>> That may be your point now, but that ain’t what you said earlier.
I have explained several times what I intended to say but you insist on arguing against what you wanted me to have said. I have explained it enough times.
>> And your new position is basically an argument ad populum: We should do it because all the cool kids are doing it.
Um, yeah. If you find yourseld aligned with dictators and rogue states against the rest of the advanced, democratic, developed countries, maybe you are the one who is mistaken? And, in anycase, who do you want to cooperate with? Who do you want to have on your side? Cooperation is a two way street.
>> And I note that you still haven’t answered my question: are you opposed to the concept of a UN Security Council?
Yes, I think the UN Security Council is flawed for many reasons but I do not want to sidetrack this discussion with a discussion of the Security Council. The Security Council leaves a lot to be desired but it cannot be compared to the ICC. One is a political body and the other a judicial body. Totally different. But yes, it is flawed in more ways than one.
Are you a member of John B Anderson’s World Federalist Association, sailor? If so, it would be easier to comprehend the position that you’re taking here.
As Brutus has pointed out, there is no reason to establish a permanent court in response to those like Hitler, Stalin, etc. What we have done in the past is sufficient or do you consider the Nuremburg trials (for example) a failure?
Your accusations that the US is behaving in a rogue manner with arrogance because it will not willingly submit its sovereignty, as a nation to govern itself, unto an international government body authority, is against the principles this nation was founded upon and in my view, plainly treasonous.
The UN (which again we should not have entangled ourselves with) was founded with the intention of nations co-operating with each other for matters of security to head off, if possible, another Hitler. What you do not seem to understand is that there is huge difference between co-operation and subjecting oneself unto others.
I hope that you will reconsider and examine your position.
sailor: You want to talk about selective enforcement? Ask the Israeli delegation to the United Nations about the UN’s stance vis a vis Entebbe and the hijacking.
Americans I know have speculated that the US doesnt want to reopen cases such as Medina and Calley (MyLai) and similar cases from the Korean war. Sryboutspelling.
We’re not busy aligning ourselves into one of two camps - they already exist. This is an extension of the idealogical difference between those who want a world government and those who don’t, with the US being its natural self in the matter and the EU being its natural self in the matter. I think the ICC is little more than another shot at creating one world government through the back door; comments like yours above are typical efforts to trade cheaply on emotion rather than the facts at hand. “We look bad by not joining.” Well, not everyone cares at this point.
The US government might have more specific and dubious reasons for not wanting to be involved. I don’t know.
The Americans you know are pretty ignorant because the ICC cannot “reopen” those cases.
As I said before, the USA is already signatory of several international treaties (WTO, Nafta, etc) which involve more obligations by far than it would assume under the ICC.
The problem with the USA is that it wants to dominate everything. It founded the UN and used it for its own ends while it could. The USSR was despised as a rogue state which could not live with the community of nations and hampered the work of the UN. But now that the USA is taking the same tack we are expected to think that is a good thing. I expect any day to see President Bush taking his shoe off at the UN General Assembly and banging it on the table. When the Russians did it it was proof of how barbaric they were but when America does the same things it is just . . . different. If you want to get along you have to go along and the more the USA takes a confrontational attitude with the rest of the developed world the sooner its power will decline.
Nonsense. After you changed your position, I stopped arguing against the old position - at least as to you.
**
I would point out that we would be “aligned” with dictators either way. And I agree that the position of the majority of developed countries is worthy of consideration. But inandof itself, it is not a reason to adopt the position. Moreover, the US has a special reason to take a different position from the other developed nations which is that we are uniquely powerful, interventionist, and unpopular.
**
So are you against any and all double-standards? Or just some? Which double-standards are ok and which aren’t?
^that is probably the most lucid and well-thought out argument I’ve seen in my short time on the boards. For myself, I admit defeat- I have changed my mind about the ICC (although I still believe an amendment should be required by the wording of the Constitution) and no, I’m not being facetious this time.