July 1, 2002

2:01 AM

US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, speaking on behalf of the Bush administration, vetoes extension of Bosnia's UN peacekeeping force.Negroponte, citing that the US is a "special target" who "cannot have its decisions second guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do not recognize" has pretty much sealed it up that we're now entering the phase in world history known to western civ students of the 23rd century as: American Imperialism Comes of Age. BBC's (realmedia) streaming coverage shows how (possibly) reluctant Ambassador Negroponte was reading the US's justification for the veto from his script. In other news, the opposition to American Imperialism grows in the heartland of the redstates. Is this just anti-bush, anti-capitalistic, prevaricating peacenik, bleeding heart, wish our president was a liberal--propaganda?

I know this looks like two posts, but I have to ask: Are there other options as to how America (its people, its traditions, its innocents) fits within the rest of the world? Or is how the Bush administration views it, the ultimate in the Progress of Civilization--worthy of preservation? Capitalism as utopia while I juggle these pins, swords and torches and get you to believe I'm talented enough to keep it all in the air infinitely.
posted by crasspastor (116 comments total)

Imperialism is underrated. Look at many African nations now; Zimbabwe, for instance, formerly Rhodesia. They obviously can't govern themselves.

And why this fascination with world governments? The UN puts nations like Sudan on its "human rights" commissions, for crying out loud, and Syria in its "security council". We wan't young American men and women to be ruled by representatives from such countries? Not bloody likely.

A "United Civilized Nations"-court could be a good idea, but a "UN"-court -- when the UN largely consists of Islamist dictatorships and even worse things -- is not, and never will be.
posted by dagny at 2:26 AM on July 1, 2002

I'm with dagny, and would like to be the first to suggest that New England (I'm starting small) secede from the United States, and pledge allegiance to a Greater Britain and the Queen.
posted by Dick Paris at 3:00 AM on July 1, 2002

when the UN largely consists of Islamist dictatorships and even worse things

European leaders hail birth of war crimes court
posted by crasspastor at 3:07 AM on July 1, 2002

I am not sure where this skepticism comes from or which media voices are spreading it.

The second half of this sentence is lame. Are people not capable of deriving thoughts on their own?
posted by TurkeyMustard at 5:36 AM on July 1, 2002

The ICC issue has been discussed before, and I think it's a bit excessive to use the U.S.'s position as evidence of imperialism. It's not that the U.S. views itself as "better than" all other countries. It's that the U.S. knows -- and everyone knows -- that the ICC is likely to be used not as a means to prosecute true war crimes, but to embarass the U.S. Rather than American imperialism, I see it as the rest of the world salivating for the opportunity to bring the U.S. down a peg.

Isn't it also a bit ironic to complain about U.S. "imperialism" when the alternative the U.S. is proposing in this case is not to be involved in Bosnia at all? Funny how the world begs the U.S. for help in every crisis, but then complains about the U.S. acting like the world's cop.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:05 AM on July 1, 2002

A 'cop' is answerable to the laws of a community. Since the United States has decided to step into the role of 'the world's cop', it should be held accountable to the laws of the world, in a world court. If your local constabulary suddenly announced that they were above the strictures of community law and answerable only to their police commissioner and internal affairs department (who were also immune to community prosecution), you'd howl like a scalded cat.

As to imperialism... Well, thanks to refdesk, Webster defines it as "2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence "

The statement, as quoted, is: ""With our global responsibilities, we are and will remain a special target, and cannot have our decisions second-guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do not recognize." Sooo.. America does not recognize the combined laws and restrictions of the 68 ratified countries (and 100 'plus' additional signatory countries) as a power of world jurisdiction that it recognizes as being worthy of recognition. 168(+) countries agree with the concept of the world court.

There are, according to one source, 191 countries in the world.

Yet America intends to operate in the world while ignoring the court of the world. "the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence."

Use that same Websters definition along with several of the other events that have taken place, or are widely believed to inevitably to take place in the near future (i.e. , the invasion of Iraq), and you'd be hard-pressed to stretch circumstances or shrink definitions that would allow 'American' and 'Imperialism' not to share the same boat. If you like the direction things are going, wear the term as a badge of honor. Hell, the English were proud as hell of their world imperialism back during Victoria. So were the Germans and the Russians, in more recent times.
posted by Perigee at 6:30 AM on July 1, 2002

Imperialism is underrated. Look at many African nations now; Zimbabwe, for instance, formerly Rhodesia. They obviously can't govern themselves.

Yeah, couldn't agree more...and all those Venezuelans, Indonesians, Nicaraguans, etc - bunch of losers who insist we bail them out. What about those pathetic East Timorese - spent years moaning about not being independent, now they've got it they'll be fighting each other next...and then they'll have the cheek to ask the US to help them...selfish bastards.
posted by niceness at 6:34 AM on July 1, 2002

I am with pardonyou?

I did 2 years of CSAR in Bosnia. I saw that country, and surrounding ones, in close up detail. We were everything but an imperial force.
posted by a3matrix at 6:35 AM on July 1, 2002

(An interesting look at the world's view of the world court and America's veto here - as additional source material)
posted by Perigee at 6:44 AM on July 1, 2002

Perigree, the ICC is not "the court of the world." In international law, state sovereignty is the basic principle. Any jurisdiction over a state has to come from that state's willingness to give up its sovereignty. In other words, if a state doesn't agree to the ICC, it is not bound by it. The U.S. has very good reasons for not agreeing to the ICC -- principal among them the very real belief that the court will be used to prosecute U.S. soldiers not because anyone really believes war crimes were committed, but just because there are a lot of countries that would just love to see the U.S. hauled into court.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:45 AM on July 1, 2002

From AP, source above: "The court's supporters contend that the Rome treaty provides adequate safeguards against abuse. First and foremost, it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.
France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said U.S. peacekeepers can also be legally protected through bilateral agreements with countries where they are based. France and Britain proposed a year's delay in investigating an alleged war crime, time to bring a peacekeeper home — but Washington objected because it did not grant immunity.
posted by Perigee at 6:50 AM on July 1, 2002

This is just pathetic. The US has no moral reason to avoid ICC. If you dont want your soldiers dragged there, don't plan imperialistic adventures. Period.
posted by adnanbwp at 7:26 AM on July 1, 2002

Imperialism? Not really. Basing diplomatic arguments on penis size? Almost certainly.
posted by riviera at 7:34 AM on July 1, 2002

A 'cop' is answerable to the laws of a community

... as defined by the community's government, preferably democratically elected.

