The US was opposed to this? while fighting a "war on terrorism"? eh what? Need more info...and
quote:Mr. Bush is also constrained by fears among far-right Republicans that the United Nations is intent on conquering the United States.
??
Note: The links don't seem to work all that well, due to their length...even though I used the Instant UBB code thing. Just go to globeandmail.com and thestar.com, the articles are new enough to be on the front page.
[UBB Code == pleh. And the first URL is just too long to be salvageable. It'll have to be copied-and-pasted, and the space that'll show up in the middle of it will need to be removed. -TSN]
[I'll take a crack at it. Flippin' Globe. -T_T]
[ April 11, 2002, 14:25: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
The United States believes strongly in international justice. As long as it's for the "other."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, we just know how fond some other nations would be to file frivolous suits, because we know how many of our people do it.
For instance, France, if enough people started believing that guy who says that no plane hit the Pentagon and that Jews and the CIA blew up the WTC.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
That's got to be one of the more hypocritical counterarguments I've heard in a while.
America is essentially the homeland of the frivilous lawsuit. You guys pretty much invented them. And you deal with them, on a day-to-day basis, with your superdemocratic(tm) court system developed by those demigods, the foundingfathers(tm). And America, um, endures. It doesn't explode. Yes, the odd stupid woman gets paid by McDonald's, but with adequate provisions (which the ICC most certainly has) for preventing stupidity a court system can function.
Your problem is that you (and the rest of the right-wing nationalist mantrain) define "charge against America" as "frivolous." Because Americans are always right. And good. And the interests of America are inevitably the interests of all mankind.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Quote: America's concerns that its citizens could be brought before the court over military interventions abroad.
I had heard this quite some time ago, when this idea was first bought up.
I would just like to ask: is the American government like some kind of religion over there? It's just that the impression that I get is that most Americans seem to believe that their government is infallible and the most perfect on the planet. The fact that is is 2 centuries old never seems to come up. I am all for the UN and frankly would like to see more cooperation from all countries, not just the US.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I think part of it is the fear that about 80% of the US's upper military echelons might be charged with something or another. A lot of our top staff now made their bones in Korea or (more likely) Vietnam--both especially vague venues. So you can imagine the general trouser-soiling that might occur the first time Vietnam successfully petitions to indite someone who used to be a greenie 2LT & is now a 3-star major general for what the US might call a "successful raid" & the Vietnamese call a 25-year-old atrocity.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
is the American government like some kind of religion over there?
Only for liberals. Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Anyone who hears the kind of blind reverence and faith Omega places in Bush & Ashcroft knows how much he's speaking through his ass at the moment.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Is he speaking in tongues?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You know, I don't think Jeff has EVER laughed at a joke in the Flameboard...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That was supposed to be a joke? Looked like another generalized insult to me. It wasn't humorous, at any rate.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, I figured that there'd be some humorous value in the fact that we've gone over the subject six million times. And the usually indicates humorous intentions...
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Sorry, but if a "liberal" tried to do what Bush and Ashcroft have done (The Patriot Act, anyone?), Omega'd be spitting out great one-liners like, "we are now the Socialist States of America", or "gosh frell it all to hell, the Supreme Court can't do zippidi-doo-da to the Constitushion!"
I find nothing funny about the issue. And it's the same insult I've used EVERY OTHER TIME we've gone over this.
In other words, Omega worships Bush more then he worships God. Yummy-yummy.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Or if you want a REAL source of humor...
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Get a room, you two.
Don't generalize that all American's wholeheartedly agree with this stance. There is a wide spectrum of faith in our leadership, and though Shrub may have like a 90% approval rating, there are quite a few of us who a) don't feel he's competent to be the leader of our nation. b) are made extremely uncomfortable by the thought of him speaking on behalf of all of us.
As an American proud of what his nation stands for, I happen to think the only way the United States is going to survive the coming half-century is if it is willing to forfeit a lot of political dominance for a less isolationist and more global approach. A large part of that would be submitting to the authority of a United Nations war crimes court.
ps-The whole Kyoto Accords thing makes the blood vessels on my forehead stand up.
[ April 12, 2002, 20:57: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...I figured that there'd be some humorous value in the fact that we've gone over the subject six million times."
Funny. I was thinking the exact opposite...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:As an American proud of what his nation stands for....
Now I'm curious. What exactly does the United States of America stand for?
Anyone care to have go at defining what the national values of the US are?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Truth, justice and the American way, wait no that's Superman.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, but what is the American Way?
