Bring Our Peacekeepers Home...

Lost Cause

It's a wrap!
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
30,949
And let the fucking world take care of itself. Imagine a nation of warlords represented on the court that can abduct our soldiers for defending themselves in a hostile situation! Fuck the bastards let 'em all burn in their own countries!

WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 — The Bush administration, still wary of the new International Criminal Court, is trying to line up nations one by one to pledge not to extradite Americans for trial, administration officials said today.So far, the administration has signed agreements with Romania and Israel.
Both countries have agreed that they will not send American peacekeepers or other personnel to the court, whose purpose is to prosecute individuals for war crimes and genocide when national governments refuse to act.

After months of American lobbying, the United Nations Security Council agreed last month to give American peacekeepers a year's exemption from prosecution by the court. But the administration, concerned that American soldiers serving on peacekeeping missions would be unfairly made targets of prosecution, had wanted blanket immunity that would be automatically renewed each year.

Worried about what could happen when the year's exemption expires, John R. Bolton, the under secretary for arms contol and international security, is leading the effort to enlist as many nations as possible to support exempting Americans from extradition, said Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman.

"We'll be working with a number of countries to conclude similar agreements, a large number of countries, and we very much appreciate the fact that Romania was the first of those countries to do this," Mr. Reeker said. The bilateral arrangements, Mr. Reeker added, "give us the safeguards we were seeking."

A State Department official said Italy was among the nations the United States would approach next. The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is eager to improve relations with the United States.

President Bill Clinton signed the treaty that established the court in 2000, but he did not send it to the Senate for ratification. In May, President Bush revoked that signature.

Human rights groups decried the administration's strategy, saying it undermined the court, which began operation last month after receiving the necessary ratifications from nations around the world. Seventy-seven countries have ratified their membership in the court, not including the United States.

"It's outrageous," said Alex Arriaga, director of government relations for Amnesty International U.S.A. "The U.S. should be championing justice. It shouldn't be running it down."

The Bush administration strongly opposes the court on the grounds that it could subject American personnel to politically motivated prosecutions abroad. More than 9,000 American peacekeepers are now stationed in nine countries overseas.

The court closes a gap in international law as the first permanent tribunal dedicated to trying individuals responsible for the most horrific crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity. Ad hoc tribunals with limited jurisdictions are addressing the war in the Balkans and genocide in Rwanda.

No United Nations peacekeeper has been tried for war crimes under the existing tribunals.

Last month, the administration tried and failed to persuade other countries at the United Nations, including its European allies, that American forces deserve blanket immunity because of their large numbers and the view that they comprise a significant political target.

In a series of tense negotiations, the United States then threatened to veto authorization in the Security Council for United Nations peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Croatia, unless its concerns over immunity were addressed. The compromise was the one-year exemption, and the missions were renewed.

Mr. Reeker, the State Department spokesman, said the administration then sought a more durable solution. With the private encouragement of European allies, he said, American officials decided to make use of a provision within the treaty known as Article 98, which lets nations negotiate immunity for their forces on a bilateral basis.

"A lot of the allies said, `Use this Article 98 statute to take care of your concerns,' " Mr. Reeker said. He declined to elaborate.

On Aug. 1, Romania became the first country to pledge not to extradite American troops. Mr. Bolton signed the agreement in Bucharest with the acting foreign minister, Cristian Diaconescu.

Mr. Bolton, who insists that the administration is not trying to weaken the court, said the United States was determined to take effective action against war crimes.

"We respect the states that have acceded to their own statute creating the international criminal court," he said at a news conference in Jerusalem on Sunday. "We hope they respect our decision not to accede to that. We hope they respect our decision to avail ourselves of the procedure made available by their own statute to prevent our respective nationals from falling into the potentially highly politicized jurisdiction of that court."

Sorin Ducaru, the Romanian ambassador to Washington, said the accord was "a natural extension" of the status of forces agreement, which was signed last year and governs the treatment of American forces in that country.

Although Romania supports the court and has ratified its membership in it, Mr. Ducaru said his country sympathizes with the American concerns.

He said the Romanian government received nothing in return for the agreement. A decision is expected this fall on Romania's request to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but Mr. Ducaru said the agreement with Washington was not related.

On Sunday, Israel became the second nation to a accept a no-extradition pledge. Unlike the arrangement with Romania, the agreement with Israel was a two-way pact not to send each other's citizens before the court, diplomats said.

Rafael Barak, the deputy chief of mission at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said his country shared American concerns, fearing that its troops could be tried for actions taken against Palestinians.

"We are in the same position as the U.S.," Mr. Barak said. "Almost everybody in my country is a soldier. Someone can complain against a soldier and say they perpetrated a war crime."

In Congress, lawmakers from both parties said the administration's tactics were both legal and welcome.

"We support the president in his efforts to protect American soldiers," said Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip. "We must do whatever it takes to protect those who protect us."

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, supports the new strategy of obtaining individual agreements, said a spokesman for the senator.

At the same time, though, Senator Dodd urged the administration to reconsider its decision to spurn the court.