So to follow your reasoning, Perigee, it is imperative that, since the United States has "chosen" to be the world's cop, it submit to the representatives of World Government.

That said World Government simply does not in any way exist should give you pause.

And anyway, who seriously claims the US is the world's 'cop'?
posted by Turtle at 7:44 AM on July 1, 2002

If you dont want your soldiers dragged there, don't plan imperialistic adventures. Period.

So if the U.S. decides to stop getting involved in every crisis in which the world asks for its assistance -- Bosnia, Ireland, India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine -- on the basis that it doesn't want to get hauled in front of a kangaroo court, then the world shouldn't complain, right? Somehow I have a funny feeling that if that became the U.S.'s policy, the ROW would just start wailing about how "isolationist" we are.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:55 AM on July 1, 2002

Somehow I have a funny feeling that if that became the U.S.'s policy, the ROW would just start wailing about how "isolationist" we are

We can't win the PR war in the short term so there is very little point in trying. If Bush actually follows through on what he says and we witness the birth of democracy in the middle-east the world will be a much better place in 50 years than if we piss around with 'appeasment' and ' UN process'. We'll let the historians decide the wisdom of our actions.
posted by revbrian at 8:00 AM on July 1, 2002

Well said, Perigee. The Bush (Sr. and Jr. ) view of America's role in the world is a moral abomination against humanity. It's time to end the self-centered cloak-and-dagger back-room blustering and powermongering and learn to play nice with others. In other words, to grow the hell up.
posted by rushmc at 8:17 AM on July 1, 2002

European leaders hail birth of war crimes court
Conclusive proof that it's a bad idea.
posted by owillis at 8:18 AM on July 1, 2002

Basing diplomatic arguments on penis size? Almost certainly.

Brilliant analysis George Carlin. Do you have any other gems of wisdom?

I have a theory. I want to say that 100% of those who mention penis size as the motivating factor for anything are implying that their own endowment is sub-optimal (hope you're still reading MeFi, rodii). Any takers?

The Bush (Sr. and Jr. ) view of America's role in the world is a moral abomination against humanity.

Before you blow on, I would love to read what your interpretation of the Bush view of America's role in the world. And does Bush, either GWB or GHWB, have a son I am unaware of? Because I'm pretty sure there is no such person in the Bush family by the name George Bush Jr.

In other words, to grow the hell up.

Hey, we agree on something. But wait, I think we're pointing at different people.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:23 AM on July 1, 2002

Turtle, George W Bush has laid claim to that position, with extreme clarity.

Quotation: "My vision of compassionate conservatism also requires America to assert its leadership in the world. We are the world's only remaining superpower, and we must use our power in a strong but compassionate way to help keep the peace and encourage the spread of freedom."

To Protect and to Serve. Cops.

And the point of the ICC is to create at least a judicial branch of world government, at least as far as I can tell. With all this screwing around going on across international borders, it only seems logical to create such a system where the sheer scope of the court is wide enough to lay rest any claims of favoritism. Of course, as was pointed out earlier, only those who sign to it are bound to it.

Those who don't are free to override the will of the signators with impunity. (Or is that.. immunity...?)
posted by Perigee at 8:30 AM on July 1, 2002

I don't know if democracy is the answer for countries dominated by Islamic fundamentalism. /aside

I also fail to see the connection between American Imperialism and the U.S. Government protecting its soldiers from the sort of imperialism practiced by an international court.

This is one thing I agree with the Bush administration on, the loss of national sovereignty by becoming subject to an international court is reason enough to veto it. If we haven't signed any treaty joining the court, we are not subject to it by any law, only by specious claims of 'community', the same type of claims communitarians, communists and socialists use to justify intrustion into the affairs of others.

Loss of national sovereignty inevitably means centralization of power, somewhere else, or 'world government'. Europe is actively centralizing its governmental structure, it won't be long before they start trying to force more nations to become subject to the whims of their new State.

The UN and the international community are quite clear about their intentions: they would like to levy a tax on the entire 1st world, another key step in creating a powerful, centralized international government.

These attempts at creating a new ultra-state (as I like to call it) won't stop, and if these people succeed in their attempts, it will be a Hitlerian wet-dream come true.

Imperialism? Not really. Basing diplomatic arguments on penis size? Almost certainly.

That's about as incoherent as a typical Molly Ivins' column.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:38 AM on July 1, 2002

"Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a strong backer of the court, questioned how the United States could join the Security Council in supporting war crimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone — yet now oppose a permanent tribunal and threaten the future of U.N. peacekeeping."

Can I get a cheer of 'Recind Nuremberg?' After all, all of these were the same gross violations of sovereignty the US now claims as unacceptable. In their case, anyway.

What I have not heard once here is an explanation of why the United States has a right to hold a double standard between itself and the rest of the world. Why inequity is fair in a country which, with increasing hollowness, claims that all men are created equal.

Perhaps, as Orwell suggested, some are simply mor equal than others.
posted by Perigee at 8:47 AM on July 1, 2002

I must say, I find the attitude of the USA astonishing. The ICC is not going to be a kangaroo court. We are not going to have a situation where representitives of Iran, China and Syria put Americans on trial just because they can. To suggest otherwise is paranoid nonsense. I'm even more astonished to find that there are MeFi users who actually support the USA position. I can't conceive of a situation where an American might find himself on trial, but if a war crime was committed, then shouldn't that person be tried, irregardless of nationality? Those backwards, third-world dictatorships like Britain, France and Germany have no problem with this. Why should the USA be any different?

And on top of USA's opposition to the entire concept of the ICC, they try to derail it by threatening peace-keeping operations throughout the world. People will die in East Timor, Bosnia and other places because the USA is acting like a spoilt brat.

I'm not quite sure why imperialism came into this discussion, This should not be about perceived American imperialism, whether there is any basis for the charge in reality. It's about doing what is right. The USA should continue, along with Europe, Australia, Canada and other places to do what it can to make the world a safer place. Maybe the rest of the world asks the USA to do too much, and should contribute more. That is no excuse for the USA to threaten to withdraw altogether. That sort of isolationism will only push America and it's allies further apart.
posted by salmacis at 8:55 AM on July 1, 2002

Any takers?

