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

[- Groucho -]

C'est la guerre.

[morb]

the "international court" is nothing but a war tribunal. what I dont see is how the countries of europe are not opposed to this idiotic idea. it makes possible a scenario where a person might otherwise be subject to this international court in which case by giving up that person to be prosecuted by such a court the US will be violating its laws and the very ideals of its legal system.

here's a news flash. countries such as iraq/iran/pakistan/china will never extredite their own people to be prosecuted by such a court, so its very existance is trivial. why should the US compromise its policies just to please the EU and the UN? this alliance is more of a negative for the US than for the EU.

if you guys want to make a "trans-european" or "memers of EU only" international court, go right ahead. I'm sure it will help you with unification and delusion of sovereignty and national identity, which is what you seem to want most. but leave the US out of it. we'll prosecute our people under our own laws. trial by a jury of peers could not possibly include people of other nations by definition. does this international court even have a jury system?? or is it really a full on tribunal? feh.

[Roland]

Ned: "rah, et al., I find it interesting that the argument for maintaining the alliance between United States and Europe is being made by the Americans and not by the Europeans."

For the simple reason that this "alliance" provides a (small) net benefit for the US, and a net loss for Europe.

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



Lincoln: "People in the United States are not going to give up their liberties to the International Cangaroo Court."

That would also be hardly possible, after those freedoms have been pissed away through trial by pleabargain, impunity for sale, corrupt prosecutors, sleeping judges, the "war" on drugs, the "war" on "terror" etc etc.
To come from a hopelessly messed-up legal system like the US and complain about a Canguroo Court is a bit much.

Chris: "Correct me if I'm wrong Marky, isn't your little Union economic in nature?"

While I'm not Marky, nope. This thing is political since 1952. Maybe even the Yanks will start understanding this. It's only 50 years now....

"You clowns are lucky if you know which way to point the buisness end of a weapon."

Meanie. Even I know that.

Echinda: I have explained ad nauseam the limits of the ICC jursidiction, and how the statute is NOT binding on third parties. I'm just tired of it, correcting the same errors and misperceptions for the 100th time.

[Lemmy]

Echinda: I have explained ad nauseam the limits of the ICC jursidiction, and how the statute is NOT binding on third parties. I'm just tired of it, correcting the same errors and misperceptions for the 100th time.

as Dr. Stiby said on earlier:

It's funny how people remember what they want to remember!

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

A de-linking between the United States of America and the European Union would be windfall for those in the world who are genuinely against the interests of economic freedom, democracy and transparent governments.

Despite all the hot air in this thread — and there is a lot of it — you all know darn well that a mostly united West will be able to do a lot more in containing the genuine threats facing the world than if it is fractured into a even a *pair* of feuding spheres of influence. Do you really think the leaders of Iraq, North Korea, Iran and countless other less-than-democratic countries wouldn't benefit from a new p*ssing match between the US and the EU? That's the kind of outcome that they and any other anti-Western groups would strive to leave no stone unturned in an effort to achieve. It just makes it that much easier for them if US and EU members are so damnably short-sighted enough to shoot themselves in the frickin' stomach.

Admit it, Europe. You are a toothless old tiger whose last taste of blood was during World War II. Unfortunately, it took the last of your real teeth out and, frankly, dentures and high-minded platitudes won't cut it in today's world. Hell, such ideals didn't tame Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin in the past. Do you really think it would work against the likes of Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein in the present? You need the active involvement of the US in order to maintain your post-modern united Europe, precisely because of our military capabilities and ecomic assets.

Admit it, America. We can't take on the world all by ourselves. You do the math. 290 million or so Americans versus 6 billion foreigners. We'd lose big time, and I suspect the world wouldn't exactly be left unscathed in such a nightmare scenario. I get angry sometimes when I read of others who bash America just for the sheer fun of getting a rise out another 'Poly member who happens to live in the States. The idea is to look past the rabble-rousers and *not* let them become the de facto representatives of what Europeans (at least in this case) think. We need to stay involved with the EU because, while we could use the military assets elsewhere, Europe is like us: they're republics with transparent governments and reliable economic models that ensure that a broad spectrum of people benefit from capitalism (to whatever degree it's practiced). They cannot be abandoned because some hotheads thought they could be cool by poking fun at Americans. Besides, we sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to ensure that democracy would not be uprooted following the horrors of World War II. To stomp off in a furor — righteous or not — would make their sacrifice meaningless in the long run.

