inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

[Marimba]

A lot of Latinoamerican countrys rejected a petition from de USA, for inmmunity for his Soldiers.
the reaction?
this Latinoamerican countrys will stop receiving resources for education, military capacitacion, etc. so, this is the way to fight terrorism? ja!
inmmunity for soldiers? JA! so if a soldier kills a kid? he?s innocent? ja! Fuck off!!

[Yao]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Same thing with the international court of justice in the hague. They bailed out on that one, too.
Anyone can be tried and convicted there, like Milosevic who's put to the stand now, but no US citizens.

Cheap

[Jenks]

that's because we're not committing any crimes. :P

if the international community wants to try Bush for something, tell ya what, come and get him.

[davetlv]

There's a very good reason why the USA, as well as my country Israel, did not sign the accords that allows its citizens to be tried in the International Court of Justice, simply put, the said court can not be trusted to be fair and unbiased when it comes to certain countries.

Its seems that this centuries favourite past time is bashing the USA for simply having the balls many other countries do not have. The International Court has shown only recently that its judgements are political and not just legal. Why should the USA (or Israel) trust it!

As for other courts putting on trial soldiers of other countries for simply following their direct orders, well this is a ludicrus state of affairs, if you dont like the actions of the soldier, take it out on those who ultimately (well in democracies anyway) give the orders, the politicians.

[Jenks]

Its seems that this centuries favourite past time is bashing the USA for simply having the balls many other countries do not have. The International Court has shown only recently that its judgements are political and not just legal. Why should the USA (or Israel) trust it!

[krelm]

As for other courts putting on trial soldiers of other countries for simply following their direct orders, well this is a ludicrus state of affairs, if you dont like the actions of the soldier, take it out on those who ultimately (well in democracies anyway) give the orders, the politicians.

Why should a soldier not be held responsible for their actions just because they were ordered to do them?

Even the lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong - when it comes to issues which are serious enough to be considered for war crimes. I don't think the people who order them to take immoral actions should get off the hook in the least, but I do feel that responsibility for actions should be held by all in the chain of command - from the person who was "ordered" to carry them out to the officer who ordered it, to the politicians who encourage and allow the environment whereby such things occur.

Do all military systems create an environment where the ones taking orders live in a vacuum devoid of ethical evaluation and are simply robots who are expected to follow orders?

[davetlv]

Why should a soldier not be held responsible for their actions just because they were ordered to do them?

Even the lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong - when it comes to issues which are serious enough to be considered for war crimes. I don't think the people who order them to take immoral actions should get off the hook in the least, but I do feel that responsibility for actions should be held by all in the chain of command - from the person who was "ordered" to carry them out to the officer who ordered it, to the politicians who encourage and allow the environment whereby such things occur.

Do all military systems create an environment where the ones taking orders live in a vacuum devoid of ethical evaluation and are simply robots who are expected to follow orders?

Krelm, when you live in a world which uses military power to carry out political might, then its the politicians who should be held responsible. Whether the "lowliest foot soldier should have the moral capability to know the difference between right and wrong" is not the arguement. When you sign up, either out of choice or through conscription, you agree to take the orders of your superiors, thats the nature of being in uniform. Should a soldier behave in a way which is incompatable with wearing their unifrom, then it should be up their superiors to take action against them.

In an ideal world not only would we not require armed forces but we would be living in a world without borders, but we dont live in an ideal world.

But that wasn't my point. My point was about the political nature of the so-called International Court,

Let me try to explain it a different way. Had my family not left Israel when i was a child, i would no doubt been conscripted into the army in 1986, which would have meant that the majority of my national service sould have been carried out during the first intifada. Let's say that i was in a fighting unit, and during an incursion into a terrorist camp my unit were bombarded by home made molotov cocktails and other such devices. It would be in my nature to fire indiscrimently to try and enure that my comrades and myself got out in one piece. Now lets say one of my bullets hit a 16 yo youth who was trowing a molotov. Simple. No arguement there. I was defending myself and my comrades.