I think not, Mr Winkie.

Anyway, we're seeing a hastily-beaten retreat.
posted by riviera at 9:02 AM on July 1, 2002

Conclusive proof that it's a bad idea.

Buy your owillis Kneejerk Aerobics video from all good retailers. Just make sure that you don't bruise your chin.
posted by riviera at 9:03 AM on July 1, 2002

I think the criminal court is a lousy idea simply because I believe that every American citizen accused of a crime should have the right to a trial in the U.S. under U.S. law, with U.S. constitutional protections whenever legally possible. Our government shouldn't be bartering away our constitutional rights for the sake of a little good PR.

Plus, does anyone really believe that this court will be able to function without the same ridiculous U.N. politics that permeates just about every other important aspect of its work?
posted by boltman at 9:11 AM on July 1, 2002

I'm sure the good, moral, kindhearted European politicians, arbiters of justice and protectors of humanity, would avoid the temptation to abuse this immense power and dispense justice quite fairly. Right after riviera is appointed King of England.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:15 AM on July 1, 2002

I think the criminal court is a lousy idea simply because I believe that every American citizen accused of a crime should have the right to a trial in the U.S. under U.S. law, with U.S. constitutional protections whenever legally possible.

The ICC statute specifically allows that -- in fact, encourages that -- as a tribunal of first instance.

insomnyuk, haven't you got homework to do? Make a start, small child, before I send my flunkies out to issue a birching.
posted by riviera at 9:21 AM on July 1, 2002

I believe that every American citizen accused of a crime should have the right to a trial in the U.S. under U.S. law, with U.S. constitutional protections whenever legally possible.

i'm confused by this. commit a crime in Andorra, be sent to U.S. for trial by a U.S. court?
posted by tolkhan at 9:33 AM on July 1, 2002

[I'm sure the good, moral, kindhearted European politicians, arbiters of justice and protectors of humanity...]

I don't know - They're very busy.
posted by revbrian at 9:48 AM on July 1, 2002

I think the criminal court is a lousy idea simply because I believe that every American citizen accused of a crime should have the right to a trial in the U.S. under U.S. law, with U.S. constitutional protections whenever legally possible.

Um, that's nutty. If you commit a crime TODAY in another country, you are subject to prosecution under the laws of that nation. You can't use your Get-Out-of-Jail-Free-I'm-an-American-God card.
posted by rushmc at 9:56 AM on July 1, 2002

tolkhan, no you'd probably be tried in Andorra since you are under their laws when in their country. but there are situations in which a U.S. citizen could be accussed of a crime in another country and not be subject to criminal prosecution there (say, if he or she were on a peacekeeping mission). i think these folks ought to get the all the protections guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

riveria: but couldn't the ICC decide that a trial in the U.S. would be rigged or biased and assume jurisdiction? i assume this would have to be the case for the Court to have any effectiveness for trying war criminals who control the judicial systems in their own countries. If I'm correct, what's to stop the court from assuming jurisdiction for political rather than legal reasons?
posted by boltman at 9:57 AM on July 1, 2002

I'm sure the good, moral, kindhearted European politicians, arbiters of justice and protectors of humanity, would avoid the temptation to abuse this immense power and dispense justice quite fairly. Right after riviera is appointed King of England.

insomnyk, I think you've been watching too much American TV. Just because the baddies have English accents doesn't mean we're all evil meglomaniacs.

I think the criminal court is a lousy idea simply because I believe that every American citizen accused of a crime should have the right to a trial in the U.S. under U.S. law

boltman: Do you also think that (say) a Libyan who commits a crime should be entitled to a trial in Libya under Libyan law? No? Time to rethink your argument.

owillis: How about that retraction for calling me an anti-semite?
posted by salmacis at 9:58 AM on July 1, 2002

insomnyk, I think you've been watching too much American TV. Just because the baddies have English accents doesn't mean we're all evil meglomaniacs.

Actually, I enjoy watching Changing Rooms, Trigger Happy TV and other 'English' shows.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:05 AM on July 1, 2002

Do you also think that (say) a Libyan who commits a crime should be entitled to a trial in Libya under Libyan law?

i seem to recall that the libyans that blew up the pam am flight over scotland were successfully tried without an International Criminal Court.
posted by boltman at 10:07 AM on July 1, 2002

i seem to recall that the libyans that blew up the pam am flight over scotland were successfully tried without an International Criminal Court.

But by your argument, they were entitled to be tried in Libya under Libyan law.

In any case, the Pan Am bombers prove the need for the ICC. A legal framework is being established to ensure that in future situations we don't need to make up the procedures as we go.
posted by salmacis at 10:15 AM on July 1, 2002

Isn't it also a bit ironic to complain

And isn't it ironic for a nation to pledge its support to the interests of world peace, and then in almost the same turn to claim that it is first among equals and that it cannot be held to the rule of law before its peers. Oh, wait, it's not ironic. It's just sublime hypocrisy.
posted by holycola at 10:28 AM on July 1, 2002

For what it's worth, American GIs who break the laws of other countries (such as Korea) are usually turned over to the American military for trial under SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement.) So the GI stationed overseas is subject both to local laws and the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice.) The UCMJ does guarantee some rights to the accused, but nothing like civilian guarantees.

However, in the case of sensational crimes such as rape and murder, military authorities will sometimes bend to popular pressure and release the suspect to the local authorities. This has happened in both Korea and Japan, to my personal knowledge. (The more typical military response is to smuggle the suspect out of the country as quickly as possible.)

As a retired serviceman, I am deeply suspicious of the concern that President Bush is showing for GIs who may be caught up in the ICC. If there had been an international court during the war in Vietnam, surely Lt Calley would have been brought up on international charges. (And Americans would have screamed about it even louder than they did, because the My Lai massacre clashed so strongly with our national self-image.) But he pointed the finger at Captain Medina. What if it didn't end there? What if Medina had pointed at a superior officer? What if it went all the way up the chain of command?

I don't think President Bush is the least bit concerned about the fate of a lowly grunt caught in the mechanism of world justice. But I think he is concerned about the responsibility for "illegal orders" coming back up the chain of command.
posted by norm29 at 10:42 AM on July 1, 2002

it cannot be held to the rule of law before its peers

I think the argument here that you're missing holycola is that there is no "rule of law" to be held to. Only politics.

