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

[Lemmy]

a) Europe has no problem in cutting its own deals to avoid the threat of its personel appearing before the ICC

you mean this point?
So you're basing that on the deal made in Afghanistan?
Read my earlier post...you know, the one from which Echinda quoted.

b) they lack the ability to even deal effectively with problems arising on thier own continent and are quite content with that fact

ya the USA just stands in the way every time the EU tries to form a EU military task force

[DinoDoc]

Lemmy: Such histrionics don't bode very well for your arguement. The EU itself negotiated a very similar deal in Afghanistan only on a more limited basis and we heard no hysterical cries that they were reserving the right to commit war crimes. More over, US military conduct will still be governed by the Geneva Conventions and before that it was the Lieber Code. So, claims that the US military is going to engage in systematic war crimes is silly at best and out and out lieing at worst.

PS You only commented on half the post.

[Saint Marcus]

More over, US military conduct will still be governed by the Geneva Conventions

**cough**Guantanamo Bay**cough**

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
**cough**Guantanamo Bay**cough**

Which is within the letter of the conventions.

[Saint Marcus]

**cough**ask the Red Cross**cough**

[Shi Huangdi]

"ya the USA just stands in the way every time the EU tries to form a EU military task force etc etc etc."

I thought the USA was in a favor of a common European defense force.

""Black Dragon",hmmmm that name sounds familiar...Weren't you the guy that ratted out Apolyton at Newsmax?"

Yup, that's right, I stopped your stupid little attempt to mess up someone's elses forum because the people there disagreed with you. Not that this has anything to do with this thread, but I guess posting that was all you could do because you are too stupid to contribute to this discussion.

"uhm, yeah, the US acted two times, and Saddam is still sitting there, great job
And twice you claimed you saved the world of a great evil"

And we stopped Saddam from conquering Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

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

If it weren't for our country you would be under Nazi or Soviet rule.

"What is see is the US reserving the right to commit war crimes"

No, we are seeing the US protecting itself from BS charged levied by anti-American prosecutors with independent authority.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
**cough**ask the Red Cross**cough**

You really should get that cough looked at and comeback when you have something of import to say.

[Saint Marcus]

I thought the USA was in a favor of a common European defense force.

Not quite, since it's against the ERRF

If it weren't for our country you would be under Nazi or Soviet rule.

we were under Nazi rule. You didn't care. Only after they declared war on you you acted, not before.

And yes, you helped liberate Holland. But real credit goes out to the Britons and French, who tried to defend our country when war first started.

[Saint Marcus]

comeback when you have something of import to say.

never stopped you from coming back

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
But real credit goes out to the Britons and French, who tried to defend our country when war first started.

If it weren't for the Britian and France, the war might not have happened.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Lemmy: Such histrionics don't bode very well for your arguement. The EU itself negotiated a very similar deal in Afghanistan only on a more limited basis and we heard no hysterical cries that they were reserving the right to commit war crimes.

Did you even read my earlier post on that deal?

More over, US military conduct will still be governed by the Geneva Conventions and before that it was the Lieber Code. So, claims that the US military is going to engage in systematic war crimes is silly at best and out and out lieing at worst.

Then why not support the ICC court

PS You only commented on half the post.

half your post, or half Echinda's post?
cos i'm not replying to the remaining half of your post

And we stopped Saddam from conquering Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

and then you left him there to do it again

No, we are seeing the US protecting itself from BS charged levied by anti-American prosecutors with independent authority.

[rah]

Is it really that hard to understand that we'd like to reserve the right to determine ourselves what is considered a war crime? Granted we always haven't prosecuted all of them, but many have been.

I guess it is.

Maybe if all you whiney arm chair generals had to send real soldiers into life and death situations, you'd be a little more concerned about what might happen afterwards in some Kangaroo court.

And If I think that, after listening to the "technically" more enlightened population at Apolyton, It's a sorry state of affairs and I never want to put a American Soldier under jurisdiction of our so called allies or enemies.

RAH

I would wholeheartedly support a world court if I knew the real goal was justice and not political payback.

[Saint Marcus]

Is it really that hard to understand that we'd like to reserve the right to determine ourselves what is considered a war crime? Granted we always haven't prosecuted all of them, but many have been.

The ICC will only act if the US doesn't prosecute the said individual.

[Lemmy]

i guess having a little faith in another western court is just too much too ask for for the US.

[rah]

And if the US determines that Prosecution is not warrented. It's Kanagroo court time. I don't think so.
I hate to say I'd trust my own government more, but after listening to all the pathetic automatic anti-anything american here, it's an easy call.