Now lets move forward 15 years, the boys family has brought a case against me to the International Court. You would think that i would have no case to answer, unless you take into account the highly politicised nature of that court. A court that ignores a terrorist uprising, including the murder of innocent civillians, and only looks at a political occupation. Would i get a fair trial? Of course not.

This same arguement can and should be used not just for the International Court but also by natioanl courts.

Just my personal thought mind!

[Yao]

that's because we're not committing any crimes. :P

if the international community wants to try Bush for something, tell ya what, come and get him.

Yeah...well.....maybe I just will..!! Cuz Superman is my best friend! And he'll help me. Rite? Sup?

[Yao]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Oh, and by the way: I recollect reading somewhere that any soldier may refuse an order on moral grounds. And Even if such an order is given and executed, it is everyone in that chain of command from top to bottom that is responsible in my opinion.

DaveTLV, that case about you killing the 16-yr old boy is too hypothetical to be applicable here imo, and anywayz, I really see that you're identifying yourself with the USA, while lving in Israel. I wasn't talking about the latter, although it could very well become subject in a law suit someday, but so can the Palestinian Authorities.

I agree on your stand that a country should try and convict it's own soldiers, but that stimulates partiality. The International Court was founded to provide an impartial Court of Justice in International affairs. I'm not sure wether it really works like that, time will have to tell.

[dohturdima]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

IMHO, the international court of justice is just a big fat farce. Its decisions are not binding, 'cause it's biased

[davetlv]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

DaveTLV, that case about you killing the 16-yr old boy is too hypothetical to be applicable here imo, and anywayz, I really see that you're identifying yourself with the USA, while lving in Israel. I wasn't talking about the latter, although it could very well become subject in a law suit someday, but so can the Palestinian Authorities.

I agree on your stand that a country should try and convict it's own soldiers, but that stimulates partiality. The International Court was founded to provide an impartial Court of Justice in International affairs. I'm not sure wether it really works like that, time will have to tell.

Having lived in the UK for 34 years it has never been said about me that i've ever identified with the US. What my experience has shown me living here, and coming backwards and forwards most of my adult life, is the fact that, like Israel, the US is now in a no win situation. They have the balls to follow through on Iraq after far too many security council resolutions against Sadaam, and all of a sudden everyone is against them. The hypocrasy of the political elite of this planet is insane. With such hypocrasy, no one other then the US is abe to judge its own soldiers.

Also, there is a great difference between how something was founded and how it opperates today. The international court is the last place on this beautiful planet of ours that can be called impartial.

