International Court

RE: AGAIN

I agree with vort here… I saw the little devil head… and I thought the way I wrote my reply I wouldn’t need a devil head…. you all know I sleep on a very low bed… theres no way SH could sleep there… he sleeps on my sofa (couch).

But lets get a few things straight.
The guy in question is NOT a blood relative of SH.
His mother had an affair with SH.
They didn’t even get married so he isn’t even SH stepson.
She was one of SH mistresses.
He has worked for many years for Air New Zealand.
He went to the US to do some pilot training… including landing and takeoffs but he admits he made a mistake with his visa.
If he had been white the problem probably would have been sorted out there but his associations means he must forget becoming a pilot and remain an aircraft engineer. (Land of the Free?).

AGAIN

you people have continue to misquote others and then criticize, it happens, but too often here, notice my ” }> ” in that comment to Garry. NO, Geforce have to get personal and then say the entire Americans have problems.

RE: International Court

Didn’t he have the wrong visa to apply to a flight academy?

RE: International Court

God knows how many son/daughters Clinton has made during his numerous trips to Europe :D. Maybe the CIA wants to start new tactics : to get Saddam on his knees by spreading scandals throughout the world. I don’t think Saddam really cares about that, but I know one guy who does }>.

RE: International Court

Mongu

A big issue in the US? Not really. Just a minor human interest item. The guy tried to register for training and didn’t apply properly. Hardly the fault of the US authorities. But it seems its a big deal in NZ, with you and some others here.

Regards

RE: Bush backs down…

Rabie

Has the UK ‘ratified’ the Kyoto accord yet?

If the US keeps giving in to all this Euro world government stuff it will be the first to sign.

Regards

RE: International Court

lived

rabie :9

RE: International Court

Saddam’s illegitimate son (to an air hostess) lives and works in NZ as a flight engineer. Big deal.

Yet the yanks seem to think this is incredibly important stuff. Not sure why, exactly. What’s the poor guy ever done wrong?

RE: International Court

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-07-02 AT 12:23 PM (GMT)]
It’s funny that why should the world listen to a country like New Zealand of few million brain freezed people anyways, besides, maybe the people there are bought out by Saddam’s relatives living there surely Garry has.Text

This is the reason why you Yanks will always be misunderstood. Because with such bloody expressions you are not making yourself any more popular. Don’t you understand that its countries like NZ which you need the most? If there’s such a thing like western society, than NZ is part of it. It’s not because nobody listens to Bush that we don’t care anymore about what the Americans think. It’s not only the American administration that has to change, but also the mentality among the people.

RE: Bush backs down…

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-07-02 AT 09:30 AM (GMT)] 😀 }> 😀 }> 😀

test ban treaty next ? kyoto ?

coment sauron?, PII?, etc

rabie :9

RE: Bush backs down…

It seems the Bush Administration once again lost it’s backbone and backed down on US Peacekeepers not being held accountable to the icc. Lots of Americans are disgusted…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57419,00.html

RE: International Court

Here you can find all info on the ICC.

http://www.usaforicc.org/facts_index.html

RE: International Court

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-07-02 AT 06:35 AM (GMT)]”Ok, Garry, if we give up Clinton (hehe, i’m glad to), would Iraq give up Saddam? or Castro? or Kadafi? Don’t be so rediculus and letting your single minded anti-American thoughts cloud you, again, again, and again…Like i said in the previous post, if countries such as US, France, etc signs such a thing, they will honor it unless they can find a “legal” way out of it.”

Not sure if you are reading what I wrote or writing stuff yourself.

All I was suggesting was that the world court would be good for the US in the sence that if the world court demanded that SH or gadaffi or whoever atend and they don’t the US could use it the way they are trying to use the arms inspectors against SH. ie they can meet their own aims and objectives by pretending to inforce the demands of an international organisation… in this case a world court.
As I stated the drawback is that anyone else can do the same thing to the US and clog the system with both frivilous and not so frivilous claims.

Regardin my single minded anti americaness clouding my judgement if the US signs this thing why wouldn’t they ignore anything that doesn’t suit them?
If they were really more interested in what is right rather than what suits them best then why would any country need to take the US to any world organisation about steel tarifs… or tarifs on beef, or asking them to stop their police action in vietnam? etc etc etc.
But no the US always is a stickler for following the letter of the agreements they sign… NOT.

“It’s funny that why should the world listen to a country like New Zealand of few million brain freezed people anyways, besides, maybe the people there are bought out by Saddam’s relatives living there surely Garry has.”