Look, I'm not Jesse Helms. I support much of the work that the U.N. does and I think it serves a useful function in the world. But it has proven time and time again that it is completely unable to deal effectively with divisive or politically charged issues. Petty political gamesmanship wins out over principle every time. It simply is not trustworthy enough to run a criminal court. Most of the member countries (justifiably or not) have a strong dislke for the United States and will probably be looking for ways to abuse any judicial powers they are granted by the ICC just as the United States probably would manipulate the court for its own ends if it were participating in it.
posted by boltman at 10:51 AM on July 1, 2002

and then in almost the same turn to claim that it is first among equals and that it cannot be held to the rule of law before its peers

The U.S. has claimed no such thing. It has never said it's "above the law." It merely argues that it doesn't want to give the court jurisdiction over it. The U.S.'s concern is that prosecutions will be politically motivated. Not one of you can deny that the general sentiment in the world right now is anti-U.S. And I'm not just talking about Syria and Iran, I'm talking about France, England, Germany, Italy... Is it that much of a stretch to be worried that the court might be used as a way to vent some of those feelings?

And the repeated argument that we shouldn't be objecting because a case won't even go before the court unless the U.S. declines to prosecute is circular. Since the U.S. is worried about political prosecutions, by definition that very type of case would not be prosecuted in the U.S.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:53 AM on July 1, 2002

the rule of law before its peers. Oh, wait, it's not ironic. It's just sublime hypocrisy.

Rule of law. You sound like a Republican during the impeachment trial.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:04 AM on July 1, 2002

Safire made an interesting point on how the ICC could make the lives of war correspondents more dangerous.
posted by homunculus at 11:06 AM on July 1, 2002

It has never said it's "above the law." It merely argues that it doesn't want to give the court jurisdiction over it.

And how, exactly, is exempting yourself from jurisdiction not calling youself "above the law"?

The rest of your argument, fine. I happen to disagree, but at least it's internally consistent. But your starting point is pure tautology.
posted by ook at 11:14 AM on July 1, 2002

The Bush (Sr. and Jr. ) view of America's role in the world is a moral abomination against humanity.

Would the word, ethics help with this and most of their mess'.

And with a brother overseas, bring them home. My brother signed up for the USA, not some other military, and you expect him to take orders from a non US commander?.
Yet he serves and keeps his mouth shut.

Above comments have been similar to some of the sentiments I was told in Europe in '99. Not, why the US should or shouldn't be here or there. But for the plain, fact this is how history has been. The battle of the fittest.
Now, I can't say I fully agree, but hey this was what they felt in Europe, and I'm the outsider. So we should leave, as we were not welcomed, if this be the case.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:16 AM on July 1, 2002

I must say, I find the attitude of the USA astonishing. The ICC is not going to be a kangaroo court. We are not going to have a situation where representitives of Iran, China and Syria put Americans on trial just because they can

Yeah, that'd be as unlikely as a Human Rights Commission made up of nations like China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.

Oh, wait. Never mind.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:23 AM on July 1, 2002

Let Europe do their own goddamned peace keeping on their continent, and pay for it themselves.

The U.S. has 72,000 troops stationed throughout Western Europe. Its time they bear the full burden of their own defense.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:26 AM on July 1, 2002

No, ook, the law and the court are two different things. The U.S. has never argued that it should be able to commit war crimes. It has argued that it's not going to voluntarily agree to be bound by a court that it believes will pursue prosecutions for political, as opposed to legal, reasons.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:27 AM on July 1, 2002

More likely, the U.S. is not willing to be held to any international communal standard of behavior or accountability.

The strongest bully on the playground never does. That's why eventually the teacher is forced to intervene. No teacher available? You get Lord of the Flies.
posted by rushmc at 11:38 AM on July 1, 2002

Hey - I have no problem with America Leaving anything. In fact, I think if we'd just back down a bit, one heck of a lot of our problems would magically disappear.

Army College Study quoted by the "Los Angeles Times" on January 6, 2002 - prior to September 11, more than 60,000 US military personnel were deployed at any given time in more than 100 countries. These figures exclude permanent stationary forces, replete with their dependants, stationed in Germany, Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia and dozens of other places.

The Defense Department's Base Structure Report, 2001, lists bases and installations in 44 countries and territories - but this excludes many bases with heavy US presence (e.g., within multinational forces).

Average tours of duty abroad lasted on 1996 - 135 days a year in the army, 170 days a year in the navy, and 176 days a year in the air force. Army soldiers were deployed overseas on average once every 14 weeks. The numbers have sharply increased during the war in Afghanistan and in its wake.

By March 2002, the USA has stationed well over 60,000 soldiers in new bases - from Bulgaria to Qatar and from Turkey to Tajikistan. According to the Pentagon, the US now has "status of forces" agreements - which regulate American military presence overseas - with 93 countries.

(source for this)

Now, I make this as the United States having armed military forces in about 50% of the planets countries (to a greater or lesser extent), if we can take that 191 as an accurate number of total countries.

How would we have felt about the Soviet military occupying the same amount, back in the Cold war days? Or now, for that matter. And for all the countries we have bases or presences in, how many of those countries have been allowed bases or military presences in the US?

Pride and Incredible Blindness seem to go with a misplaced patriotism on this issue. Why should the world NOT be worried about the United States? And why should recent events NOT cause even more concern in countries who KNOW that the US essentially allows them to keep their own governments by Noblisse Oblige? Germany... Italy... even England - our allies - know that when it comes right down to it, America can crush them under their heels with the requisite amount of self-justification and flag waving.

And now, when the US was given a chance to show it would be willing to act in good faith with the other nations of the world, in creating a court that would punish war crimes, and include itself as a responsible member of that global society, it turns away. We will be bound by no law but our own. America Uber Alles.

Hell yes - if I lived in another country, I'd be scared shitless. And frankly, I'm starting to get a little scared of even talking like this in public in America. What happens when the Protectors of Liberty and Freedom start seeing opposing voices as a threat to security....
posted by Perigee at 11:41 AM on July 1, 2002

More likely, the U.S. is not willing to be held to any international communal standard of behavior or accountability.