[neur0t0xin64]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

All I can say is thank god for guys like davetlv and jenks!!! Dave i truly respect your comments and i agree with you 100%. Jenks I have seen your posts all over the political forums and also truly appreciate your blunt patriotism and pride for the United States. Funny to me though is why others cant see the current situation for what it really is. The truth is the US has been a beacon of freedom and hope for the entire world to model itself from. The us has freed literally billions of people in the short history of our country. It is the number one benefactor of financial aid in the entire world, with no other country coming even close to the amount of money America spends on aid. We have shown the world how democracy and capitalism can be the two ingredients of a nations political and economic strength. Look at our 2 greatest allies, the UK and Israel! Two of the strongest economies in the world from yes you guessed it, capitalism. So it should be no suprise then that the US would promote these fundamental ingredients for a nations success across the globe. Fact is if everyone can remember back to right after Sept 11 Bush had and 88% approval rating, more so than any other president in history. The civilized western world was saying lets go get him, sign me up for the military, we cant wait a single moment for these guys to strike again. So we liberated afghanistan(which by the way just had millions of citizens show up to vote for thier leaders in a free democtratic election-thanks to the United States), and then we rid Iraq of one of the most gruesome tyrants the world has ever seen. And now we are committed to rebuilding Iraq after again liberating milions of citizens and setting the stage for a free democratic government. We as a world have seen that terrorists are not partial only to the United States. Think back to the night club bombing in Bali, the Madrid train attacks, Tanzania, Phillipines, etc. These people attack our ideology. And now as we have entered a new era in time and as the United States has adopted a leading role in combating the war on terror, we still have trouble finding sympathizers??!! President Bush has said numerous times "We will not allow these critical issues to be a problem for a president 8 years from now, and we will never back down to the face of terror, certainly not on my watch" He said in 2001 after, as davetlv stated, Iraq violated 18 UN sanctions and kicked out UN nuclear weapons inspectors numerous times, that now they have awoken a sleeping giant! And thats why now the Bush Administration has taken a proactive offensive position in seeking out terrorists where they lay their heads, and taking the fight to them, so that they cannot attack us on our own soil. A great example of how this offensive position is continuing to secure the safety of Americans is the arrest a few days ago of two muslims at a mosque in Albany, NY taking part in the purchase of a shoulder fired rocket launcher to be used to shoot down US planes on American soil. The intelligence that gave us these two came from a Al Queda computer engineers laptop who was arrested in Pakistan. Again, a proactive military offensive! The point of the story, so I dont get too far off topic, is if in the midst of executing our agenda of national security and attempting to stabilize the middle east through democracy civilians are killed by mistake...well NO international court is going to be making any decisions whatsoever about the fate of our boys.

Again davetlv and jenks....you guys rock.

[Yao]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Neuro,

I agree with you about the fact that Dave and Jenks have good comments, and I for myself could say that I like having a discussion with them, BUT...

Do you drink your everyday-portion of patriottism or what? I live in Europe, I criticize the US, but also Europe, and my own government, too. I don't take one side, I try to weigh all the arguments for or against something at my disposal and then try to formulate an opinion.
A beacon of freedom and hope...I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but I think the US is a place where people's freedoms are subject to many pressure groups which all want to have the people in general lving to their standards. How the fuck can Bush try to get a constitutional change to prevent gay marriage?? In doing this, he proves that he doesn't see himself in service to the people, but thinks he knows what is best for everyone. How can one man decide what's good and what is not?
And at this moment, I think the US is too much subject to people of mostly Christian belief that want to impose their norms and values on the rest of the country. As an atheist, that scares me; nobody should be able to tell me what to do on grounds of a BELIEF. That is irrational.

You say the US is the number one aid benefactor of the world: in absolute terms, maybe. But more than 50% of your aid consists of military equipment, not financial resources or (technical) knowledge to strengthen economies. The Netherlands pay up to 0.81% of GDP to aid, the US no more than 0.14%. So per capita we pay a lot more than you. You may pay the most in absolute terms, but we have a bigger financial burden per capita to carry here...European countries may not be the first ones to support military action, but they are generally (not always) accepted more because they advocate long-term development. I?m not saying it?s perfect, but slow changes are more permanent than radical changes, like bringing democracy to a country in one year that doesn?t have a history of democracy. How the fuck are you going to change a political attitude in one year, while we took about 700 years to come this far?
Military intervention should only be used in cases like Darfur, Sudan, in which case I would like the UN to support the US. I think so far Powell is doing a better job on that than Kofi Annan, whom I?ve started to see as a cowardly politician.
But I really, REALLY don?t see what a regime change has to do with finding terorrists: the terorrists hide amongst the people, and what is happening now is that an entire country gets generalized as being a terrorist state, while maybe 99,99% of the people don?t wanna have anything to do with them!
You don?t fool me, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and there?s one simple reason why I?m convinced about that: they didn?t help the man in any way after he had to run. If they had, it could?ve been a great psychological advantage, the US not being able to find Saddam. But they left him to die out there (or get captured).
What you are doing is: first you invade a country and ?liberate? it, and then you start looking for terrorrists...huh? And then you install a democracy now that you?re at it.
Maybe, just maybe, it would be better to strenghten an economy and the institutions before installing a democracy, because that is in most cases the reason for it?s failure: state-controlling and executing institutions just aren?t strong enough to keep a firm grip on the government. As for a gruesome dictator gotten rid of: good thing! Care to take on the other dozens that are still left out there, too? I?d be grateful. Kick out Mugabe, Nguema, and the likes in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe/Southern Russia.