What it comes down to is this: All the wrong people in the world WIN if a serious split ever develops between the US and the EU. There's no denying it! So sit up and take note that while talk comes easy, action is a lot harder and the new reality resulting from said action would be the pits.

Unless you're a terrorist. Or some demented national leader.

Gatekeeper

[Lemmy]

heh, i know the US and EU won't split.
Mostly because of all the economic ties, they will drift apart a little, but they wouold have to drifting a very long time before all ties are broken, and before that happens the EU will get their act together, be more effective, and maybe the US will have changed their policies to more foreign-friendly.

[Roland]

Well, I still think the atlantic alliance is dead and rotting, and do not see anything reviving it.

"Despite all the hot air in this thread ? and there is a lot of it ? you all know darn well that a mostly united West will be able to do a lot more in containing the genuine threats facing the world than if it is fractured into a even a *pair* of feuding spheres of influence. "

The west is not united. We are in a mutual tie-up that may be interesting as a sex practice but is hopeless as a political concept.

Convince us that it makes sense to go after Iraq. I fail to see a good reason to do so at the moment.

"Europe is like us"

We've been drifting apart since the 70s at the latest.

"Unfortunately, it took the last of your real teeth out and, frankly, dentures and high-minded platitudes won't cut it in today's world."

The funny thing about Americans - and I generalize because this carries through your media as well - is that we euros are teethless old pacifists, who would not hesitate a second to go to war against each other because we are bloodthirsty nationalists.

What is it now ?

[ThePantaloonDog]

"Well, I still think the atlantic alliance is dead and rotting, and do not see anything reviving it."

While I don't think the atlantic alliance is in the best shape its been, I do believe that the current wave of immigrants and terroism will bring western countries together. WEstern countries all have the same ideal; a free society that is based on the individual. Right now western society is under pressure from societies that don't follow these same ideals. If America had a government that had some clue at international politics then the atlantic alliance would be much stronger. Its only weak because of weaknesses in American leadership.

"Convince us that it makes sense to go after Iraq. I fail to see a good reason to do so at the moment."

This is just a ploy from Bush to look like he's doing something and to "finish off the job" his father never completed.


"The funny thing about Americans - and I generalize because this carries through your media as well - is that we euros are teethless old pacifists, who would not hesitate a second to go to war against each other because we are bloodthirsty nationalists."

Europe was seen as bloodthirsty nationalists back in the 19th century. I doubt any American would expect to see a war in Western Europe in their life times. If America had able politicians right now they would probably work out a compromise instead of unilaterally going off and bombing random countries.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Roland

Lincoln: "People in the United States are not going to give up their liberties to the International Cangaroo Court."

That would also be hardly possible, after those freedoms have been pissed away through trial by pleabargain, impunity for sale, corrupt prosecutors, sleeping judges, the "war" on drugs, the "war" on "terror" etc etc.
To come from a hopelessly messed-up legal system like the US and complain about a Canguroo Court is a bit much.

Well you have a point there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well you have a point there.

That's just his standard attack to deflect criticism of the ICC, Lincoln. I would think that a lawyer of his caliber knows better than to use logical fallacies.

[Roland]

That's just my standard point to deal with that particular criticism. You can be against it for all kinds of reasons, but keeping your particular (and failing) trial guarantees is a strange point.

[Lincoln]

Why should we willingly give up more rights though. The ones that are taken from us are bad enough.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
That's just my standard point to deal with that particular criticism.

That doesn't keep it from being a logical fallacy, Roland. I have faith that you can come up with a better response to it.

You can be against it for all kinds of reasons,

Out of interest, can you tell me what you would consider a serious criticism?

keeping your particular trial guarantees is a strange point.

Why is it such a strange point?

[Lincoln]

"Why is it such a strange point?"

I think the whole concept of judgment by a jury of peers is strange to Europeans. I don't know about double jeopardy though.

[Roland]

"That doesn't keep it from being a logical fallacy"

In the context of Lincoln's point of "canguroo court" there is no fallacy.

"Out of interest, can you tell me what you would consider a serious criticism?"

That jurisdiction extends beyond the core of large scale war crimes. States can opt out of this, but it's still overburdening.

Some aspects of the trial system, esp pre-trial.

Or a simple sovereignty point. But if you make that one you have to acknowledge the territorial sovereignty of the member states, against which a personal sovereignty "not our citizens" cannot be invoked.

"Why is it such a strange point?"

Because those guarantees are good in theory, but often disregarded and weak in practice anyway.