What international communal standard of behavior? You must be kidding.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:46 AM on July 1, 2002

God only knows if it isn't interesting (and new! new! new! for MetaFilter) this whole "Europeans-are-commie-weaklings" vs. "Fucking-John-Wayne-loving-ugly-Americans" discussion, but I have this announcement for you guys:

somewhere, Henry Kissinger is laughing

Baby Jesus is not
posted by matteo at 12:13 PM on July 1, 2002

So true Matteo - Kissinger is the catalyst for this.
posted by niceness at 12:25 PM on July 1, 2002

the law and the court are two different things. The U.S. has never argued that it should be able to commit war crimes.

Oh, my, why didn't I realize that before? Of course they'd come right out and say that in public. How silly of me.

By rejecting the idea of an international court, the US is declaring that it and only it is allowed to decide whether or not it's committing a war crime. I think a fairly common phrase used to describe that sort of thing would be "putting yourself above the law."

[the US] believes [the court] will pursue prosecutions for political, as opposed to legal, reasons

Perhaps. But political accusations can be made with or without a court; it would in fact be easier to refute them within a court setting if they are indeed baseless. Personally I doubt other nations would waste much time crying wolf against the US; it'd just reduce their credibility and impact when a real case came along.

Basically, though, calling the court a political tool is just sidestepping the issue. Regardless of the motivation, either the US is willing to hold itself accountable to the world community -- and whether you happen to like the world community or not, it's the only one we have -- or it isn't. Either we submit to the same standards we expect of other nations, or we believe ourselves to be above the law.

There are arguments to be made in favor of either position, sure. But call a duck a duck: don't pretend your position is anything other than what it is.
posted by ook at 12:27 PM on July 1, 2002

"How would we have felt about the Soviet military occupying the same amount, back in the Cold war days? Or now, for that matter. And for all the countries we have bases or presences in, how many of those countries have been allowed bases or military presences in the US?"

did we slip in the bathtub this morning and hit our head? you make it sound like america, as a whole, decided one day to spend billions of dollars and risk the lives of our children to go overseas and play around with other people's governments.

i'm sure it would make plenty of americans and the government plenty happy to not have to continually step in and solve other countries' problems. perhaps if a few more countries could manage to setup a decent government america wouldn't have to act like their parents.

i have a good like for all you usa-bashers: The Americans

in the end, as long as the usa is a superpower, bashing america and americans will be chic.
posted by epoh at 1:54 PM on July 1, 2002

t would in fact be easier to refute them within a court setting if they are indeed baseless.

If you're the U.S., you rarely feel the need to refute anything.
posted by kindall at 1:56 PM on July 1, 2002

you make it sound like america, as a whole, decided one day to spend billions of dollars and risk the lives of our children to go overseas and play around with other people's governments.

Er yeah, that's about it.
posted by niceness at 2:02 PM on July 1, 2002

Buy your owillis Kneejerk Aerobics video from all good retailers

Only after I get my "Mefi: America = Evil" t-shirt back from the cleaners.
posted by owillis at 2:30 PM on July 1, 2002

I did not realize this was actually going to happen! I am so very, very pleased. If they could stop the war on terror and stop using my taxes outside of the country, I will be happy enough to shut up forever. Bring the troops home, and pull out of Nato! Really, I am stunned. I was beginning to fear this administration would never do anything that I approved of.
posted by thirteen at 2:42 PM on July 1, 2002

owillis, epoh; so disagreeing with a particular US policy == bashing the USA? Seems to me we've heard that one before.
posted by ook at 3:00 PM on July 1, 2002

Only after I get my "Mefi: America = Evil" t-shirt back from the cleaners.

America isn't evil. Some of our memes clearly are.
posted by rushmc at 3:15 PM on July 1, 2002

Of course, now I realize this is not actually certain to happen. Don't bend on this one Europe, you will never be eye level with us if you do not hold your ground. Better to do without our troops than to poison your court before it even really exists.
posted by thirteen at 3:21 PM on July 1, 2002

You must be kidding.

Nope, not kidding. Funny that you should think that.
posted by rushmc at 3:57 PM on July 1, 2002

Answer the questionAnswer the question, rushmc. You brought it up. You, apparently, firmly believe that one exists.

What international communal standard of behavior?
posted by BlueTrain at 4:05 PM on July 1, 2002

whoops.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:06 PM on July 1, 2002

If you can't see it, you're not looking and no amount of pointing will open your eyes. Some people feel better about themselves by pretending that they are among the civilized elite, surrounded by savages and cannibals. Others are not so deluded.
posted by rushmc at 4:14 PM on July 1, 2002

If you can't see it, you're not looking and no amount of pointing will open your eyes.

Can't see what? Link something that describes an international communal standard of behavior. You're response is basically, "I'm right, you're wrong, and if you can't see that, I can't help you." Bull. Find me conclusive evidence that such a standard exists. Prove your point. Don't give me supercilious Moses-speak.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:21 PM on July 1, 2002

Link something that describes an international communal standard of behavior.

Link something that describes an American communal standard of behaviour.

(And no, don't try linking to the constitution: this week, of all weeks, proves that there's no 'communal' Standard, though there's the potential for lots of individual and collective judgements in an ongoing process of 'evolving standards' of behaviour. Rather like a court of law, really, no?)
posted by riviera at 4:26 PM on July 1, 2002

Link something that describes an American communal standard of behaviour.

Thank you, riviera, for proving my point. There is none. Zip. No international communal standard, no American communal standard. What we have here is a group of countries trying to impose their moral rationalizations upon the United States, and vice versa. Why doesn't the US want to join into this Court? It has everything to lose by giving up its power to regulate its military and combatants. Moral high ground, my ass. The US has developed and maintained a certain modicum of power in this world and it's not about to relinquish said power to another group who is equally thirsty.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2002

The US has developed and maintained a certain modicum of power in this world and it's not about to relinquish said power to another group who is equally thirsty.

Thanks, BlueTrain, for proving my point: it's all about penis size.

(Although, if you'd actually read beyond the line you quoted, you'd know that I quite disagree with you. 'Communal standards of behaviour' aren't something that can be published on a web site like the standard composition of a Big Mac. They're decided on a case by case basis, courtesy of legislation and judicial opinion. Your argument against the ICC might equally be used as an argument to say that US federal and state courts could never work together.)
posted by riviera at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2002

Your argument against the ICC might equally be used as an argument to say that US federal and state courts could never work together.

If you haven't already done so, read up on the history of the US Constitution and why it took so long to ratify. Long story short, large states vs. small states and national power vs. state power. Sound familiar? Two hundred years later, the EU is struggling with the exact problem, and trying to create an International Court will run into similar arguments.