You advocate capitalism, I don?t. Capitalism is what sucks Africa dry at the moment (Yes, I?m an Afrophile), as well as Latin-America and Southeast Asia. Capitalims only works as long as there is economical inequality, which makes it possible to grow for one side at the cost of the other. Growing always takes place at a cost, be it food, money, labour, natural resources.
America and Europe thrive on natural resources taken from the aforementioned areas, and we have an interest in keeping it that way. Imagine what would happen if those countries would stop exporting their oil or minerals, and started actively to build up their self-supplying industries...it?s possible you know, but they?re still going for the easy money by exporting all their goods instead of making long-term investments that could eventually lead to a strong industry.

Political influence goes with economical influence, and that my very well be the core issue here imho.

Ps: Don?t take this personal, I?m just someone trying to make people aware that there?s more sides to all these stories. I hate narrow-mindedness, only looking and judging from your own cultural/political background. We need understanding, respect and logic to get real results, not blunt violence or economical force.

[neur0t0xin64]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Yao, nothing to take personal here so no worries. I respect your opinion, and you make a few good points.(ok maybe just like one or two) I too am an atheist and I dont feel that because bush proposed a bill to stop gay marriage has as much to do with religion as you say. Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, and an overwhelming percentage of the population is against it too. Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.

Point 2. Im not sure I completely understand your position on economics but I feel you leaning towards socialism. Most of what you said exists in a perfect world(or maybe in your own perfect world) but the rest of us live in a real world, and you might want to spend your tax money that you've earned to support govt funded programs for people who sit at home and make babies without a father and dont work, use your tax money to buy drugs, and who spend much of their lives in and out of prison. Now, I believe that every person is entitled to some sort of healthcare. But me(the capitalist that I am) want to be able to benefit from my hard work, and dont feel that I should be supporting people who are simply looking for a hand out. Furthermore, your comments about Saddam and Iraq and combating terrorism are shocking! Cant even comment. Yao your a good guy and I respect your views, but wise up!

[Jenks]

Re:: inmmunity for USA soldiers? JA!

Fact is just about every state in the US is now on board with the bill, ...


...Come on now Yao, were talking about the union between a man and a woman, a tradition that a man and a woman can be proud of. If we start letting fags marry, whats next? Polygomy having numerous wifes, or maybe a man can marry his favorite goat. Point is Yao, if you allow fags to marry you open the door to a corrosive and pervasive society. Point 1.

The bill lost by more than two thirds in Missouri. :? Fucking sad people still live in caves.

"What happens when we start letting fags :? marry?"

How about a progression of our society? Who fucking cares, really, if gays want to marry? It's not going to ruin any kind of tradition when i marry a woman. In fact, when i get married, the last thing i'm going to be worried about is gay people, and if they're married or not. Who actually thinks about shit like this and lets it bother them? I'll tell you who...the Christian right. I thought you were atheist?

"A Corrosive and pervsive society?"

haha, really, what's not already corrosive about it? Just let people live and make chioces, jeez.

"Then a man will marry his goat?"]

How many people have wanted to marry an animal? I'm guessing the number is pretty slim, except in canada. If there's some freaking weirdo out there that wants to bang his goat behind his closed door, while still paying taxes and contributing to society...then let the fucking weirdo bang his goat in peace for all i care.

This primitive thinking by the christian right against gays is one of the things that makes it tough to vote republican, even though i still do. Give the people a break for fucks sake, and lets move on.

While i found some of your other points in other threads quality, point 1 above pretty much sucks neruo. But you are entitled to your opinion.

Cheers.

(and i realize there has been a serious thread hijack from topic here in the last few posts, oops.)