Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (93927)	4/16/2003 3:05:44 PM
From: mightylakers	Respond to of 281500

It's all above winning, the Might and Power. Loser trials winner is a fairy tale. The rest of the world will figure it out. What important is when, will it be before U.S. completes the domination of the world, or after.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (93927)	4/16/2003 3:40:00 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, But your narrow view of the world states that what happened in Rwanda was ok. That we should not have been in Iraq and that the Congo is an internal situation. The ICC gets involved after - when the people of a country throw out a despot and want him tried. While he is doing anything he wants internally (including large scale slaughter) the moral argument is - stay away? John

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (93927)	4/16/2003 5:37:39 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<War crimes case planned against U.S> .Look at the good side. It will keep lawyers occupied until the end of time, and out of our private lives. I cant wait to hear what the penalties would be for various degrees of guilt, and who or what country will enforce the law. Will all US citizens be guilty of a crime as accessories ,or just the congressmen who voted for the action in Iraq.? We can afford better lawyers than most countries, and judges can be bought Would it be a legal act if we starved 1/2 the Russian population by refusing to sell them wheat in a bad crop year? What if two nations decide to just fight it out and not declare a war that would come under ICC supervision? IMO morality will have to exceed legality for some time yet, but developing universal global "laws" should be looked into. Most of our laws were developed from old English business laws, where the richest guy wins. Imposing a "top down" set of laws worldwide could cause more casualties than it prevents. BWTHDIK Sig@buythejudge.com .

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (93927)	4/16/2003 8:57:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

. And, yes, this is precisely why we will not join the ICC: We insist on a double standard. We refuse to allow the standards we apply to our defeated enemies, to be applied to ourselves On the contrary, if we thought that the standards we apply to ourselves would be applied to us by others, we probably would join. It is our expectation that heavily politicized standards will be applied - essentially an effort to 'bell the cat' by other nations - that prevents us from joining. That, and the fact that the ICC is wildly unconstitutional. Just look at what world opinion is fussing about this minute. The US troops failed to prevent the Baghdad Museum from being looted. Is the charge that they looted it themselves? no. Is the charge that they deliberately let others loot it? no. Could they even have prevented it? Unclear at this point. But they failed to prevent it - an outrage! It was I daresay a screwup. But the disproportional response of world opinion is a sign of how the ICC will focus its attention. Meanwhile, a thousand civilians got butchered in the Congo a week ago, and who knows how many have died in Algeria recently because the press has been chased out of there, but world attention seems very much not to care. When black Africans or Arabs kill each other, it's just not news.