The bottom line here is compromise. But the US has no incentive. The EU has a weaker economy, a pathetic military, and is struggling to maintain harmony within itself. The US dominates this world in almost every aspect, good and bad. What makes you think the US gives a shit about Europe's morality, or laws?

it's all about penis size.

Sounds to me like sour grapes. England's thimble dick vs. US Grade A certified footlong sausage.

If you want to continue reducing this argument to sexual terms, think of it this way: the EU has a smaller penis than the US. Granted. However, bigger does not always mean better, as any woman will tell you. So instead of crying about your lack of endowment, why not concentrate on effectively using what you have? That's exactly what this court is about. Giving the EU a chance to flex its muscles and affect world policy over the US. If they won't join you, trick them. Surely the Europeans can manipulate us dumb Americans.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:47 PM on July 1, 2002

Riviera, read this, courtesy of Steven Den Beste. He gives more than enough details as to why the US will not ratify half the shit that the rest of the world wants to push onto them.

I'll sum it up for everyone that's too lazy to follow the link, it's called the US Constitution.
posted by Zool at 10:34 PM on July 1, 2002

I don't get it Zool. If the Constitution is so important why do people still support Bush, Ashcroft, The Pentagon, conservative justices to make Constitutionally sound decisions etc anyhow?

How can you (Den Beste or anybody) simultaneously support the US declaring itself immune to 96% of the greater planet citing the Constitution, but then deny it (guilty or not) to a handful out of nearly 300m (among myriad other examples)? You've either got to be a shill or a mouthpiece to publish such hypocrisy.

--Read it. Yep, Den Beste alright.

Oh yeah, and BlueTrain, you should you should definitely change your nickname to something else. Something perhaps, that rhymes with Zool.
posted by crasspastor at 10:56 PM on July 1, 2002

BlueTrain: You really are the personification of the 'ugly American'. Steven Den Beste is not much better. Thankfully, you are in the minority.

Look at the instances in which international courts have been used: Nuremberg, the Balkan conflict, Rwanda, the Libyan bombers. These are the sorts of cases the ICC is designed to tackle. It is utterly paranoid for Americans to say that frivolous cases will be brought against Americans. There is nothing to suggest this will be the case. It's all about America asserting that it is a law unto itself.

What allies does America expect to have in the entire world if these policies are continued? Not even America can afford to be without allies.
posted by salmacis at 1:10 AM on July 2, 2002

Zool, I've followed the link. Now, do me a favour and read over this very thread (properly) and you'll see why Den Beste is talking out of his rear-end. I'm not going to repeat myself for the benefit of the non-thinkers here.

BlueTrain: I don't need to add anything. You're the one who had a go at me for saying that this is a dick-size argument, and then ended up saying 'The US has developed and maintained a certain modicum of power in this world and it's not about to relinquish said power to another group who is equally thirsty.' Condemned by your own words, I'm afraid. Want to try again, just so that I can tie you up in ribbons and send you back to your mother for July 4th? Your nationalist paranoia is so unbecoming, but it does provide high comedy value for the non-septics present.

Oh, and by the way: sell dollars, buy euros. While you can.
posted by riviera at 3:24 AM on July 2, 2002

I assume America (it's leadership and adherents of American imperialistic philosophy -- not its dissidents and innocents) is already the laughingstock of the planet. But what happens once America's economy founders, as it is already showing signs of going tits up? Not only do we become hated and laughed at to boot, but soon we become powerless to defend ourselves in any rationally meaningful way that does not require the death of untold millions and bankrupt the local populace and the economy we've come to rely on as a way of life. Every waking hour I am astounded by the level at which a population and it's government could be so out of touch with modernity but embrace selfishness like it were the ends of the means of human innovation.

Our coins read "In God We Trust"

They should read:

"Bear With Us As We Work This Selfishness Shit Out --Spend It, But Be Mindful"
posted by crasspastor at 4:09 AM on July 2, 2002

bloody nora. Can't beat a good old I hate fucking americans versus fuck you and sort yourselves out numpty 'europeans'. But seriously as I think phil collins said, bless, I think for certain participants there has been mass throwing of rattles out of prams. Right now on both sides of the pond we need to be building not burning bridges.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:59 AM on July 2, 2002

crasspastor: You worry too much. The American economy is not going to go titsup anytime soon. I don't expect the USA to be challenged as the world's leading economic power any time soon. Sure, there may be a recession and a fall in the stock market. The whole system isn't about to come crashing down.

johnnyboy: I don't hate Americans. I dislike those Americans who assert that America's military might means that it can do what it wants and fuck the rest of the world. Americans can also be among the most generous, warm-hearted, friendly people in the world. I do try not to stereotype.
posted by salmacis at 5:21 AM on July 2, 2002

The whole system isn't about to come crashing down.

I disagree. American money is on a very shaky footing, since its not actually based on anything (but the full faith and credit of the US Gov't, teehee). The biggest problem is that a large part of the world economy relies on the stable value of the American dollar, not to mention all the countries that depend on us for trade. If the American economy went belly up, they wouldn't be replaced immediately, there would first be a big, messy economic downturn.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:20 AM on July 2, 2002

yesterday i heard a group discussion on radio four regarding the icc. the participants batted the ideas about, but gave no credence to the 'america should have a get-out-of-court-free-card'. they discussed the fickle nature of international politics (e.g. mandela was a terrorist, now he's a hero) and how a court like this could rise above such temporary concepts. this court can only be good for the world IMHO, establishing trust between nations, giving all a level playing ground. that is if it works, and it will work if the effort required to make it work is provided. most of the world seems to be commited to make this effort.

it seems that, once again, some people take any criticism of the us government as a personal insult. this does not help the discussion of ideas.

what's the emoticon for 'cheer-leader'?

*doffs cap to riviera* i much prefer your emotive use of language (as is evidenced in this thread, as well as the first few you contributed to) than your (i imagine) deliberate self-censorship cutting the intricacy and bile of your posts for easy comprehension. fyi
posted by asok at 6:22 AM on July 2, 2002

"Bear With Us As We Work This Selfishness Shit Out --Spend It, But Be Mindful"

Do you use selfishness as an effective argument for socialism? I can't believe anyone actually ever buys that line. Selfishness. It is just so selfish for America, so rich and powerful, to not bow to the whims of our enlightened, socialist neighbors across the pond. I think you Euros have your feelings hurt when we don't go along with your schemes.

