[Rictor]

he's entitled to his opinion, as long as he backs it up and explains it, which is what I've been trying to get him to do.

to be fair, there are many nations that, though much more limited in the scope of their power, act worse towards people within that area of influence. basically, its Quantity vs quality of repression.

[Tiara]

Yeah, he's entgitled to his opinion and I am entitled to mine.

He simply laid out why America is so hated. I couldn't have said it more clearly. America doesn't give a rats ass about the responsibilities that come with power. Give them more power and they will take less responsibilities.

It doesn't work that way.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by vyper
aldo, have you ever read anything by Niall Ferguson?

I think he was the guy that narrated the aforementioned tv program (based on one of his books).  I've not actually read anything of his, though.

Originally posted by Rictor
well, to my mind, empire simply means "a hell of a lot of power abroad". Though even if you were to judge it in the traditional sense, it would still be more empire than not, due to the vast network of military bases, several ongoing occupations and concentration of power within the political system.

Yes, I admit, it lacks some of the traits of empire, as you mentioned, but these are (to me at least) minor things, whereas the major cornerstones of empire are firmly in place, and quite a few ones that the Brits or Romans could never have dreamed of. Military bases in 80% of the world's nations; No one has ever achieved that, or even come close, until now.

Well, I'm not disagreeing about the level of power & posturing.  But the empire comparisons tend to be a bit misleading IMO because of the different nature of the US hegemony.

[Ford Prefect]

I was most disturbed when Bush talked about how he avoided the International Criminal Court because it would have the authority to put Americans on trial. I've given him credit for passing himself off as a moderate, but I think that was a little glimpse of how much of a nut he is. The very idea that Americans could be tried by foreigners! It's disgraceful!

[Kazan]

Liberator is a prime example of what's wrong with the US

Rictor is an example of what's wrong with rampant leftism

Hooray for moderate leftism

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I was most disturbed when Bush talked about how he avoided the International Criminal Court because it would have the authority to put Americans on trial. I've given him credit for passing himself off as a moderate, but I think that was a little glimpse of how much of a nut he is. The very idea that Americans could be tried by foreigners! It's disgraceful!

He said that?

That's just....wrong.  By the same token, Bin Laden shouldn't be put on trial in America, as he's not American.

[Blitzerland]

Originally posted by Liberator
With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.

You sir, are a thundering moron (IMHO, of course).

Man, comments like that....rrrrrrrrrrr...

[aldo_14]

The US is a power not to be trifled with in the same sense that a 5 year old with a gun is not to be trifled with.

[Blitzerland]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The US is a power not to be trifled with in the same sense that a 5 year old with a gun is not to be trifled with.

That I can agree with.

[Ford Prefect]

And with Bush's help we can give those five-year-olds the guns they need to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

[Rictor]

Hands up who here is opposed to hegemony.

...

ok, the bad news is, you're all a bunch of leftist crazies. But the good news is, you're in good (and plentiful) company.

[Kazan]

rictor: i'm opposed to hegemony and i hope that the EU becomes a powerful federation and channel's our heomony -- a lot of americans need their ego's deflated a lot


however rictor _you_ cross the line from moderatism to extremism

[Ford Prefect]

Well, so did John Locke.

[Blitzerland]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
And with Bush's help we can give those five-year-olds the guns they need to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

My cats think you are funny. Little weasels.

This is why we should all vote for Kerrey...as he is the lesser of two evils.(remember that?).

[Deepblue]

Ugh... Politics

[01010]

Ahhh Kazan, the paragon of moderacy.

[Mongoose]

Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC?  We have our own judicial system; let us handle our own.  I don't think we need yet another step on the road to global government, thank you very much.

Edit:  And what, pray tell, is wrong with Liberator's comments?  I wholly agree with him.  As an American, I want to see American power maintained.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC?  We have our own judicial system; let us handle our own.  I don't think we need yet another step on the road to global government, thank you very much.

Edit:  And what, pray tell, is wrong with Liberator's comments?  I wholly agree with him.  As an American, I want to see American power maintained.

Because the ICC is an international criminal court, for international crimes.  You say 'handle our own', the rest of the world says 'look after their own'. If you extend the principle of Americans not being tried by foreign courts, then the Nuremburg trials break that.  So does the trial of Milosovic.  So would trying Bin Ladin in any other country than Saudi Arabia.

EDIT; the ICCs role is to provide a neutral venue for international crimes.  It's blatantly obvious why this is required rather than trying the accused individual in the country that they stand accused with.

And the rest of the world does not want to see US power maintained.   They - we - want freedom to conduct our own affairs independent of what the US wants.  If the US continues its policies, it will be increasingly seen as openly disrespecting other countries sovereignty and their right to freely express their views - France and Germany being the best current examples.  Whilst you may not care about this as an American, it will eventually rebound upon the US in economic, political and social ways as well as the way it already has with terrorism.

[Blitzerland]

Exactly. The world is not our sand-box, free to be molded as we choose.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Just as a question, why should Americans be subject to the ICC?

For the same reason we have courts at all. The concept of a court is to judge everyone fairly and impartially, so that no one is above the law. If you have courts for individuals, then it stands to reason that you should have courts for nations. Otherwise, its just might makes right.

If Johhny goes and shoots Billy, and Billy can't do **** about it cause he's too weak to take Johhny head on, does that mean he should get no justice? Does it mean that Johhny should get away with murder? Of course not. A court will try Johhny, and he will be made to make reparations to Billy, and/or accept a punishment. This is to deter not only Johhny, but anyone, from ever commiting murder again.

Now replace the names Johhny and Billy with the names of any two nations, and you have the ICC.