Fun with the U.N.S.C.
Remember all the trouble in Sudan lately? Sarah sends the following article.
This one's tough. There is no doubt in my mind that the International Criminal Court has been set up in such a way as to allow foreign governments to hamstring American citizens with impugnity. We've seen this with attempts to try American troops and military leaders for war crimes.
On the other hand, something needs to be done about Sudan. Seeing as how there was an international court used to try Slobodan Milosevic, I find it hard to believe that the ICC is the only available/appropriate venue for such war crimes trials. Hell, Nuremberg wasn't under the auspices of the United Nations, was it?
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that the French tabled this resolution for no greater reason than to put the United States in an awkward diplomatic position. It's more of the same from a government that desires to be a superpower, but can't come anywhere near pulling it off. The French did whatever they could to prevent the Coalition of the Willing from holding Saddam Hussein and his thugs accountable for their crimes against humanity, largely because there was all sorts of corruption going on between the French and the Iraqis. Then they sat on their hands for months while the Sudanese committed horrible acts of genocide against each other. Now they're twisting it around and playing politics with it?
And they call America a nation of unsophisticated cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later. This is sickening.
UPDATE: Harley has some comments that are worth addressing.
This is a tough one. To be honest with you, I think that Americans as a whole probably have a better understanding of the threat China poses. All of the folks who were (rightfully) indoctrinated against Communism during the height of the Cold War still view the Chinese government for what it is: oppressive, and a strategic competitor to the United States.
I think people also remember the 2001 incident with the Chinese and our EP-3 Aries surveillance plane. Incidents like that, which were high profile (read: big in the media), are more tangible to Mr. and Mrs. Smith than Iraq. People didn't know that Iraq was trying to hit American and British warplanes with surface-to-air missiles a couple of times a week (prior to the invasion). People didn't know that Saddam was giving twenty-five grand to the parents of every "Palestinian" suicide bomber.
Plus, if you consider it in historical context, Americans supported military operations in Grenada and Panama; Grenada was specifically against Communist forces. I can guarantee you that most Americans had never even heard of Grenada before we invaded, so I think Taiwan would probably have a similar support. At least, I hope it would.
It's a tough situation, because the Chinese have made it a tough situation.
And yes, I've seen the information about the Charles de Gaulle. Submarine reactors on an aircraft carrier. That's just plain stupidity, but it's entertaining from the outside looking in.
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - France is to put to a vote on Thursday a U.N. resolution referring Sudanese war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court, daring Washington to cast an embarrassing veto or accept a tribunal it opposes.
After weeks of haggling on a comprehensive resolution on Sudan, the U.N. Security Council has been deadlocked on where to try perpetrators of atrocities in the country's western region of Darfur.
On Wednesday, France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, introduced a draft resolution that would refer Darfur cases to the ICC, the world's first permanent criminal court, as recommended by a U.N. panel of experts in January.
But the United States offered to create a new U.N.-African Union tribunal in Tanzania that has drawn little support, with several council members arguing that only the ICC already has investigators on staff ready to begin work
This one's tough. There is no doubt in my mind that the International Criminal Court has been set up in such a way as to allow foreign governments to hamstring American citizens with impugnity. We've seen this with attempts to try American troops and military leaders for war crimes.
On the other hand, something needs to be done about Sudan. Seeing as how there was an international court used to try Slobodan Milosevic, I find it hard to believe that the ICC is the only available/appropriate venue for such war crimes trials. Hell, Nuremberg wasn't under the auspices of the United Nations, was it?
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that the French tabled this resolution for no greater reason than to put the United States in an awkward diplomatic position. It's more of the same from a government that desires to be a superpower, but can't come anywhere near pulling it off. The French did whatever they could to prevent the Coalition of the Willing from holding Saddam Hussein and his thugs accountable for their crimes against humanity, largely because there was all sorts of corruption going on between the French and the Iraqis. Then they sat on their hands for months while the Sudanese committed horrible acts of genocide against each other. Now they're twisting it around and playing politics with it?
And they call America a nation of unsophisticated cowboys who shoot first and ask questions later. This is sickening.
UPDATE: Harley has some comments that are worth addressing.
Typical of the way the French are playing things.
And africa.... well.. is Africa. BTW you see this over at Instapundit? and strategy page?
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/...s/ 200532323.asp
This will deter the Chinese, if they're rational.
UPDATE: Jim Bennett emails: True. plus, the more foreign oil they import, the more vulnerable they would be to the US Navy cutting off their supplies. Worked wonders on Japan in WWII. Of course, they said all of this about Germany before WWI." Yes, that's the problem with the rational-actor assumption.
Of course my take is China may hope that the US fearing instability in the US markets will stand by and do nothing. for fear that Us consumers would become up set if the US government impose sanctions against China which would result in a loss of products for consumers.
in other words, What will Mr and Mrs Smith think when Wallmarts shelves go bare of the junk they buy everyday?
And how will the government Justify expending American lives to protect Taiwan if that results in such situation?
considering how the country was split in the last election......
What do you think?
This is a tough one. To be honest with you, I think that Americans as a whole probably have a better understanding of the threat China poses. All of the folks who were (rightfully) indoctrinated against Communism during the height of the Cold War still view the Chinese government for what it is: oppressive, and a strategic competitor to the United States.
I think people also remember the 2001 incident with the Chinese and our EP-3 Aries surveillance plane. Incidents like that, which were high profile (read: big in the media), are more tangible to Mr. and Mrs. Smith than Iraq. People didn't know that Iraq was trying to hit American and British warplanes with surface-to-air missiles a couple of times a week (prior to the invasion). People didn't know that Saddam was giving twenty-five grand to the parents of every "Palestinian" suicide bomber.
Plus, if you consider it in historical context, Americans supported military operations in Grenada and Panama; Grenada was specifically against Communist forces. I can guarantee you that most Americans had never even heard of Grenada before we invaded, so I think Taiwan would probably have a similar support. At least, I hope it would.
It's a tough situation, because the Chinese have made it a tough situation.
And yes, I've seen the information about the Charles de Gaulle. Submarine reactors on an aircraft carrier. That's just plain stupidity, but it's entertaining from the outside looking in.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home