|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
First arrest in Iraqi Oil for Food scandal | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
And I wonder | by evil_andy | 2005-08-09 06:54:30 |
|
Don't be silly, that's not a scandal. | by wheresthefish | 2005-08-09 06:55:35 |
|
Yup. Imposing Democracy... | by Illiad | 2005-08-09 07:00:01 |
|
Yes, the megacorps are ecstatic, | by wwill | 2005-08-09 07:09:09 |
|
Ah yes, Uber-Patriotism! | by Illiad | 2005-08-09 07:31:45 |
|
Thanks for the boost. | by wwill | 2005-08-09 08:26:33 |
|
I wish. | by Illiad | 2005-08-09 08:47:09 |
|
Intelligent Moderates | by wwill | 2005-08-09 09:02:13 |
|
Tell you what | by DesertRat66 | 2005-08-09 09:14:37 |
|
And precisely WHAT | by wwill | 2005-08-09 11:20:19 |
|
How many other countries | by Feng_Li | 2005-08-09 11:44:50 |
|
Probably British, French, Canadian, Italian, | by Peace_man | 2005-08-09 11:51:12 |
|
You go do that. | by esbita | 2005-08-09 11:56:55 |
|
Maybe not if there were | by wwill | 2005-08-09 12:39:14 |
|
What is stopping the UN... | by esbita | 2005-08-09 13:13:25 |
|
I am convinced that the US would never | by Peace_man | 2005-08-09 14:41:48 |
|
I think you SERIOUSLY need to read the U.N. | by classic_jon | 2005-08-09 15:06:30 |
|
You sound like you don't know that | by Peace_man | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| First, you are incorrect in your assertion |
by classic_jon |
2005-08-09 16:43:35 |
that the US did not recognize the ICC. Bill Clinton signed the intent to ratify it prior to leaving office, against the wishes of several major advisors. The U.S. later removed itself from that list for what it deemed to be secuity and liability reasons that I will not get into here for lengths sake.
For more info on ICC: http://www.un.org/law/icc/ and http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapte
rXVIII/treaty10.asp especially the "notes" sections.
The articles title that you link to says more to remove and debunk your assertion than anything else...one word "Troops" not $random_U.S._citizens but troops, specifically Peacekeeping troops. Also, who said anything about might makes right? I am using what YOU say should be effective deterants to doing somthing wrong, economic sanctions, if you think they are effective and are a good solution then they should work just fine on the U.S., in fact being industrailized they would hurt the U.S. more than a less industrailized one. Again, apply the rules equally!
As for what I said about crime, read the paragraph in my original post again.... I stated exactly what I meant. As for your argument about India, It does not even come close to holding water. My friends in and from India say that they are just now starting to catalog effectively the crime statistics and that a huge amount of crime goes unreported becasue it is the accepted norm in parts of the country. China has a good crime statistics reporting method I will agree but, in talking to my friends from China there is a lot of accepted crime that goes unreported there as well, but it is shrinking in it's tolerance factor as time passes.
Pro-active crime prevention is a wonderful thing and more should be done with it, but it will not stop all crime from happening until we have mind readers and people who can see the future. My assertion was that the U.S. is not the only place with a crime problem as you seem to hint at. With shows like Cops, americas most wanted, etc it *IS* more visible than many other countries though, and that was my point, visibility of said crime. Not that it is not there or that the U.S. doesen't have a crime problem but that it is more visible here and sensationalized more here than in other countres. As an example: There was a version of Cops that was filmed in Russia many years ago and the Russian government stepped in after a few episodes because it portrayed Russia as having a crime problem and would not allow the crews back into Russia to film anymore because Russia could not have similar crime problems to what the U.S. had.
My main thrust is that you seem to be so "U.S. is bad and George Bush is evil" in your thought process that you neglect to dig deeper and find out the root cause for things.
Something to think about. If Canada signed up for the I.C.C. and one of the rules/laws in it was directly against something in Canada's constitution would you want them to sign it and be held accountable by it? That would open a whole can of worms in Canada's court system as to what rules applied inside and outside of the country...not pretty. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|