PDA

View Full Version : Another reason to not like America



Pages : [1] 2 3

Shiro
06-08-2002, 06:38 AM
Today I found a new reason why people don't like America.

In Den Haag, a city here in the Netherlands, the International Court will be installed. The purpose of the International Court is to judge people who did things wrong in wars, people who did things which are against humanity etc. in wars.

But now it seems that the American senate has accepted a law proposal which allows invasion in my country, the Netherlands, if American soldiers are brought there because they have done things wrong in a war or conflict, to free those soldiers.

So, according to America it is right to pointer fingers to others who do things wrong. But don't touch their own soldiers, don't put a finger to America. Everything America does is right. American soldiers can kill innocent people, American soldiers can rape girls in countries where they are for war, that is all allowed. And if they get caught and brought to the International Court, well, then America will free them.

It seems that American find themselves so important that they can do anything they want. But if someone else does wrong, then that's bad.

I didn't like American politics and this event made this even stronger. It seems that American really seem to think they are something like the Uebermensch, which the Nazi's thought they were. That they are people who are superior to the rest of the world so they can do what they want.

mix0matt
06-08-2002, 07:05 AM
ridiculous....you guys must really be bored....

-the american nazi...

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 07:35 AM
I don't think that it's wrong to want to try your men in your own country :rolleyes:

Fordy
06-08-2002, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by -KEN-
I don't think that it's wrong to want to try your men in your own country :rolleyes:

That's a bit of a naÔve viewpoint...You cant judge war crimes in naitive country of the accused....thatís impractical to say the least

Shiro
06-08-2002, 08:03 AM
>I don't think that it's wrong to want to try your men in your own country

That's not the point. The point is that the US wants to prevent American people from being judged by the International Court, but it also wants people from other countries being judged by the International Court. And they will use violence to free American people who have to be judged at the International Court.

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 08:06 AM
No, I most definately thought of that, but usually we'd be just as appalled as they are.

If we have reason to doubt that they could carry out the trial in a fair manner, or even that they don't have grounds and evidence to convict this person (or maybe it's false?), we should be able them out if we please.

I think the government doesn't like to not have power if something goes awry. Just because we allow going in there to get ther people out, doesn't mean it'd be something exercised much, or even at all.

incognito
06-08-2002, 08:08 AM
Who will be doing this "judging"? Just your country or a group of nations or something. Just want to let you know something the US has one of the most impartial and fair (to a certain extent) court system in the world. I am not saying that your does not. But I mean it doesn't mean that if they don't deserve a punishment they won't get it in an American court system, I mean when a president goes to trial because a sexual affair you can see that in this country no one is above the law. BTW I am tired of people *****ing about America, or is your country all perfect? (not saying this to anyone in particular, just to whoever happens to read it). It seems to me that everyone just looks for something to bash America is getting on my nerves, everyone wants to say something about about America, Gosh people give us a freaking break, noone seems to mention any good deeds America does. But hey if people are trying to bring you down is because you're doing something right and you're being noticed. Once again I am EDIT NOT /EDIT directing this to anyone, just got kind of out of hands........I just blew a fuse right now :D

Zeeshan
06-08-2002, 08:09 AM
>> I don't think that it's wrong to want to try your men in your own country

Then, what is the function of the "International Court". It is supposed to satisfy people from all parts of the world, so that they can think that the ones who did wrong to them will be punished justly.

Say, I beat you :D lol. Then, my father tells you that he would punish me. Would you be justified? Would you actually believe him ?

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 08:17 AM
Well, I don't know if your dad is exactly as fair and impartial as most US courts :D

Plus, the second you touched me I would have kicked your @ss :)

Shiro
06-08-2002, 08:20 AM
>Who will be doing this "judging"? Just your country or a group of
>nations or something.

The Internation Court is ofcourse not something of my country, nor even of Europe. Then it would be called Dutch Court or European Court. It is an International Court. So it is something of the international community and positioned in my country. Just like the European community has a head-quarter in Brussel, it are not the Belgiums who rule Europe. Since it is of the international community, in my opinion, the US should respect it.

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 08:23 AM
>>in my opinion, the US should respect it.