We've already had one war over this whole issue of control, why don't you guys send an invasion force over so we can settle it once and for all.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:24 AM on July 2, 2002

It is just so selfish for America, so rich and powerful, to not bow to the whims of our enlightened, socialist neighbors across the pond. I think you Euros have your feelings hurt when we don't go along with your schemes.

I'm sure that centre-right Jacques Chirac and rather more than centre-right Silvio Berlusconi, Jose Maria Aznar, Bertie Ahern and the other non-socialist leaders in Europe (Tony Blair? Probably.) will pardon your ignorance. They are, after all, enlightened. Or are you now defining 'socialist' as 'European'? In which case you should really take the dunce's cap and sit in the corner for the rest of the thread, before you humiliate yourself even further.

We've already had one war over this whole issue of control, why don't you guys send an invasion force over so we can settle it once and for all.

'Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick.'
posted by riviera at 6:57 AM on July 2, 2002

"I disagree. American money is on a very shaky footing, since its not actually based on anything (but the full faith and credit of the US Gov't, teehee). "

please, insomnyuk, go back to economics class. and perhaps history class too.
posted by epoh at 7:01 AM on July 2, 2002

Tony Blair? Socialist?

Hahaha! Heehaw *guffaw* haha *clutches sides* Bwaahhaahaaa!!!

That's a good one...
posted by salmacis at 7:42 AM on July 2, 2002

This is the best thread ever on Metafilter. Especially the part where people told other people that they were stupid dicks who can't read. That ruled! USA! USA! USA! Or Wherever!
posted by Skot at 7:54 AM on July 2, 2002

Wow, I addressed the socialism question to crasspastor, who I thought was an American, then segued mid paragraph to a statement regarding Europeans. I admit it was not worded in the best possible way.

However, I did not declare that Blair or any other specific European leader was a socialist. Anyway, nice try at putting words in my mouth riviera. I guess thats on par with the usual quality of your arguments:

'Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick.'
posted by insomnyuk at 7:58 AM on July 2, 2002

Yes?
posted by Dick Paris at 8:02 AM on July 2, 2002

I admit it was not worded in the best possible way.

Reads pretty clearly to me:

It is just so selfish for America, so rich and powerful, to not bow to the whims of our enlightened, socialist neighbors across the pond.

You're talking in terms of 'national' attitudes. Synecdoche, I believe, is the tern for it. And now you're just digging a hole for yourself. Quit while you're behind, insomnyuk.
posted by riviera at 8:05 AM on July 2, 2002

Oh, so you don't actually live in a socialist state which takes over half of your income to pay for such things as nationalized healthcare and subsidized rail systems? Are we talking about the same England? Maybe you live in a free-market, laissez-faire England where the people and goverment have no desire of interfering in the affairs of others. I'd like to visit sometime.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:11 AM on July 2, 2002

Are we talking about the same England?

No. You're talking about a fictional one. And the political entity is actually known as Britain.
posted by Summer at 8:59 AM on July 2, 2002

Dick Paris, you made me perform involuntary nose wudu.

riviera - i am sorry, you've lost me, what is the purpose of the multiple dicks? is this some new online comedy meme that i am not privy to? maybe i am a bit slow on the uptake.
posted by asok at 10:16 AM on July 2, 2002

asok, I was remembering the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs. I was upbraided by BlueTrain for saying that this diplomatic spat was based upon penis size. And I've been more or less vindicated by comments such as "The US has developed and maintained a certain modicum of power in this world and it's not about to relinquish said power to another group who is equally thirsty" and "why don't you guys send an invasion force over so we can settle it once and for all" which have nothing to do with the ICC and everything to do with 'mine is bigger than yours'. If that's how 'justice' works, I'm a banana.

And insomnyuk, I've changed my mind. Please keep posting. It makes my job so much easier.
posted by riviera at 11:09 AM on July 2, 2002

you should you should definitely change your nickname to something else. Something perhaps, that rhymes with Zool.

So very clever, crasspastor.

You really are the personification of the 'ugly American'.

Coming from a Brit, please...spare me the condescension. You have no idea what type of American I am. This isn't about nationalism; it's globalization.

Your nationalist paranoia is so unbecoming, but it does provide high comedy value for the non-septics present.

Paranoia? Because I understand that power can be easily lost and gained? Hey, it's not my fault you lost your colonies, and empire. To the victor go the spoils, my friend, and as it stands, I'm on the winning side, and with current policy, the US govt. plans to keep it that way.

'Dick dick dick dick dick dick dick.'

...

Give it up. Your "moral high ground" is pathetic, at best. England has committed countless atrocities throughout history. The US has been a global power for 100 years, during which time it saved your ass at least twice. Why not give credit where credit is due? The US doesn't have a clean record, but comparatively speaking, it's a virtual saint. Truth is I'm not even conservative, but even I know that the far-left would give away all US power if "equality" could be achieved. Guess what? It will never happen. It can't, because human nature dictates us to rise above others. And it just happens to be that my side is winning right now. ::shrugs:: I'll stick with the cards dealt to me.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:25 AM on July 2, 2002

It makes my job so much easier.

You get paid for this?
posted by ljromanoff at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2002

I think perhaps the Europeans like to forget about this little piece of paper we have, called a Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article III, Section 2. -

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."

As much as the Europeans would like us to, we will not simply ignore our Constitution.
posted by epoh at 12:45 PM on July 2, 2002

As much as the Europeans would like us to, we will not simply ignore our Constitution.

Man, John Ashcroft's the one who would like you to
posted by matteo at 1:22 PM on July 2, 2002

I was upbraided by BlueTrain for saying that this diplomatic spat was based upon penis size. And I've been more or less vindicated by comments such as "The US has developed and maintained a certain modicum of power in this world and it's not about to relinquish said power to another group who is equally thirsty" and "why don't you guys send an invasion force over so we can settle it once and for all"

I don't understand what those comments have to do with the size of anyone's penis or why you feel vindicated by them. They are about power, not penises. Granted, both words begin with "p," but I think we can agree that they are different things, no?
posted by kindall at 2:17 PM on July 2, 2002

Crasspastor and riviera, are you both mentally unstable?