Fifty years ago, it was quiet, unambitious, un-sexual women, no homosexuals, blatant racism, and an attack on anything that people didn't like (communism, evolution, etc.)
[ April 13, 2002, 08:00: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Gosh, I feel so...right wing.
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These, of course, are hardly original to the U.S.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
When I think of what the US stands for I keep thinking of the law firm from the Thee Stooges
Dewey, Cheatum and Howe.
[ April 13, 2002, 20:14: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Now I'm curious. What exactly does the United States of America stand for?
Simon pretty much nailed it. It probably stands for different things depending on who you'd ask, but most would probably agree that the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights contain the essence of what our country ideally should be about. That we're all equal. That we all have these certain inalienable rights (see above) and that any government we employ should be set up for the express purpose of defending those rights and effecting our happiness and safety. Whether we actually get there is a different issue entirely.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
any government we employ should be set up for the express purpose of defending those rights and effecting our happiness and safety
PURSUIT of happiness. The government's job is NOT to make you happy.
As for the veins on your forehead, you might want to have that looked at.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Yes. Happiness would be thumping Omega's head into a wall for ten straight hours and then forcing him to watch "Barney" re-runs with his eyelids taped open and his ears stapled back.
Sadly, the government would have to send its agents to stop me. Grrr.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The man who wrote that was a slave owner, as were most of the 'founding fathers'; the United States also only freed its slaves in 1865 (The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in the CSA and was mainly designed to keep us out of the war)- this was 32 years *after* the rest of the civilised world (or the British Empire as it was then known ) did so. Also, when the people of the south attempted to break away from the US so that they could live their lives the way they wanted, the US brutally crushed them (Please note I am most decidedly against slavery I'm just making the point that the US isn't quite as nice as it's made out to be)
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:US isn't quite as nice as it's made out to be)
The US is made out to be nice?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Ever seen an American movie? Or TV series? Hell, even 'factual' series are often biased towards the US to the point of telling outright lies: eg. one program I saw recently imformed the viewer that the American Civil War had happened in 1827 (a good 5 years before we banned slavery).
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
All men are created equal. Sounds just neat-o.
I'll assume that incudes women when I ask if in recent years the government of the United States, and in more recent times (under the guidence of the Mr. Bush) have upheld the words of the Declaration of Independence
quote:...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I'd also like to ask if the United States has lived up to those words in its dealings with the rest of the world...paying special attention to the war on terrah.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Alas, the US is far from the Utopian proto(for you, Omega)-egalitarian society that The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights outlined. We have come far closer, though, than when these documents were drafted. It may seem, particularly of late, that we are falling quite short of those guiding principles. (Assassinating our own leaders, funding private wars to suit our own interests, covering up scandals, not being popularly elected and somehow still being president anyway, etc.) We have, however made progress towards our ideals, and despite the transgressions of our ever-so imperfect leaders, our society is moving towards the goals set down in those documents 200+ years ago. (Slavery was abolished, women can vote, non-discrimination laws are standard, etc.) As an American I remain proud of these ideals, and of the noble American women and men who have lived up to them in our brief history.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I see. We're getting closer to an "ideal", therefore, we shouldn't really worry about all the rest of it.
Is that the argument?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: I see. We're getting closer to an "ideal", therefore, we shouldn't really worry about all the rest of it.
Is that the argument?
No, quite the contrary. I'm not saying we should disregard our failings, but we should also take into account our successes. If I feel pride in being American, it isn't because our leader and his puppetmasters are doling out concessions to their oil-baron crones and spoiling our environment and reputation in global politics. It's for the ideals which laid the ground rules for our society and which have enabled us to accomplish so many wonderful things. The inadequacies and hypocrisy of the current regime is that much more hateful to me because it undermines these ideals. To me America is a bunch of guys zooming around on the moon in a dune-buggy, Dr. Martin Luther King speaking to a thronging crowd in our nation's capital, the Peace Corp, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs building a computer in their garage and becoming millionaires. It's turning on NPR (or visiting message boards) and hearing a broad spectrum of support and disdain for the leaders of our nation and not fearing that soldiers will come into our homes and beat us up and/or kill us on our lawns. It's going to the grocery store and having to remember no only what brand of fresh squeezed OJ I like, but also the level of pulp and whether I want it with extra calcium. In the America that I love, a bunch of war-mongers spurring foreign dissent under the auspices of freedom to line their allready preposterously fat pockets is an abomination and an abberation. If this nation is anything at all like the place it was supposed to be, these people can't last long here. I had to say it every morning staring at the flag with my hand on my heart, and I never understood until I was much older: "...with liberty and justice for all."