We are - to an extent. All the US is saying is that if they don't feel that a fair trial is going to be conducted (for some reason, don't ask me how...) then we can pull our men out, by force if neccesary.

incognito
06-08-2002, 08:24 AM
Ok if this is going to be a so called "international court" I believe you should have people from the "western world" on it. Canadians, Americans, South America, etc, have people from Asia, Europe, Africa, and Australia, then you can call it an "international court", so far it doesn't look to me like one.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 08:36 AM
>All the US is saying is that if they don't feel that a fair trial is
>going to be conducted (for some reason, don't ask me how...)
>then we can pull our men out, by force if neccesary.

And that's what I'm worrying about. Who decides what is fair and what is not fair? If people are caught because of war crimes, then they should be judged. Ofcourse not by their own country and also not by the country of the enemy. Therefore there is an International Court. I can imagine that if an American is arrested because of some crime, the American may feel that the trial is not fair.

In the International Court there should be representives of all continents, Asia, Europe, Africa, North-America etc. Just like the European Court has representives of whole Europe. I don't know how they will organise it with the International Court.

But now turn it around. Assume the International Court is placed in Washington and assume that Iraqi war criminals are waiting there for their trial. Now Iraq can say: in our opinion the trial in Washington is not fair, we are going to get our people out of there by force. The American wouldn't like that either if Iraqi troops went to Washington to free the Iraqis. And that's just the same as the American are wanting now.

Scourfish
06-08-2002, 09:13 AM
The reason were sending soldiers into your country is because you waste our time with posts about your close- minded view and hatred. We've been down this road before and most of us are beyond this petty squabble. Learn to grow up.

Unregistered
06-08-2002, 09:15 AM
Shiro,

why dont' you be fair and post all of the powers the ICC wants to be able to enforce its "international law". If you did that, i don't think many people would be in favor of an International Criminal Court or blame the US Senate for its defiance...

It's just another ..........ed up UN idea, which's doomed to failure. I know for a fact that most Americans are not going to let foreign troops onto American soil to collect SUSPECTED criminals...The ICC and the international police force that's going to come with it are dangerous propositions, and if you don't see why, you need help...

Scourfish
06-08-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Shiro
Today I found a new reason why people don't like America.

American soldiers can kill innocent people, American soldiers can rape girls in countries where they are for war, that is all allowed.

Guess what, Sherlock, this could apply to anyone, including people in the Netherlands; they can kill innocent people, they can rape girls, but they do write biased opinions after misconstruing facts.





Notice the boldface "can" and the boldface "do", because I'm not talking about carried out intent (do), rather I'm talking about ability to do so (can.)

DISGUISED
06-08-2002, 09:41 AM
The American wouldn't like that either if Iraqi troops went to Washington to free the Iraqis.

Ha Ha Ha Ha ...............good one.

We have allowed our troops to face trial in other countries for crimes they committed to many times to count. Take
THIS (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/) case for example. These guys only got 7 years in Japan, they would have got life, possibly the death penalty in the US. To say something like


American soldiers can kill innocent people, American soldiers can rape girls in countries where they are for war, that is all allowed. And if they get caught and brought to the International Court, well, then America will free them.

is just ridiculous.

DrakkenKorin
06-08-2002, 09:44 AM
Shiro - please post where you got this information, as I would like to read it.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 11:25 AM
It's just another ..........ed up UN idea, which's doomed to failure. I know for a fact that most Americans are not going to let foreign troops onto American soil to collect SUSPECTED criminals...


Yes, and why should the Dutch allow your American troops come here and free Americans?



Guess what, Sherlock, this could apply to anyone, including people in the Netherlands; they can kill innocent people, they can rape girls, but they do write biased opinions after misconstruing facts.


I suggest you read the whole post and not just pick up a few lines. Ofcourse soldiers of all countries can do such, but that was not the point of my posting. The point was that the US can decide to send troops to some country to free American who are for trial in that country. And I'm sure they won't allow troops from other countries coming to the US to free their people.

I got the news from a Dutch paper. But there are some English language sources.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/icc1005.htm
http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_news.html
http://www.pacificnews.org/content/pns/2002/may/0507snub.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/icc-m07.shtml

incognito
06-08-2002, 11:28 AM
How many Americans are on this so called "international court" What percentage of these people are from other countries that hate the US?

