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

[Lincoln]

"does that article recognize anywhere that the ICC jurisdiction is not retroactive?"

That is probably the reason he eventually signed it .

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MikeH


Agreed but I think responsibility has to lie with the overall commander.

What's amazing here Mike, is that ol Boney used Davout and Soult in staff postions, his two finest mashals, and trusted field command to the mentally unstable Ney.

Ney badly mismanged Quarte Bras, letting Wellinton fall back on Waterloo, Boney should have intervened directly at this point, but he was to concerned with Blucher's pursuit after Ligny.

[DanS]

We'll just see the outcome of the negotiations.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MikeH


Battle was over before the Prussians arrived. He very cleverly split the alliance with subterfuge and isolated the British so that he could wipe both armies out one at a time. Unfortunately somehow despite this cleverness he managed to blow the actual battle.

I had read that it was Napoleon's hemorroid problem that was the culprit. He was in too much agony to sit on his horse, and he was late in deploying his troops, or something like that. Probably urban legend...

[Lemmy]

I seem to be missing somthing here. Hasn't some european countries already received the same immunity for peace keeping forces that the US is asking for here?

no they didn't, afghanistan signed a treaty that they would not turn in people they captured to the ICC, if anyone else captures suspected war criminals, the ICC can do with them whatever they want.
The US however wants the ICC to ignore war crimes by any US soldier.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


we have no enemies

guess why even Gadaffi wanted the Lockerby court on Dutch soil. Nobody has a quarrel with us.

Because you have no standards.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I had read that it was Napoleon's hemorroid problem that was the culprit. He was in too much agony to sit on his horse, and he was late in deploying his troops, or something like that. Probably urban legend...

I heard he had several Siezures which impaired his judgement on the decison to invade Russia.

Napoleon was the only European bad guy we were ever allied too.

[faded glory]

"that was in the past, Im talking about now"


Im talking Now, right now. Iraq is a rising threat and you guys are yet again, turning a blind eye. You are too pussie to act.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Lemmy
The US however wants the ICC to ignore war crimes by any US soldier.

That's not exactly the point, Lemmy. The US, in line with current international law, doesn't recognize the authority of a tribunal to try its soldiers when the US did not ratify the formation of the tribunal in the first place. You're statement presupposes that the tribunal has a valid basis for authority in the first place. Under international law, there is no such basis. There is only a treaty which purports to bind non-signatories. With no other basis of authority, national sovereigns are well within their rights to tell those treaty makers to stick the court up their wazoo.

While I don't agree with the US's reasons for not signing onto the ICC treaty, I fully support their stand on its enforcement. They didn't sign, so it should not bind them. If you disagree with their position, historical precedent suggests that if you want to enforce your laws on another country, and they won't agree, your only choice is to coerce them. So embargo the US or declare war. But don't try to pretend your laws apply to the US without those "minor" steps being taken.

And as for European involvement in NATO. I think that a realistic assessment of European force projection capabilities and its willingness to buy them (esp. in the command and control area) would lead Europeans to conclude that they would rather have an alliance with the US than not. Without American assistance, simultaneous missions in the Balkans, Africa and in Central Asia (all areas where Europe has interests in stability which may even exceed America's) would likely be beyond Europe's capabilities. And without American involvement in those efforts, the hostility of many third world radicals could easily be redirected to Europe, as the only area which would be using troops to keep them in check.

I think it is pretty clear that Europe is better off with America engaged. Though there is no doubt that the US isn't the most comfortable ally, it is better as an ally than as a neutral party (or even a foe).

[Sprayber]

Hasn't this thread been done before?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Echinda
I think it is pretty clear that Europe is better off with America engaged. Though there is no doubt that the US isn't the most comfortable ally, it is better as an ally than as a neutral party (or even a foe).

Let the Euros run things for awhile. Let's see if they can do things better then they did all the other times they supposedly had things under control. Let them deal with a nuclear armed Iraq and Iran. Let them be responsible for solving the problems in the Mid East. Let German, English, and Dutch troops be stationed in West Bank towns. Let the great and enlightened EU bring ever lasting peace to the world. At least their brand of it I suppose.

[rah]

It's in the EU's best interest to keep the US involved.
That way they can blame the US when anything goes wrong.

RAH

[Ned]

It is funny, Roland and Saint Marcus, that the only reason that you are eager to get the US out of your affairs is that you now trust Germany.

Are you really sure you want the US to leave you alone, unprotected?

[DinoDoc]

It's quite clear that a) Europe has no problem in cutting its own deals to avoid the threat of its personel appearing before the ICC and b) they lack the ability to even deal effectively with problems arising on thier own continent and are quite content with that fact. Given these facts, why do we hear nothing but the continual whining of a spoiled child from your side of the pond?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by rah
It's in the EU's best interest to keep the US involved.
That way they can blame the US when anything goes wrong.

RAH

Exactly. It must be nice to sit on a throne judging a nation that fights your battles for you.

*Your honor, do you need another mint julip while you judge these barbarians who we sent to do our dirtywork?*