So, I'm not even sure what we are arguing about anymore. Should the USA submit to the authority of a rational and globally ratified world war crimes court? Yes. Does the fact that Our Fearless Leader is opposed to this idea mean that all Americans are shameful creatures worthy of the contempt of the rest of the world? Hardly.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's the "rational" part we're worried about getting, IMHO. Quite frankly, a lot of us think you lot have already proven your irrationality by jumping on Kyoto, and assuming humans have a big impact on global warming (My 17,000+ anti-Kyoto scientists' link is still available).
We've seen enough 'legislation through the courts' here, we don't want to see some fool country/organization suing us over our not signing Kyoto, and having this World Court write new international law (which is basically what it would be doing if it made any kind of judgement at all).
quote:(Assassinating our own leaders, funding private wars to suit our own interests, covering up scandals, not being popularly elected and somehow still being president anyway, etc.)
Fortunately, we don't lead the world in ANY of these particular categories.
I'm not talking about anyone in particular here, but I always find it amusing when a person from a parliamentary country says something about OUR leader not being elected by a popular majority.
quote:United States also only freed its slaves in 1865 this was 32 years *after* the rest of the civilised world (or the British Empire as it was then known ) did so.
If you're so civilized, why were you so close to supporting the slaveowning South?
Because the Empire figured that if it weakened the States enough, (because if the South had seceded, that probably would have started a general breakdown) it'd eventually be able to reclaim its former colonies, that's why.
quote:I'll assume that incudes women when I ask if in recent years the government of the United States, and in more recent times (under the guidence of the Mr. Bush) have upheld the words of the Declaration of Independence
Well, let's see... of course, Conservatives have never really backed THIS particular diversion from the Declaration's statement that all people are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but...
Abortion certainly deprives a large number of people of 'life' each year, (far more than you'll see killed on Texas's death row) without trial, with no appeals, and with the only sentence being death. And most of the time it's for the sake of 'convenience.'
At least when WE kill somebody, they've DONE something first.
[ April 15, 2002, 16:15: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ok, ok, nobody panic, I'm sure if we just reverse the transporter everything will be fine...
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
I love it when people who claim to want less-intrusive government do one of two things.
The first is to want the government to tell people what they can or can't do with their bodies. Today abortion, tomorrow, tatoos. Watch. Isn't this what you're always pissed at the government about? Oh, I see. They can't touch your GUN, but they can touch your body, huh? Hell, everyone buy a gun so when Rob's library troops go marching towards the abortion clinics you can defend yourself from his gestapo.
The second is, that for a group so obsessed with a "1984" government (except when the cronies in office actually abuse their power by the Patriot Act, in which case they turn a deaf ear), they have absolutely 100% faith in the government's ability to prosecute people for crimes, without the possibility that mistakes are made. They generally favor less appeals process in the death penalty cases, and apparently are jealous that inmates have a/c and TV and they're too poor to afford it. Of course, prisoners get ass-raped all the time, but they tend to gloss that over.
Gee, Rob isn't the only one good at changing the subject, is he?
[ April 15, 2002, 16:40: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Balaam:
You speak to a great and wonderful things...things for which I feel pride and that I'm sure that Lincoln was speaking of when he refered to the better angels of our nature. I certainly do not deny the legitimacy of your argument that the United States taken as a whole is among the best things going and that living here gives one the ability to think and post such thoughts.
I just happen to think that on some fundamental levels we grown into a nation that talks a good game and away from one that puts the words of its creed into actual practice.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Tattoos don't KILL anyone!
(unless they get infected, in which case they only kill the tattooed)
quote: they have absolutely 100% faith in the government's ability to prosecute people for crimes, without the possibility that mistakes are made
Whereas Snay has absolutely 100% faith that all the people who are killed in abortion are going to grow up to be Dictators.
quote:They generally favor less appeals process in the death penalty cases
We favor less for yours, you favor none for ours. Who's more draconian? And we can guarantee that 100% of your victims are innocent.
quote:They can't touch your GUN, but they can touch your body, huh?
Oh, that's rich. You'll allow a death to protect a woman's right to her body... but only AFTER she's been raped. God forbid we should actually let her kill the rapist rather than the child.
