Who is going to stand up to the US this time when it decides to invade Iran ?

purple'n'gold

War crimes are only committed by the loosing side. That’s why Germans and Japanese were tried for war crimes after WW2.

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

Yes I can. That page says that they haven't come to an enforceable agreement on the subject and as such it is not yet an actionable offense under the court. Note the multiple references to draft statutes and possible alternative definitions. I am, however, bemused by the total lack of reference to 'Jus ad Bellum' on that page, (Beyond the reference to the UN Charter which contains a phrase of similar content) which I think is a bit of a concern.

NTM

Wrong again, the ICC has jurisdiction to punish for the crime of aggression, however an agreeable definition for the crime has not been found. The usual parties have been fervently opposed to finding a definition for obvious reasons. In 2002 Bush removed Clinton's signature from the ICC treaty.

It's a crime alright, just one it has been made next or near impossible to convict one of.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

It's a crime alright, just one it has been made next or near impossible to convict one of.

How can anything be a crime if nobody can agree what constitutes such? Is not the requirement that it be something that is against the law? If there's no law on the books to cover it, it can't be a crime. (It may still be actionable under principles like tort, but that's a different issue)

NTM

FYI

Manic Moran wrote:

How can anything be a crime if nobody can agree what constitutes such? Is not the requirement that it be something that is against the law? If there's no law on the books to cover it, it can't be a crime. (It may still be actionable under principles like tort, but that's a different issue)

NTM

It's one of the many contradictions in international law, whereby the people that create the laws, or in this case hinder the application, are unlikely to ever suffer the punishment endowed upon them in the case they commit it.

"However, Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute states that "The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[6] The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC may adopt such a definition at a review conference scheduled for 2009.[7]

A United Nations factsheet on the ICC states:

What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

Manic Moran

Right. So the problem still remains. Nobody knows exactly what constitutes an actionable crime. Everyone has their opinion, but some people have an opinion on cannibalism too.

NTM

CptSternn

The ICC as well as the Geneva Convention also state that the prevailing nation cannot execute the leader of the conquered nation, which America did anyway with Sadaam.

That being said bush removed Clinton's signature - he did the same with the Kyoto treaty.

Funny thing though - the President doesn't have the power or authority to do that - in fact, the American Constitution has specific rules about this, but bush did it anyway.

His party has just enough power right now to keep the democrats from investigating this (and many other dodgy dealings).

bonkey

CptSternn wrote:

The ICC as well as the Geneva Convention also state that the prevailing nation cannot execute the leader of the conquered nation, which America did anyway with Sadaam.

No, they didn't. America did not execute Hussein, nor sentence him for execution.

FYI

bonkey wrote:

No, they didn't. America did not execute Hussein, nor sentence him for execution.

No, their puppet government did.

Manic Moran

CptSternn wrote:

That being said bush removed Clinton's signature - he did the same with the Kyoto treaty.

Funny thing though - the President doesn't have the power or authority to do that - in fact, the American Constitution has specific rules about this, but bush did it anyway.

You will note that Clinton signed shortly before he left office with a recommendation that the US Congress not ratify it until various changes were made. The changes were never made, so under the Bush presidency, the US remained non-participants in the ICC system. Given that a non-ratified signature is not binding, Bush was legally entitled to 'unsign.'

This is a similar situation as the US policy to Kyoto. Though the Clinton administration signed in 1997, they never submitted it to Congress for ratification because they didn't agree with some of the provisions. Bush has also declared a non-intention to submit to Congress until his concerns were addressed.

NTM

Hobbes

dave2pvd wrote:

Not so sure about that.

Despite what you may choose to read/watch, the US does not act en bloc.

On the other hand, sheep and other pastoral livestock, do.

You know I would of believed that some years ago but not now. Even with dissent in the country to the actions against the government is nil.

The speaker of the house has given up trying to stop the Iraq war saying anything they do is nix'ed by Bush.

You have an administration which at this point clearly lied to go to war, one or more committed treason out a CIA agent and Billions of US cash has vanished without trace. In that case I am not even talking about military billing procedures. Literally pallets of billions of hard currency has vanished into Iraq never to be seen again.

Yet these people are still in power.

If you had similar instances in a company that CEO would be in Jail long by now.

Seriously, the US population don't have the balls to stand up to their own government.

moe_sizlak

Hobbes wrote:

You know I would of believed that some years ago but not now. Even with dissent in the country to the actions against the government is nil.

The speaker of the house has given up trying to stop the Iraq war saying anything they do is nix'ed by Bush.

You have an administration which at this point clearly lied to go to war, one or more committed treason out a CIA agent and Billions of US cash has vanished without trace. In that case I am not even talking about military billing procedures. Literally pallets of billions of hard currency has vanished into Iraq never to be seen again.

Yet these people are still in power.

If you had similar instances in a company that CEO would be in Jail long by now.

Seriously, the US population don't have the balls to stand up to their own government.

the u.s population are an incredibly uninformed people by 1st world standards , plus there media are by and large n,sync with what there goverment does

karen3212

Has anyone seen the report from the British think-tank calling the war on terror a disaster. Perhaps the British will be able to stop a war in Iran.

The report's author, Paul Rogers, said: "Every aspect of the war on terror has been counterproductive in Iraq and Afghanistan, from the loss of civilian life through to mass detentions without trial. In short, it has been a disaster. Western countries simply have to face up to the dangerous mistakes of the past six years and recognise the need for new policies."

