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

[Roland]

"The Euro's are consistently not cooperating with the US in prosecuting criminals becuase we have the death penalty."

Which is exactly reflected in the US government being under no obligation to cooperate with the ICC unless it joins.

"You particularly protest if the person being "executed" is a citizen of a European country."

"Protest" is part of consular protection. Lobbying, whining, screaming, whatever. But that's it.

Accordingly in the Singapore case there was no further intervention. There is none wrt US citizens in Saudi Arabia's pseudo-courts. The list is endless. To suggest use of force against the ICC is not only illegal and absurd, it also a bizarre choice of target.

[Roland]

"Does that mean that we can take France and Germany before the World Court for interfering with a lawful prosecution?"

Not interfering. Just "not aiding". No obligation to do that.

So no, but you can ***** about to your heart's desire.

PS:
US WW I - there were many motives, from trade, debts, missionary zeal to national pride and the submarine issues. Protecting US citizens was if at all just a small aspect.

[Chris 62]

The Zimmermen note didn't help.

Roland, you guys are STILL on about this?

Forget it, it will never get passed Jesse Helms.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
PS:
US WW I - there were many motives, from trade, debts, missionary zeal to national pride and the submarine issues. Protecting US citizens was if at all just a small aspect.

I always thought that it was the Zimmerman telegraph that broke the camel's back in this instance.

[Roland]

The Zimmermann note was quite absurd. Absent other motives, the US should have laughed its collective ass off about it.

[Ned]

If the Germans had not sunk the Lusitania, there would have been no US involvment in WWI and Germany and Austria would have won WWI.

[Roland]

Most likely been a draw.

The Lusitania thing got a lot of hype. IIRC it is now established that it carried military cargo, but I'm sure Chris knows more about that.

[Saint Marcus]

Germany was already losing WW1 before the US showed up. The Germans clearly, couldn't keep up the way it was going. American involvement merely sped up this process.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Germany was already losing WW1 before the US showed up. The Germans clearly, couldn't keep up the way it was going. American involvement merely sped up this process.

What are you nuts?! When the Americans entered the war, the French troops with about to mutiny. That is why the US sent small detachments of troops to the front line to bolster the French and make sure they didn't just mutiny and hand Germany the war!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Forget it, it will never get passed Jesse Helms.

He's retiring .

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
The Lusitania thing got a lot of hype. IIRC it is now established that it carried military cargo, but I'm sure Chris knows more about that.

It was loaded with munitions, in direct violation of neutrality laws.

The German foriegn office ran ads right next to it's sailing annoucements saying plainly that any British ship was fair game, and that they would attack it.

She sank quickly mainly because the ammo ignited the coal bunkers, blowing out half her bow.

Imran:

Thank god.

[Roland]

And under the rules back than, even a neutral flag would not protect military supplies.

The legal problem was with submarine warfare (unclear), and the german declaration of a war zone (in retaliation for the UK's illegal distance blockade of Germany).

[Chris 62]

A real problem was caused by Britain.

It had been established by treaty that a merchant ship, if caught by a sub, would be given time to be abandoned, BUT, said ship WAS NOT allowed to radio what had happened.

The British ignored this and reported attacks, leaving the U-boats no choice but to strike without warning.

Britain's blockade also extended to neutral shipping (in violation of international law) on the grounds that they might be helping the Central powers.

Britain carried the illeagal blocade into 1919, forcing the Germans to sign the unfair Versallias treaty or watch their people die of starvation.

[Ned]

Chris, I don't believe England sank any US ships or killed any US citizens. Did they?

One can talk legalities all one wants, but the bottom line is that the Germans killed US citizens - a lot of them - in 1915. This put us on edge. Two years later, after promising not to harras US ships, it declared unlimited submarine warfare which allegedly gave them the "legal" right to kill US citizens.

We were outraged, and justifiably so.

On the outcome, I agree with you Roland that both sides may have called it a draw in 1918 if the US had not entered the war. We forget that in order to win the war, Germany would still have had to invade England even if it managed to knock France out of the war.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ned
Chris, I don't believe England sank any US ships or killed any US citizens. Did they?

One can talk legalities all one wants, but the bottom line is that the Germans killed US citizens - a lot of them - in 1915. This put us on edge. Two years later, after promising not to harras US ships, it declared unlimited submarine warfare which allegedly gave them the "legal" right to kill US citizens.

We were outraged, and justifiably so.

On the outcome, I agree with you Roland that both sides may have called it a draw in 1918 if the US had not entered the war. We forget that in order to win the war, Germany would still have had to invade England even if it managed to knock France out of the war.

Only slightly more American shipping was sunk by U-Boats than was sunk by British mines prior to Wilson's ultimatum.