You'll allow a woman to kill to protect her body (no matter what she's been doing with it in the meantime), but you won't let a person kill to protect their LIFE.
You harp about how a gun's only purpose is to KILL, well what do you think an abortion is intended to do, produce a xylophone? You could only say 'sometimes, abortions save lives...' and the answer is 'yes, and we've established that sometimes guns save lives, too. No point there.'
Face it, you're supporting the biggest death-of-the-innocent industry since... since EVER, and you're calling us 'bad' because we support the death of the guilty!
There's no intrusiveness here... each of us wants to tell the other who they can and cannot murder. The difference is, your stance is hypocritical, while mine is not.
Boiled down:
Your stance: You cannot kill the presumed guilty, becuse they might be innocent. But you can kill the innocent, because they're inconvenient.
Our stance: You can kill the presumed guilty, because they've been judged guilty by the preponderance of the evidence, as the law sees it. You cannot kill the innocent, because they ARE innocent!
A better stance: You can't kill the presumed guilty, unless guilt is positively certain, with no reasonable margin for error. Then you may. You still cannot kill the innocent, because they ARE innocent!
[ April 15, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Woah. This isn't going to end well.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Someone needs to code a random Simon glib comment generator in JavaScript.
Oh, and gentlemen... do pause and ask yourself what on Earth this will achieve.
Posted by Malnurtured Snayer (Member # 411) on :
Rob,
First of all, I commend you for changing the topic since you obviously know your attempt to defend the US's not joining the War Crimes Court would result in your head being bashed into a bloody mess, much resembling a Jackson Polluck painting.
And I don't call you bad because you're anti-choice, Rob, I call you bad because you claim to be AGAINST big government, but are jumping quite happily into bed with them.
You make the half-assed assumption that all women who have abortions do so as a result of being raped. This is not correct.
And, if you'd bothered to do some reading of my post (instead of those assumptions you love SO much), you'd notice I said we should give people guns to protect them from your Big Government policies. Or did you forget The Patriot Act?
Apparently so. Oh, wait, I remember. It's nothing more then a Big Liberal Conspiracy.
Get back on topic (Ze War Crimes Court, and why ze US Is Nicht Joining), or create a new fucking thread, Robert.
quote:what on Earth this will achieve.
Clearly, Rob wants to be able to claim "victory" in this thread. The logic seems to be, "The United States won't enter a world War Crimes Court because abortion is EVIL MURDER WAAAAH!"
[ April 15, 2002, 18:58: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snayer ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
First, I doidn't change the topic. Somebody asked a question/ made a statement, and I answered it. I even quoted it, which you could see if you read the posts.
quote:your attempt to defend the US's not joining the War Crimes Court would result in your head being bashed into a bloody mess, much resembling a Jackson Polluck painting
OOH, you're so civilized, you big hunka man, you!
quote:I call you bad because you claim to be AGAINST big government, but are jumping quite happily into bed with them
No I'm not, you are. I'm for letting the states decide.
quote:You make the half-assed assumption that all women who have abortions do so as a result of being raped. This is not correct.
Of course it's not correct. It's only the most morally justifiable argument that the other side has (in cases of rape/incest/life of the mother).
We already know that the vast majority of abortions are matters of convenience, rather than necessity. Killing for convenience is not morally justifiable, as you rightly assert when someone suggests that killing criminals might be more convenient than housing them.
quote:I said we should give people guns to protect them from your Big Government policies. Or did you forget The Patriot Act?
The Patriot Act... seems to be a partly foolish knee-jerk reaction to an unprecedented crisis, (which, incidentally, passed with more than just the Republicans voting for it) much like certain acts performed by another great American administration during the days after a certain incident in Hawaii about 61 years ago... on the other hand, it's clear that some areas of security DO need to be tightened up.
quote:Clearly, Rob wants to be able to claim "victory" in this thread. The logic seems to be, "The United States won't enter a world War Crimes Court because abortion is EVIL MURDER WAAAAH!"
Clearly, Snay is bleary-eyed, (possibly from lack of sleep, testosterone overload, or overuse of the Jeep on a bumpy road ) or he'd have noticed that my original post consisted of several different replies to several different statement/questions, and not made the australopithicene assumption that I was connecting the "World Court" part of the post with the "how the US today deprives people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part of the post.