No you are right. A New Zealand citizen whose mother had an affair with SH which suddenly makes them married who works for a local airline was in the US to get pilot training and had an error in is visa is a good reason for all New Zealanders to be ignored. We are obviously all in bed with saddam… we’ve got him here… he hides under my bed at night… (the ##### snores like a horse).

I would suggest that the land of the brave and the home of the free which pisses its pants every time an arab walks toward an aircraft is not so brave and certainly not free.

RE: International Court

yea, they put Sharon on trial, but was he even there? Will he ever be there? NO! The COURT basically will constantly create situations that’ll put itself under contempt. Some are pretty bizzare example which i agree will never be there, but i’m quite stupified by Garry. Ok, Garry, if we give up Clinton (hehe, i’m glad to), would Iraq give up Saddam? or Castro? or Kadafi? Don’t be so rediculus and letting your single minded anti-American thoughts cloud you, again, again, and again…Like i said in the previous post, if countries such as US, France, etc signs such a thing, they will honor it unless they can find a “legal” way out of it. Countries that are traditionally disrespectful of international laws anyways will simply ignore it when it’s disadvantageous to them. (Look at the Chinese storming those Japanese and Korean embassies and refused to apologize, it’s a foreign sovereignty irregardless of situation unless they are at war) You claim the US as such, but at least we tried to use legal manuevers instead of simply contempt. It’s funny that why should the world listen to a country like New Zealand of few million brain freezed people anyways, besides, maybe the people there are bought out by Saddam’s relatives living there }> surely Garry has.

RE: International Court

i sort of see where your coming from but such examples like that wouldn’t get to court – eg they have put sharon, nato leader of 99m etc on trial now so why some talk show host (or salmon rushdie)

rabie :9

RE: International Court

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-07-02 AT 05:41 PM (GMT)]How about handing an indictment to Bill Gates because he is an “enemy of the people” for creating a software company that is dominant in the market? You, see, it is not just government officials who are a risk from the world court, but anyone who may vaguely fit some wacko’s definition of “human rights oppressor”.

Just wait until the greenies start using the icc as a “terrorist bomb” by filing charges against corporations and government officials who are not greenies too. Maybe you will see how dangerous an unconstrained icc is for western society.

RE: International Court

> I suppose the world superpowers (China, the US, Russia…)
>have lots of dirty things to hide and don´t want to summit
>their militars to any international judges. Massacres in
>Chechnya, violation of human rights in Tibet, and bombing
>weddings. It´s expected, If the Europeans used force as
>often as others, our politicians wouldn´t be pleased to sign
>the International Court agreement. I do think we can´t
>conduct the War on terrorism and ignoring the violation of
>human rights for patriotic or national interests.

As usual you’re right Keltic, we can see with this story how the USA must lead the world…

RE: International Court

Rabie
To put it simply the US doesn’t like an international organisation with so much power that it can’t control.

The UN is very useful to the US because it can get mandates to protect its oil and intervene in other countries as long as it can get the majority to vote with it which via political or economic threats these days it generally can. Even in the unlikely event that the UN decided to do something that is not in the US’s interests it still has a veto.
This is not the case with a world court. Obviously a world court would be handy as sopenas (spelling) for people like gaddafi or saddam are the sort of thing the US is just chomping at the bit for there might just as easily be sopenas for Allbright and Clinton…. “You can’t do that to me… I’m an American citizen!”.

RE: International Court

Sorry about that.

What I was trying to say above is the US has made a threat to withdraw from only UN “peacekeeping” missions to which it has traditionally never contributed many troops although it has supported the various missions.

It may be a technicality, but I do not believe the US has threatened to withdraw its troops currently deployed in “peacemaking” missions or NATO deployments. As it currently has very few resources deployed in the former role there would be little if any concern over the ICC that the US stand would cause a current mission to collapse.

It would appear that the US is looking for a resolution through its right of the use of a veto as a permanent member of the security power or some other accomodation agreeable to the UN . Some compromise arrangement which would allow the ICC to proceed up to the point of making a charge against US personel but then allow the US to “veto” cases it deems to be only politically motivated and perhaps proceed only with cases it believes are not(politically motivated).

Justifiable or not, like it or not, there is going to be some form of compromise which wiil allow the US to agree with the concept of the ICC without losing control over its own citizens.

I heard today that the countries who have signed on to the ICC represent only 15% of the worlds population. Does this seem correct?

Regards

RE: International Court

If I am not mistaken, the US treat to withdraw from “peacekeping