thread.