Ailwon

"I'd rank Britain up there as one of the worst"

Halo, I'm sorry you don't like your country...it's very sad that you live in place you don't like. That does not give you the right to piss and moan and insult people that actually do love their country. I am grateful to live in this country. Is it perfect? No way far from it.

"Drive-through with another completely useless perspective on how we think."

Who is the "we" in this statement? After this retort...I really question that you think at all before you post.

Baloghdarogue

You're right, I think you described it a bit better then I did.
He does not have to do it, but he has the right to do so.
It's at his discretion.
The reason why I gave this example is the timing and the attitude of the US government.
They refused to sign the agreement (the only NATO power to do so) and as a reply they passed this law.
Off course the president does not have to attack, but that’s really besides the point I am trying to make.
The point I tried to make was that the moment something happened they did not like want and agree with they responded with a threatening law.
The court is intended to prosecute war criminals that have committed crimes against humanity, nothing more.
We are not talking about killing a few innocent people.
We are talking about people that commit genocide.

I have to disagree on this point.
The court is not meant to meddle in conflicts when they are going on.
When north-Korea would be so foolish as to attack South-Korea, there will be an international sanction that will entitle the USA and there ally's to attack North-Korea.
Off course North-Korea can bring charges up against the US general, but do you really believe that the court would ask for the general to be shipped of to The-Hague?
Really I don't think so, especially since the North-Koreans are the aggressors in you're example.
The primary targets of the court are the tyrants/dictators and mass murderers. Not the Generals that defend themselves against an attack.
The court only acts after the incident not during and only for the really serious issues.
Then again if this US general would decide to round up all women and children, put them in a stadium and bomb the hell out of them while on a live broadcast made by CNN, well I think he should be taken off his duty immediately.
But that’s hypothetical, I am 100% sure no US general would do something even remotely like that.
But then again so is you're example.

I am actually much more worried what will happen with Sadam Hussein. The UK, The Netherlands and the Australians signed the agreement.
The big question is where he will be trialled and convicted?
The obvious place is off course the international court of law in The-Hague.
But the question is will the USA allow this and if so will they attack the Netherlands to free him and get him to the USA if this situation arises.

Well actually, what we did was give him extensive plastic surgery.
After that we gave him a new identity and nationality and shipped him off to his new home country.
He now lives in the USA, works in Washington in some big white place and his initials are G.W.B.
It's either that or he serves a live sentence in the Scheveningen jail-house.
It's just what you wanne believe.

Gulor Gularin

The Netherlands are safe from any attack by the US to "free" Saddam Hussein. For one, he is not an American citizen and so is not covered under the law you mentioned. Secondly to do so would pretty much destroy NATO and Saddam is not worth that much damage.

The appropriate venue for his eventual trial would be in Iraq. He should be tried by the people he has oppressed, murdered and stolen from. If Iraq is unable to bring him to trial for some reason, then the Hague would be an appropriate venue.

As far as the intended use of the world court, I fully agree with you. Unfortunately, the way the treaty was set up it could easily be misused by political opponents of the US to harrass and disrupt US military operations in exactly the way I described. If not the North Koreans, certainly leftist oriented groups hostile to US policy in general would happily take the opportunity to screw with the US. They have already tried on a couple of occasions during the NATO intervention of Bosnia without success I believe. The court would have to entertain charges regardless of who brought them and the US would have to abide by the subpeona if it were to sign the treaty.

Taino

Ailwon, that was one of the very best posts I have ever read from a "proud american" on these forums.
You have brought your point across, didn't insult anyone, you agreed with "us" on certain things and yet you described why you are a proud american. I may sound silly but posts like yours help me very much to understand your culture, to see that not everyone in your country is an arrogant asshole (I never thought that, but you have proven it once again) and that. for gods sake, we all can agree and discuss with eachother on a normal level.

I'm feeling stupid for having to thank a person that makes a good post, but its really needed around here.
10 plus points for Ailwon!

aesahaetr

H.y.p.o.c.r.i.t.e.