Guest Nanks Posted March 12, 2003 Report Posted March 12, 2003 If the UN doesn't give their approval on the declaration of war and Bush goes ahead anyway, he will then be in direct breach of International Law. Will this see Dubya arrested as a war criminal?? I'm not hypothesising here, I'm really wondering if this would be the case. I know the first bit is right, but would the President of the United States end up answering to the International Court in The Hague??? Wouldn't that be one for the books
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Posted March 12, 2003 Report Posted March 12, 2003 Probably -- there will be some vote taken by Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others convicting him of war crimes. Whoppe...
Guest BobbyWhioux Posted March 12, 2003 Report Posted March 12, 2003 We'd probably just no-sell the international court, like we've done with Kissinger. They'll clamor for him, and we'll refuse to give him up.
Guest teke184 Posted March 12, 2003 Report Posted March 12, 2003 I almost guarantee that we'd no-sell it. IIRC, several of the conferences and/or agreements Bush pulled out of which pissed people off so much were because the World Court demanded that we agree to extradite anyone they accuse, no questions asked. I think that people are forgetting that the object of war is to win... although you should tend to follow certain rules like "No mass executions of civilians." The problem is that a madman like Saddam has few problems with manipulating conditions to maximize civilian casualties should anyone try to get them. Example- Saddam could have his bunker underneath an apartment building in downtown Baghdad, which would keep us from bombing it, as well as using people from that building as shields if we ever take it by force. At least he's been unbelievably stupid in some of his attempts so far... anyone remember the munitions factory we bombed where he painted "Baby milk factory" on the side of it in English?
Guest RepoMan Posted March 13, 2003 Report Posted March 13, 2003 ... anyone remember the munitions factory we bombed where he painted "Baby milk factory" on the side of it in English? It actually was a baby milk plant. He was just too stupid and tried to oversell it with the baby milk plant sign for propraganda reasons.
Rob E Dangerously Posted March 13, 2003 Report Posted March 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein really sucks at public relations [/obvious]
Guest DrTom Posted March 13, 2003 Report Posted March 13, 2003 If the UN doesn't give their approval on the declaration of war and Bush goes ahead anyway, he will then be in direct breach of International Law. Will this see Dubya arrested as a war criminal?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, sorry. You're serious, aren't you? America is the lone superpower in the world. We don't need the UN's permission to take care of our own. We practically are the UN. If the resolution is vetoed and we go to war anyway, then the UN will be exposed as an irrelevant farce before the world. Precisely what would they, or the World Court, or anyone like that, do about it? I really hate to sound so jingoistic, but that's a legit question: what would they do about it? What COULD they do about it?
Guest HungryJack Posted March 13, 2003 Report Posted March 13, 2003 Considering that the World Court's decisions aren't binding, and that they have no way to enforce them, I'd say Bush is pretty well in the clear. That said, I suppot the war on Iraq. Or rather that is to say, I couldn't give a flying fuck about Iraq or the whole Middle East in general, and whoever supported those terrorists should have thought twice about strring the American hornet's nest.
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Posted March 14, 2003 Report Posted March 14, 2003 The Hague is a showroom for the USA and Europe to publicly condemn the morons they have beaten, as if convicting them in a court of law makes it more official or something. No leader of any NATO country will ever end up in the Hague, during their term in office at least. It's for guys like Slobo, Sadaam, Al Queda morons, etc.
Guest MrRant Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 The US should just leave the UN and let them try and solve their own problems. Fuck them. Remove all monetary support. Watch them clamor for money for all their "peace" missions. Let the world realize how vastly important this country is to the world.
Guest SP-1 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 The US should just leave the UN and let them try and solve their own problems. Fuck them. Remove all monetary support. Watch them clamor for money for all their "peace" missions. Let the world realize how vastly important this country is to the world. Agreed, for the most part. Like I've said in other threads: Sooner or later somebody is going to screw with France and they'll need help. I hope whomever our President is at the time reminds them of this whole Iraq thing. Eventually I know we'll probably help them out.
Guest JMA Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Like I've said in other threads: Sooner or later somebody is going to screw with France and they'll need help. I hope whomever our President is at the time reminds them of this whole Iraq thing. Eventually I know we'll probably help them out. And I hope someday when the US needs France's help it reminds them of the less than clever jokes and immature behavior (freedom fries?).