[ April 15, 2002, 19:27: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
If you two are finished yelling and threatening to kill one another I have a few questions. Those who are opposed to a world court, your country has signed all kinds of treaties which restrict your soverneignty, throught the GATT treaties other countries are allowed to force you to change your laws. Through NAFTA you can also be focred to get rid of tarrifs, a loss of sovereignty. Through the SALT1&2 you were willing to give up some of your ability to defend yourselves. Why are you afraid to sign a treaty to try and form the starting point of world justice? It surely can't be because you are afraid of frivilous lawsuits? Could it be because your record in the world is a not very good one? Are you afraid all of your meddling will come back to haunt you?
Surely you can see the need to have a permanent place to try to get rid of some of the injustices in the world. We have dictators all over the place, like Hussain that you are trying to get rid of, wouldn't it look better to try him instead of just outright killing him. A fair trail held under the auspices of the UN or world court would take some of the heat off the US in an instance like this.
And one last argument, if you are here then at one point in your Star Trek watching you must have come to the conclusion that one world government is the only way we are going to make it to the stars. This is one of the steps necessary to achieve this.
[ April 15, 2002, 20:36: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:and having this World Court write new international law (which is basically what it would be doing if it made any kind of judgement at all).
You are assuming it would be based on English Common law, It could be based on civil code which has no provision for precedence.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This is certaily one of the silliest turns a thread has taken in recent memory.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I've seen sillier
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
True.
But for so little purpose this time.
[ April 16, 2002, 10:10: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:United States also only freed its slaves in 1865 this was 32 years *after* the rest of the civilised world (or the British Empire as it was then known ) did so.
If you're so civilized, why were you so close to supporting the slaveowning South?
Because the Empire figured that if it weakened the States enough, (because if the South had seceded, that probably would have started a general breakdown) it'd eventually be able to reclaim its former colonies, that's why.
Yes, one of the reasons was that we hoped to weaken the US, however another reason was the unprovoked bording of the Royal Mail packet ship Trent and the seisure of two Confederate representatives. If we had wanted to take back the colonies we would have done in 50 years before in the War of 1812 anyway.
My original comment was supposed to be lighthearted. Guess I should have known better...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yeah.
Listen, I want to apologize for going a ways over the top on this one.
Julie's niece has been having mysterious seizures, and Sunday night I drove Julie to her sister's house to see her. Before she goes to the hospital for MRI and other tests.
Julie's sister is going through a divorce from a man who recently became a real ass (adultery, mean to the kids, and so forth), and he showed up that night out of the blue. There was much shouting and arguing, and I had to absorb the majority of Julie's stress, and be woken up every half-hour by her nightmares which this confrontation triggered.
So I've been displacing. Sorry.
But to answer the question:
quote:We have dictators all over the place, like Hussain that you are trying to get rid of, wouldn't it look better to try him instead of just outright killing him. A fair trail held under the auspices of the UN or world court would take some of the heat off the US in an instance like this.
That would be nice, but... how are you going to get him and bring him to trial? Send him a subpoena? You have to capture the bad guy before you can try him, if you want to have any hope at all of making him stop. Trials in absentia don't mean diddly.
[ April 16, 2002, 12:33: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
To be fair, that depends upon the penalties levied by the court, and the extent of its jurisdiction. In theory, for instance, if such a conviction meant that no state could recognize Hussein or his government, that would have far reaching effects. (Of course, the likelyhood of such a decision being enforced is another matter entirely, but I'm speaking only about the very basic concept.)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Yes, but a Court making decisions without the capacity to enforce them isn't much good, so the means of enforcement should be considered in the decision.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I've just hit my head really badly. I'm basically sitting here waiting to see if I'm going to throw up all over the place or pass out or something, in which case it'll be certain I've got concussion. That's probably why I'm about to say what I'm about to say.
Excuses are like assholes, everyone's got one.
We've just been treated to one of the classic Rob displacement actions. Unable to provide any sort of rational reason why a world court is a bad thing (apart from "everyone will sue the US and we'll have to abide by the verdict as we're the nice guys, whereas some foreign war criminal will be sheltered by his or some other not-so-nice government"), we've seen the thread spiral off into the usual bollocks, guns, abortions, blah blah blah.
Smoke and mirrors, now you see it, now you don't!
Unfortunately everyone's getting wise to this now. So it's time to break the glass and pull out the Emergency Holographic Sympathy Vote. That's right, it's the latest installment of. . . The Perils of Penelope Pitstop!
Rob, I do feel sympathy for what you and Julie are going through. I myself share my life with someone with significant medical problems. The specific nature of these isn't something I want to go into here, for the most part they're in her past but there's no telling how they might affect things in the future.