Aran
06-08-2002, 11:30 AM
America is like a friendly dog in a small room, every time it wags its tail it nocks something over.

incognito
06-08-2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Aran Elus
America is like a friendly dog in a small room, every time it wags its tail it nocks something over.


LMAO that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, yet the funny.........lol

Shiro
06-08-2002, 11:39 AM
elchulo2002:
According to the member list, each country participating has one person in the court. One of the vice-chairmen is an American.

I don't know how many people are from countries that hate the US, since I don't know which countries hate the US. Perhaps France, some Arabic countries. I don't know.

But note that the International Court is not against countries, but it judges individual people.

incognito
06-08-2002, 12:02 PM
Wouldn't you think that if the US found out that a couple of these "juries", "judges" or whatever they are hate the US, they would consider the trial to be unfair and perhaps they would want their citizens to be tried somewhere else? Well maybe these people, none of them hate the US, well then I guess there wouldn't be so much of a reason for the US to deem the trial unfair, but how knows. I think it was you who said that the US would only pull out their citizens if they thought the trial was unfair not ALWAYS

Shiro
06-08-2002, 12:18 PM
>Wouldn't you think that if the US found out that a couple of
>these "juries", "judges" or whatever they are hate the US, they
>would consider the trial to be unfair and perhaps they would
>want their citizens to be tried somewhere else?

Sure. But is it really necessary to use violence then? I'm sure there are non-violent ways to solve such situations.

>I think it was you who said that the US would only pull out their
>citizens if they thought the trial was unfair not ALWAYS

Yes, they will only pull out their citizens if they think that the trial is unfair. But one can wonder when a trial is unfair. And if there are unfair trials, then no one will trust the International Court.

In other threads I've written that I'm not against the US people, which I still am, but I often find US politics making strange or even bad decisions. I started this thread just to get some reactions of the Americans on this board, just to learn how Americans think about this situation. It is always fascinating me how people are thinking, I was born on the other side of the world and now living here in the Netherlands, the Dutch they are have so-called 'Polder-model' politics, which means that they want to solve every problem by talking about it. I like that very much since I hate violence and military. But I know that military is necessary, mainly since people want power and money and therefore will always be using violence to reach such goals.

And that's also why it is really making me angry that the US is doing things like this. In my opinion, very well developed countries like a lot of European countries and America, it must be possible to solve problems by talking about it.

Unregistered
06-08-2002, 12:40 PM
>>Yes, and why should the Dutch allow your American troops come here and free Americans?<<

jesus...you're talking about two completely different things....1) a international police force consisting of troops from other countries (possibly enemies of the US) snatching up our citizens because a country like Iraq has accused them of crimes. VS. 2) a government (US) rescuing its citizens from being imprisoned by a "authority" that it does not recognize...

Think of it this way...if you were being detained for a bogus crime by a orginization in which you ENEMIES have an equal vote and can bring your citizens to trial...wouldn't you want you government to come get you. I don't know what being Dutch is like, but a US citizen takes pride that his government is willing to protect its citizens abroad...sucks to be Dutch i guess...

Your attitude is typical of the idiots that infect Europe. Let me ask you this, what's the difference betweent the ICC and International War Crimes Tribunal? If you CAN answer that question for us, i think your moranity will become clear to everyone....

The main point of my post was to get you to share your research, which you have not done, not your misguided hatred of American politics...

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 12:46 PM
>>Sure. But is it really necessary to use violence then

I sincerely doubt that they'd use violence. They're just authorizing that violence CAN be used in extreme cases where all other routes have been exhausted.

>>it must be possible to solve problems by talking about it.

It usually is, but could you imagine what would have ensued if we tried to sit down and have a pow-wow with Hitler? A nice, friendly chat with Marx? Tea time with Osama? What are you? Some kind of hippie? Alright, I'll admit that it's a nice idea that everyone is open-minded and willing to talk about things, but some people aren't - some people just want war, etc.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 12:57 PM
>jesus...you're talking about two completely different things....1)
>a international police force consisting of troops from other
>countries (possibly enemies of the US) snatching up our citizens
>because a country like Iraq has accused them of crimes. VS. 2) a
>government (US) rescuing its citizens from being imprisoned by
>a "authority" that it does not recognize...

You haven't read the postings, isn't it?