Guest bob_barron Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I have a feeling we will never need France's help
Guest JMA Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I have a feeling we will never need France's help Never? I doupt that. I expect it will even happen in my lifetime.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Like I've said in other threads: Sooner or later somebody is going to screw with France and they'll need help. I hope whomever our President is at the time reminds them of this whole Iraq thing. Eventually I know we'll probably help them out. Have you guys forgotten that France is fully equipped with nuclear weapons? Given that France has a deterrent to any immediate threat against its country and no longer has the desire for any overseas conflicts, I'm at a loss as to how such a situation could arise where France would need US help. Now that the Yugoslavia problem is gone, what possible problem could France face that would require them to plead for help?
Guest SP-1 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Anything can develop. You never know what will happen in the world, man. Especially not in war and politics. We didn't expect such opposition from our "allies" and look at what's going on now. France may have Nukes but that doesn't mean they're stupid enough to nuke the first opposing force that comes at them. Not even we'd do that.
Guest Vyce Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I have a feeling we will never need France's help Never? I doupt that. I expect it will even happen in my lifetime. As part of some form of coalition, perhaps. But will we ever live or die, win or lose a war based upon French military aid? Ha ha, don't make me laugh.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I wouldn't be too sure of that. As a native European, it seems to me that there is a flipside to Europe's supposed pacifism. Nationalism in European countries may be less evident then it is in America, but when it is roused it is roused in a far more powerful and violent fashion. During the Falklands war Britain was close to nuking Argentina. Surprisingly as it may seem, anti-Muslim sentiment is very high in France. I honestly believe that had 9/11 happened to Britain or France you would have seen a far more violent reaction than the one in the US. Edit - this is for Spiderpoet, sorry.
Guest SP-1 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Indeed. I sincerely hope that nothing like that happens for more reasons than the, of course, it was a horrible event that should happen to no country reason.
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Anything can develop. You never know what will happen in the world, man. Especially not in war and politics. We didn't expect such opposition from our "allies" and look at what's going on now. France may have Nukes but that doesn't mean they're stupid enough to nuke the first opposing force that comes at them. Not even we'd do that. No, but I think the point is, were France in trouble, they would say to their allies "help us, or we are going to start using nukes on the enemy" at which point they would get whatever help they wanted, past spats and disagreements be damned.
Guest SP-1 Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Anything can develop. You never know what will happen in the world, man. Especially not in war and politics. We didn't expect such opposition from our "allies" and look at what's going on now. France may have Nukes but that doesn't mean they're stupid enough to nuke the first opposing force that comes at them. Not even we'd do that. No, but I think the point is, were France in trouble, they would say to their allies "help us, or we are going to start using nukes on the enemy" at which point they would get whatever help they wanted, past spats and disagreements be damned. True enough.
Guest Mystery Eskimo Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I honestly believe that had 9/11 happened to Britain or France you would have seen a far more violent reaction than the one in the US. Not Britain. Blair was the one convincing Bush not to immediately detonate the whole of Afghanistan.
Guest Hogan Made Wrestling Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 Just for some pespective: the UN veto power has been used an upwards of 275 times, mostly by Russia, with the USA in 2nd (distant 2nd) and all the other a little bit back from them. The overreacting this one time has gotten a bit out of hand.
Guest The Hamburglar Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I honestly believe that had 9/11 happened to Britain or France you would have seen a far more violent reaction than the one in the US. Not Britain. Blair was the one convincing Bush not to immediately detonate the whole of Afghanistan. Blair was able to do so because the UK had not been hit. Had, say, Big Ben or Canary Wharf been destroyed Blair would have been under immense public pressure to retaliate. More worryingly, I have absolutely no doubt the ethnic Asian population would have come under far greater attack then it was in the US.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted March 16, 2003 Report Posted March 16, 2003 I have no doubt that the moment France needs assistance militarily the US would be the first country to step up to the plate. It might not be what people want, but the U.S. doesn't turn it's back on an allies in it's greatest time of need. No matter how much problems there causing right know.
Guest TheMikeSC Posted March 17, 2003 Report Posted March 17, 2003 Like I've said in other threads: Sooner or later somebody is going to screw with France and they'll need help. I hope whomever our President is at the time reminds them of this whole Iraq thing. Eventually I know we'll probably help them out. And I hope someday when the US needs France's help it reminds them of the less than clever jokes and immature behavior (freedom fries?). If we ever need France's help, it's probably too late, anyway. -=Mike
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now