"The court is going to be making international law in the future, and it would be better for the United States to be a leader and a participant, rather than an idle observer," said the senator's spokesman, Tom Lenard.

It is a voting year...throw out the traitors! :D
 
Lost Cause said:
And let the fucking world take care of itself. Imagine a nation of warlords represented on the court that can abduct our soldiers for defending themselves in a hostile situation! Fuck the bastards let 'em all burn in their own countries!

USA Peac Keeping forces are not the only ones in the world. New Zealand, Australia, England and many other countries have Peace Keeping Forces out their looking out to help other countries....

New Zealand alone has had two Peace Keepers killed in the last year while on duty overseas....
 
You're Absolutely Correct...

I should apply the thread to ALL peacekeeping forces worldwide. Imagine the firefight in which the peacekeepers were killed, and imagine a non-elected world court ordering the surviving soldiers tried for war crimes for killing a "ethnic" attacker! The families protest, but your government signed the treaty, and off they go, possibly to their deaths. How would that effect the armed forces?
Too many times, UN committees have turned into political hammers to exact revenge on governments that interfere with their ethnic cleansing. (Ruwanda) The same would happen in ANY UN court!
All of our sovereign nations have pacts with the citizens that define the role of government in their boundries. Once you relinquish that pact to an outside entity, the citizens have no pact with that government. (Anarchy)

*I think it's time for the elder nations of this world to take care of their own backyards, or turn them into ghettos, it's their choice. :D
 
I don't know about all forces. I am coming to the conclusion that it is time to bring all of ours home and force the enemy to come to us. We have too many targets in the field as the most-hated-nation-on-the-face-of-the-earth. We can just pony up our end of the bill, put up a lot of talk, and have less threatening peace-keepers do the grunt work.

The Mexican, Russian, North Korean, and Chinese troops should come pretty cheap.

I'm becoming an isolationist...
 
But, before we bring troops home and allow the world to police itself, we need to become self sufficient.

We aren't out their saving the world so GWB and all Americans have a free ticket to heaven based on their good will. It is all about American interests.

But yes, it is time to become an independent nation and let the shit happen where it will. We need to protect our soil, our people and our interests at home.
 
Not self-sufficient. That is not a desired goal. Better merchants. We're capitalists, not warlords.

There are enough known deposits to prevent another real embargo and increased prices would force changes we wish to legislate (but I'm betting the price will go down, way down... the dirty little secret... without our embargoes, there's too much production now, tee hee, tee hee...).
 
But, don't you think that as long as we get our oil from over seas, they (whomever is control of the oil) have us by the balls?
 
They need the money.

You can't eat sand, jungle, or tundra...

DOLLARS!

(Our secret weapon - the strength of our economy, nation, people, and way of life! Lead by example. Let's continue to be the envy of the world.)
 
I mean every two-bit tyrant just HAS to have a killer army with lots of cool toys...
 
I am coming to the conclusion that it is time to bring all of ours home and force the enemy to come to us
says SINthysist

I got the impression that you guys didn't like that kind of thing? As I recall you turned it into 'the greatest drama on earth' last time it happened. Make your minds up!

I do respect the fact, however, that the people of the USA find it difficult to cope with the fact that they don't actually own the world and the non-US citizen human component of the world's population.

Lost Cause says
And let the fucking world take care of itself
Good point. Yeah, why not stop interfering in global politics? Why not conduct overseas affairs in a mature and civilised manner? Well, to put it simply, if you start to treat the world outside the USA in a decent manner and trade honestly without threats of military force to secure the commodities you need then you would have to pay for them. Ergo the US citizen suffers.
 
SINthysist said:
They need the money.

You can't eat sand, jungle, or tundra...

DOLLARS!

(Our secret weapon - the strength of our economy, nation, people, and way of life! Lead by example. Let's continue to be the envy of the world.)

Delusions are such a wonderful thing aren't they? Particularly when they lead to arrogance. Our current trade deficit is over $400 billion a year. We rely on other countries for cars, stereos, TVs, clothes, shoes, appliances, computers, and so many other parts of our luxurious economy. That we not only don't produce, but we can't even pay for...

Withdrawing from, or greatly reducing our involvement in the world economy at this point would lead to a reduction in U.S. standard of living that would put the Great Depression to shame. Because we are far more reliant on other nations than we were 70 years ago, or even 20 years ago, and oil is only one part of it...
 
Crab said:
Good point. Yeah, why not stop interfering in global politics? Why not conduct overseas affairs in a mature and civilised manner? Well, to put it simply, if you start to treat the world outside the USA in a decent manner and trade honestly without threats of military force to secure the commodities you need then you would have to pay for them. Ergo the US citizen suffers.
ah blow it out your kilt...the anti us contingency amazes me, especially when it comes from a European Country we have saved in the past (more than once I might add). Jealousy is a wonderful thing, but it will only serve to destroy and rot, like a possum in the summers heat on the side of the road. Eventually the son of a bitch is gonna explode.
 
Since there are American interests at hand and we are not the only ones with interests beyond our borders why we don't do a better job uniting with other country's in our "peacekeeping" endeavors.