Rescueing its citizens? If their citizens are innocent, then there is no need to rescue. And if so, there is no need to use violence for such. But perhaps the American are not so strong in debating so they have to use violence to get what they want.

>but a US citizen takes pride that his government is willing to
>protect its citizens abroad.

Protection against what? Notice that there other countries also have prisoners in the US. The US is more dangerous to prisoners than most European countries, we don't kill people if they are found guilty for whatever. But that's not what this thread is about.

>Your attitude is typical of the idiots that infect Europe.

Sure.

I guess my English is more worse than I thought, so many people not understanding what I'm talking about.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:04 PM
>I sincerely doubt that they'd use violence.

Well, I also doubt it. But it is just the idea. The idea that they have accepted that law.

>It usually is, but could you imagine what would have ensued if
>we tried to sit down and have a pow-wow with Hitler?

In the beginning, countries were really friendly against Hitler. The violence started when he began the war. And ofcourse then you can't have a nice chat with him and ask to stop. But that is a very different situation from this. There are people who are caught since they are suspected from war crimes and therefor they are brought to the trial. If their trial is unfair, then it is strange to use violent to get them away isn't it? There would be so many other non-violent solutions to solve that situation.

>but some people aren't - some people just want war, etc.

Yes, it is sad but it is true. BTW, I'm not a hippie, at least I think I'm not, I'm just someone who is against violence.

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:07 PM
Well I am not saying that they should use violence but if all other tactics fail, guess you gotta do what you gotta do buddy.

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
>I sincerely doubt that they'd use violence.

Well, I also doubt it. But it is just the idea. The idea that they have accepted that law.

>It usually is, but could you imagine what would have ensued if
>we tried to sit down and have a pow-wow with Hitler?

In the beginning, countries were really friendly against Hitler. The violence started when he began the war. And ofcourse then you can't have a nice chat with him and ask to stop. But that is a very different situation from this. There are people who are caught since they are suspected from war crimes and therefor they are brought to the trial. If their trial is unfair, then it is strange to use violent to get them away isn't it? There would be so many other non-violent solutions to solve that situation.

>but some people aren't - some people just want war, etc.

Yes, it is sad but it is true. BTW, I'm not a hippie, at least I think I'm not, I'm just someone who is against violence.


Ok I am sure that if the US thought that a trial was unfair (maybe because a large part of this "jury" was from a country that hated the US) that the US would try to solve this without violence but if every effort fails, like I said before you gotta do what you gotta do.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:15 PM
>Well I am not saying that they should use violence but if all
>other tactics fail, guess you gotta do what you gotta do buddy.

I wonder if other tactics will fail. I think that economical sanctions will help quite a lot.

But how do you think a trial can be proven unfair? I'm really wondering about this. If a trial is unfair, then there is nothing to fear for the one being judged. There will be a new trial. The only thing is that the person is still not proven guilty or not guilty, which may lead to a longer arrest. It will also lead to a large decrease of trust in the International Court. But I think the judges in a case will only be from neutral countries.

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:18 PM
Ok if there is no way that you can say that a trial can be fair or unfair, which I think it's obvious at times to find out. Then how do you decide what a neutral country is?

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:24 PM
That's also a hard question. A judge should be neutral, whatever his/her background is. Let's say that a neutral country is a country which is not involved military in the war or conflict. Ofcourse there are always reasons to find countries not neutral, economical reasons for example.

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:24 PM
Let me point out something I just realized, the tittle of this thread "Another reason not to like America", that sounds that you don't like Americans....you could've said, "Another reason why not like American politics".

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:26 PM
basically what it boils down to, this "international court" is a bad idea, unless the US has the ability to withdraw their citizens if they think is an unfair trial, then I think that this idea shouldn't fly.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:28 PM
Yes, I realise that the title is wrong. And perhaps I should have made it more personal, since this is a reason for me not to like American politics. And there sure are American political initiatives I like, for example their economical supports and their role in the Istrael-Palestina conflicts. This is just one of the things I don't like. So the title should have been: "Another thing I don't like of American politics".

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:32 PM
Every country, not just the US, should have the possibility to help their citizen if they find that the trial is unfair. I don't know what the International Court will do when a party says that the trial is unfair. I'll have to read some more about that.

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 01:33 PM
Exactly, you shouldn't have to be forced to have your men tried in this court. It should be voluntary of the country...