Even by telling you all that I feel I've said to much. I do not feel that these are things it is appropriate to speak of in public. Does Julie know you've discussed her mental problems and abused past in such detail on a website accessible to anyone? Or that it's been done in a way that has been seen by many people - I'm not naming names, but they have spoken to me about it - as a way to garner sympathy for yourself and to attempt to explain/excuse some of the views you hold?
So, there. Sorry, but that had to be said. You may all now round on me, say how horrid and insensitive I am. Requests for my immediate banning c/o Mr. Timothy S Nix, esq.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No... I've been an ass. I've introduced irrelevancies into the discussion (in my defense, it's hardly like that's anything NEW in any post on this board, and I still say that I WAS legitimately replying to VARIOUS TOPICS).
And I've used Julie and her family problems (yes, though, she knows I've taked about her) to excuse my lack of self-control. (But NEVER my opinions. Not EVER. I still hild them, and I'll still argue over them.
And I've developed, rather unjudiciously, the feeling that the Flameboard has devolved into a "liberal" (to use the term in a loose and generic sense) circle-jerk... and I've, in my own way, sped the decline, by becoming a nasty reactionary.
So I'm going. I don't need this crap, and neither do you.
[ April 16, 2002, 16:31: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I don't know if you will be reading this Rob as your last statement sounded like you are gone for good, but I will write it anyway.
quote:That would be nice, but... how are you going to get him and bring him to trial? Send him a subpoena? You have to capture the bad guy before you can try him, if you want to have any hope at all of making him stop. Trials in absentia don't mean diddly.
Well it seems that we are now trying Serbian leaders in the world court and 5 years ago you could have made the same argument you just made. So you are saying by this post that because there is a lack of a policing force then a court should not be set up. Perhaps it is time for a world army to provide the might behind a world court. Thanks Rob a great segue into that. The point is there should be a body to try these people, the serbians gave up Slobo, to the world to try(one of their own) why could not the US give up Osama if they ever catch him. I mean one of the statements the US made while drumming up an alliance was that "Your people got killed too in the WTC.". So if people of a lot of nations were killed in this act then should it not be that the world should get to try him, as well as the people you have jailed in Camp-Xray. I can hear it now, we were the ones who caught them we should be allowed to try them. Well this argument does not wash either because in your own country the police just catch the bad guys they don't decide where or when they are tried.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, crap. I've done it again, haven't I?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, didn't know where else to put this and I didn't want to start a new thread; it did strike me as being ironic while reading the news.
quote:Peter Hansen, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, accused Israel of blocking relief workers' access to the West Bank. "None of us can remember when we have met with as much indifference when we have protested and asked for co-operation with governments responsible and in charge as we have in this current crisis," he told reporters in Brussels. He said Israel was less responsive to calls for humanitarian access to victims than governments had been in war zones such as Bosnia, Chechnya, Angola and Sudan.
Contrast this with another article (unavailiable online) that says that the number of anti-semitic incidents in Canada has risen to the highest level since World War II...*sigh*
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Contrast this with another article (unavailiable online) that says that the number of anti-semitic incidents in Canada has risen to the highest level since World War II...*sigh*
That is truely unfortunate, I don't like what is going on there but attacking people in your own country will not solve this problem. All it does is futher polarize factions in your country to the point where you become ineffectual to helping a solution come about.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Lee: Well, if you hadn't beaten me to it, I was going to make the same point (though maybe not quite as harshly)...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Harsh is my middle name. Except it's not really.
I'm just concerned. I know how easy it is to subsume one's feelings into this place. Look at Rob's earlier posts in this thread. Well-developed, clearly-presented arguments (considering they're all batshit right-wing bollocks, that is). Then all of a sudden, out of leftfield, comes the stuff about problems at home.
Now, I think there are two ways we could look at such behaviour. Either it's a cynical ploy to gain sympathy, or there's some real problems there which he needs to sort out in his own time. I say we leave him to it, and hope we see him again soon.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) did so. Also, when the people of the south attempted to break away from the US so that they could live their lives the way they wanted, the US brutally crushed them (Please note I am most decidedly against slavery I'm just making the point that the US isn't quite as nice as it's made out to be)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
or he'd have noticed that my original post consisted of several different replies to several different statement/questions, and not made the australopithicene assumption that I was connecting the "World Court" part of the post with the "how the US today deprives people of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" part of the post.