It would seem to me that combining forces we could back off on the numbers of troops sent abroad, leaving more at home to protect our backs. And, God forbid, we might not need such a big military!!!

Combining forces would also mean collaboration. If we are more united globally wouldn't we be less open as targets for "war crimes" charges against us?
 
weed said:
Since there are American interests at hand and we are not the only ones with interests beyond our borders why we don't do a better job uniting with other country's in our "peacekeeping" endeavors.

It would seem to me that combining forces we could back off on the numbers of troops sent abroad, leaving more at home to protect our backs. And, God forbid, we might not need such a big military!!!

Combining forces would also mean collaboration. If we are more united globally wouldn't we be less open as targets for "war crimes" charges against us?

It is absolutely unfair for the U.S. to bear so much more of the peacekeeping burden than our First World allies. It is also absolutely unfair for the 4% of the world population that lives in the U.S. to consume a third of the world's resources.

We are currently the most militarily powerful and dominant nation in the history of the world, on a global basis. We are also the richest nation that has existed in the history of the world. The correlation between those two is much stronger than I suspect we like to admit, though the rest of the world is generally more aware of it than U.S. citizens are.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much a patriot, and proud of being an American. I like living in a rich and powerful country. But I don't see being wealthy and powerful as being somehow our God given right, an inherent part of being American. Instead I see it as being far more fragile than we would like to think....
 
You're so right, takingchances...

With what little I know of history it seems that we have been a country that fought to be independant and strong, we spread out and became huge filling our lands with a diverse group of people, and our pioneering continued as we came into the modern age.

We are built on a principle of growth, growth being profitable to the economy. But it seems that there are limits to how much we can grow, especially when we are so often wasteful and self-indulgent.

Provided with military action then we have our need for "growth" in the form of producing the goods needed to support our military. Although sometimes I wonder if we aren't supporting the defense industry CEO's more than the general economy.

To rationalize we have to keep the peace against the "bad" guys although we never seem to really do anything to control the real bad guys. It's very difficult to see any real benefit though I do believe we need some kind of global police but a united effort.

I, too, am proud of this country. We are a young nation and have come a long way to be so strong. But we continue to have need for growth and sometimes that means being a little more humble to recognize our weaknesses. We have to be cautious....the higher you climb the harder you fall.

I'm soooo cliche :rolleyes:
 
weed said:
oh fuddy duddy that was me

I thought what you wrote was quite good, even when you were unregistered. But thanks for letting me know it was you, I followed your poetry link and find I liked your poems very much... :)
 
america doesn't actually commit that much of a peace keeping force ... mean look at afghanistan ... england are in charge of the peace keeping force because america didn't want to do it

they dont give any troops to help the UN to say america does all the peace keeping force around the world is nuts


and the criminal court is a good thing look how we have slobodan milosevic but that court loses credibility if its not fair

imagine having an american law system that said that only non-white could be on trial ... america moans about the world hating it but it wont do anything to actually be likeable ... what was the last thing america did that you could actually say wow that's something to be proud of worldwide

im not anti american im pro american but it frustrates me that they could be doing so much positive stuff worldwide and they dont ... they are the most powerful nation in the world i wish that because they were they would be better than other nations in their forward thinking
 
the anti us contingency amazes me, especially when it comes from a European Country we have saved in the past (more than once I might add). Jealousy is a wonderful thing, but it will only serve to destroy and rot, like a possum in the summers heat on the side of the road. Eventually the son of a bitch is gonna explode.
says brokenbrainwave Very apt nick! Saved in the past? That would be all the millions of US troops that died in Stalingrad? Grow the fuck up.
 
Crab said:
says brokenbrainwave Very apt nick! Saved in the past? That would be all the millions of US troops that died in Stalingrad? Grow the fuck up.
ahhh I love you too pookie pie :rolleyes:
 
and furthermore I am absolutely flabbergasted that people get so touchy when proven dead wrong. Man I am POSITIVE this was not the first time it happend. sheesh, "grow the fuck up"? is that the best you can do? ha ha ha, god, you made me laugh, thanks :kiss:
 
i disagree with crabs manner and tone ... but he is right no side should say they saved another in WW2 ... it was a time when the WORLD pulled together to save eachother and every side suffered terrible loss
 
sexy-girl said:
i disagree with crabs manner and tone ... but he is right no side should say they saved another in WW2 ... it was a time when the WORLD pulled together to save eachother and every side suffered terrible loss

PS: sexxy I was merely playing the arrogant American role I am getting sick of hearing. Do I honestly believe we "saved Europe"nope, but I do honestly feel they'd had a hard time defending themselves without Washingtons assistance. Fair enough? :)
 
brokenbrainwave said:
and furthermore I am absolutely flabbergasted that people get so touchy when proven dead wrong. Man I am POSITIVE this was not the first time it happend. sheesh, "grow the fuck up"? is that the best you can do? ha ha ha, god, you made me laugh, thanks :kiss:

And it makes your "blow it up your kilt" seem so mature and calm.:D
 
Back
Top