He warned: "Going to war with Iran will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs - the mistakes already made will be completely overshadowed by the consequences of a war with Iran."

Here's hoping someone will stop it.

karen3212

amen wrote:

As for Israel the USA might help bu Israel always had and always will do its own thing for its own interests.

I'm not sure if anyone else has said so, but I see Israel's government as a US puppet, much as Burmese Junta is a Chinese puppet.

With reference to my post above, I forgot that the US holds a lot of the codes to British nuclear subs.....don't they or am I misremembering. Maybe the British are completely controlled by the US too. Who knows.

OS119

karen3212 wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone else has said so, but I see Israel's government as a US puppet, much as Burmese Junta is a Chinese puppet.

With reference to my post above, I forgot that the US holds a lot of the codes to British nuclear subs.....don't they or am I misremembering. Maybe the British are completely controlled by the US too. Who knows.

the US has no 'go/no go' say over the use or non-use of British submarines and the weapons they carry.

the missiles themselves - the TridentII D5 - are a joint owned 'pool' of several hundred, the UK has the use of about 60 at anyone time. the warheads and guidence system however are soley owned by the UK and were manufactured in the UK - the US doesn't get near them.

the US can do things to interupt UK military operations - turn off the GPS system and shut down their own Communications Satellites - but the UK strategic weapons control system contains a number of redundancies which mean that such action would have little effect on the ability of the UK to decide to launch, target the weapons and then launch them.

purple'n'gold

karen3212 wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone else has said so, but I see Israel's government as a US puppet, much as Burmese Junta is a Chinese puppet.

With reference to my post above, I forgot that the US holds a lot of the codes to British nuclear subs.....don't they or am I misremembering. Maybe the British are completely controlled by the US too. Who knows.

Israel is a mere puppet of the USA. Israel would have ceased to exist in 1973 if not for the USA, Anyway, the US tax payer pays for their military, Israel could not possibly pay for it from their own resources. And, as we all know, whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

Kev_85

I think the world should unite against the US. It is the greatest threat the world faces. If there is a war, I will be shouting for Iran!

Kev_85

purplengold wrote:

Israel is a mere puppet of the USA. Israel would have ceased to exist in 1973 if not for the USA, Anyway, the US tax payer pays for their military, Israel could not possibly pay for it from their own resources. And, as we all know, whoever pays the piper calls the tune.

I think its the other way around, the US is the puppit of Israel. The Jews control the most powerful army in the world.

Rob_l

moe_sizlak wrote:

the u.s population are an incredibly uninformed people by 1st world standards , plus there media are by and large n,sync with what there goverment does

Indeed where as people in arab countries are well informed by their governments

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you know who invaded poland?

that's right, the jews.

Rob_l

Mordeth wrote:

you know who invaded poland?

that's right, the jews.

yes they invaded it in those german trains!

Rob_l

Kev_85 wrote:

I think its the other way around, the US is the puppit of Israel. The Jews control the most powerful army in the world.

Sure they do its always been a jewish conspiracy hitler was right all along:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kev_85

Rob_l wrote:

Sure they do its always been a jewish conspiracy hitler was right all along:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Less than 1 in 60 is Jewish in the US yet they have so much power.

purple'n'gold

Kev_85 wrote:

Less than 1 in 60 is Jewish in the US yet they have so much power.

It’s because they have so much money, money = power. Especially in the USA.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Kev_85

purplengold wrote:

It’s because they have so much money, money = power. Especially in the USA.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Very Interesting. It really is criminal giving Israel billions in 'Aid', when it is such a wealthy country and others are starving. Really shows the grip of the jew on the US.

djpbarry

Kev_85 wrote:

Really shows the grip of the jew on the US.

Enough of the anti-semitism please :rolleyes: .

Manic Moran

OS119 wrote:

the US has no 'go/no go' say over the use or non-use of British submarines and the weapons they carry.

I've heard that before, and still have not seen anything to back this concept up.

NTM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

isn't that only the nuclear weapons on that trident ?

moe_sizlak

karen3212 wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone else has said so, but I see Israel's government as a US puppet, much as Burmese Junta is a Chinese puppet.

With reference to my post above, I forgot that the US holds a lot of the codes to British nuclear subs.....don't they or am I misremembering. Maybe the British are completely controlled by the US too. Who knows.

you have it back to front , the usa is in many ways a puppett of israel
the israely lobbys influence in washington is all encompassing , to criticise israel if you are a politician in the usa is the same as sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger
no presidential candidate can hope to get elected without 1st of all assuring israel of there support as shown by barrack obamas recent comments
while this current administration has been supportive of absolutly everything israel has done in the past 6 yrs , do not expect things to change that much should a democrat get elected next time
while the really hawkish israelis vote republican , most jews in the usa vote democrat

moe_sizlak

Rob_l wrote:

Indeed where as people in arab countries are well informed by their governments

i said by 1st world country standards

purple'n'gold

moe_sizlak wrote:

you have it back to front , the usa is in many ways a puppett of israel
the israely lobbys influence in washington is all encompassing , to criticise israel if you are a politician in the usa is the same as sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger
no presidential candidate can hope to get elected without 1st of all assuring israel of there support as shown by barrack obamas recent comments
while this current administration has been supportive of absolutly everything israel has done in the past 6 yrs , do not expect things to change that much should a democrat get elected next time
while the really hawkish israelis vote republican , most jews in the usa vote democrat

If what you say is true, and the USA dances to the Israeli tune and that the USA is a puppet of Israel, why is this? Why are Jews so influential in the USA?