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 01:35 PM
There should be sort of a double edge to this, though. What if a corrupt government demands their soldiers be released?

I have a feeling that this will become as impotent as NATO's predecessor.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 01:36 PM
So you mean that if someone is suspected for war crimes, then the country where that person lives should bring that person to the court? And what if it doesn't, then it is possible that war criminals are not judged.

Sorensen
06-08-2002, 01:42 PM
>unless the US has the ability to withdraw their citizens if they think is an unfair trial, then I think that this idea shouldn't fly

Fair enough, but it defeats the point. Would you agree to somewhere like Iraq withdrawing their citizens if they deem the trial to be unfair?

A fair proportion of war crimes could be seen as state sponsored so if the perpetrators are still in power it would make no sense for them to do otherwise. How many mothers would have withdrawn their sons from facing the death penalty (or imprisonment) given the opportunity, regardless of their guilt or percieved fairness of the court.

Anyway, I doubt this applies to the US because I'm sure they would never break any anti-war crime treaties (tee hee).

-KEN-
06-08-2002, 01:45 PM
Which is why I say this is a bad idea. People shuoldn't be forced to be tried on unfarmiliar grounds, but if the crime has to be judged and the country won't judge it, force would have to be used to extract the people - and that just plain sucks.

Unregistered
06-08-2002, 01:46 PM
>>If their citizens are innocent, then there is no need to rescue<<

you are completely wrong here, and even a bigger dolt than i first thought...So you don't think it's possible for an innocent to be found guilty? That's laughable especially when so many people in the rest of the world dislike the US...


>>Protection against what? <<

unfair trial...bogus governments and laws...and the biggest thing CRIMINAL prosecution in a foreign country. Remember when i asked you to state the difference betweent the ICC and IWCT? Why didn't you? maybe you didn't know that the ICC's proposed power goes way beyond war crimes. it includes ANY violation of international law (laws made now and in the future) outside of war. This is one more step towards a world government with it's own set of criminal and civil laws. No American will stand to be tried in the Netherlands for anything. US citizens are entitled the protections of its constitution, and the Senate isn't going to let that change, and if it comes to it, will probably fight for it.

i'm sorry you can't understand that...your loss...dopey...

incognito
06-08-2002, 01:55 PM
I just think this is a bad idea, if other countries want to go ahead and do it so be it, but the US doesn't have to participate on this.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 02:07 PM
>you are completely wrong here, and even a bigger dolt than i
>first thought...

Thanks. I'm happy that most American don't react like you do, else I would really start disliking Americans.

>So you don't think it's possible for an innocent to be found
>guilty? That's laughable especially when so many people in the
>rest of the world dislike the US...

It is always possible for an innocent to be found guilty, the other way is also possible.

It's true that I didn't know the real differences between ICC and IWCT, but that didn't care for the situation I was pointing at. You have probably still not read the posts, but the point was using violence to get people out from a trial.

Sorensen
06-08-2002, 02:09 PM
>So you don't think it's possible for an innocent to be found guilty?

No but from your post you seem to think that the rest of the world is living in the legal dark ages and the only chance anyones got of a fair trial is in the US.

I don't think the point is to entrap hapless US citizens, but provide an unbiased trial for crimes where such a thing would not be done in the suspects home countries. Whether this is possible is another matter, but should the Pan-Am bombers have been allowed to be sentrenced in Libyia?

>No American will stand to be tried in the Netherlands for anything. US citizens are entitled the protections of its constitution, and the Senate isn't going to let that change, and if it comes to it, will probably fight for it.

What? There are thousands of Americans that have stood trial abroad and and are in foreign prisons.

incognito
06-08-2002, 02:09 PM
Ok if the US citizens are going to be given an unfair trial can't be withdrawn from this court peacefully then sometimes violence has to do the job.

Shiro
06-08-2002, 02:13 PM
>Ok if the US citizens are going to be given an unfair trial can't be
>withdrawn from this court peacefully then sometimes violence
>has to do the job.

Unless innocent people get hurt or killed. If US troops will try to get their citizens out of the court with violence, then they will probably have to fight our troops which will protect their country from an invading country.

incognito
06-08-2002, 02:17 PM
Or they can just hand the US citizens all nicely and I am sure none of this will happen.