You certainly come across that way especially since you both seem to enjoy telling other people, one of whom is me, that we are stupid.

Let me clear things up for you both especially riviera as you seem the most vocal in berating other members of this community. I don't live in a wonderfull wonderland where i don't take reality into consideration, most of my judgements are logically thought out and logically thinking there isn't a fucking chance in the world, whether you like it or not, that the current or any future US government would give the world, especially some fucked up Middle East countries, any chance of jurisdiction over any US citizen no matter what or how henious their crime may have been.

At the moment there are a lot of people who would like nothing more than to take down America a peg or two.

This is the reality of the situation and as far as i'm concerned i'm fucking glad that it's the US who's got the power and not Saudia Arabia or any number of that countries fucked up neighbours. This isn't about racism or hatred for the middle east, it's about living free, healthy and prosperous lives which is due mainly to America's ability to stay top dog.

I am originally from a communist country and untill you have tasted what it's like not to be able to speak your mind and live free don't give me or anyone else your shit because it stinks. I will do everything in power for the rest of my life to ensure that everyone in this world has freedom to do and say what they like and America, my fellow Mefite's, is the only country in the world not only capable but at the moment willing to change the course of the world so we can all live free from opression especially by governments.

For the first time at least since 1989, but arguably since 1945, America has both the chance and the motivation to reshape the world, writes Bill Emmott, the editor of The Economist

posted by Zool at 5:43 PM on July 2, 2002

For the record Zool, my remark that BlueTrain change his name to something that rhymes with yours wasn't directed towards you at all. I most certainly wasn't insinuating you were stupid. Just sparring a bit with BlueTrain since that's the only way one can converse with him.
posted by crasspastor at 6:39 PM on July 2, 2002

Just sparring a bit with BlueTrain since that's the only way one can converse with him.

For the record, and since I just happened to be sitting here at the moment, I don't take any of the shovels of crap thrown at me seriously. I find it to be an amusing give and take. A little shit splattered on MeFi's walls adds some character to the place.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:45 PM on July 2, 2002

Zool, I'm not going to go into detail about how the decision with which this thread is (or was) concerned spits in the face of what Emmott describes in his piece (in between quite a few moments of often absurdist fantasy, in which GWB becomes the child of both FDR and Reagan), because I suspect you'll see it yourself once you've calmed down.

If the US isn't prepared to take on responsibilities such as the small risk that comes from acknowledging the ICC -- whose statute was shaped a great deal by the US delegation in Rome to suit all the concerns we've heard here -- then the likelihood increases that its actions in the world will depart from the values you hold so dear. Absolute power does corrupt absolutely, as dear old Lord Acton said, and it would be a shame for you to wake up one day to find that your new country resembled your old one, simply because no-one had the guts to stand up and say that the emperor is showing his bits off to the world. If you considered yourself immortal, or simply above the law, would you give a fuck about the way you behaved towards others? There'd be no need: it's like shooting up Afghan wedding parties from a great height, just on a grand scale. There's a word for that, and it's hubris. And that's not lost on Mr. Emmott of the Economist, to lob your link back at you:

...there is a strong, sometimes hubristic, sense that America has the opportunities, obligations and threats associated in the past with empires: that it can set the rules that govern international relations, while at times operating outside them itself; but also that ultimately it alone can enforce those rules, a role which makes it the prime target of anyone who dislikes them.

Which goes right back to crasspastor's original question.
posted by riviera at 9:12 PM on July 2, 2002

Shit eh? Does that mean we get to sell these MeFi walls on EBay as 'found art'?
posted by insomnyuk at 9:13 PM on July 2, 2002

Absolute power does corrupt absolutely

That is exactly what Steven Den Beste wrote in his post on his site, where you so vehemently described him as talking out of his ass.

So logically thinking you are also talking out of your ass, or maybe you agree with him but in your haste to make yourself sound superior you willfully neglect what other people say and keep trying to push your opinions down others throats and willfully belittle other members of this community at every chance you get, that riviera makes you a fuckwit. I don't appreciate it and if i ever meet you face to face i'm going to shove your head up your ass so far you'll be able to lick your own g-spot.

and it would be a shame for you to wake up one day to find that your new country resembled your old one, simply because no-one had the guts to stand up and say that the emperor is showing his bits off to the world

You are fucking deluded or just plain stupid if you think that the American public will ever let their government go bad. Nearly everyone in that country carries a gun.

The government would basically have to shoot everyone willing to fight them, in order to achieve what you propose they are heading towards.

And i'm not even going to mention what the militias in America who's sole purpose is to make sure the government stays true to the people they serve, would do in a situation like that.

They are armed to the teeth and would step in immediately if the government steps out of line and does wrong by it's people.
posted by Zool at 9:57 PM on July 2, 2002

Oh dear Zool.
posted by niceness at 2:29 AM on July 3, 2002

Zool hun. I am the American public. And you are the government. And we could switch roles interchangably or each engender both qualities at the same time if we wanted. As Americans (myself being one, since there seems to be some question with such), you conservatives need to quit hiding behind your guns, bibles and flanks of raw meat and join the real fight. And that is, that you, as an equally as small a citizen as me are being commandeered by ideals that do not speak for you on the most fundamental of humane levels (whether you wish to agree with it or not).

Moreover, how in the living hell can you write:

Crasspastor and riviera, are you both mentally unstable?

You certainly come across that way especially since you both seem to enjoy telling other people, one of whom is me, that we are stupid.

Then, after I go out of my way to extend commonality and apology, you follow with this humdinger some 18 or so hours later:

You are fucking deluded or just plain stupid if you think that the American public will ever let their government go bad. Nearly everyone in that country carries a gun.

The government would basically have to shoot everyone willing to fight them, in order to achieve what you propose they are heading towards.

By the way. Was that perhaps actually the first real physical threat ever used on Metafilter? You've got a lot to be proud of there Zool.

Sorry BlueTrain, but your "Ugly American" designation must wait for another day.
posted by crasspastor at 3:07 AM on July 3, 2002

Zool's response, in miniature, explains what I'm talking about. (And no, it has nothing to do with Den Beste's puffed-up nationalism. Just the opposite.)

You are fucking deluded or just plain stupid if you think that the American public will ever let their government go bad. Nearly everyone in that country carries a gun.

Ever hear the story about the frog in a saucepan of water?
posted by riviera at 6:19 AM on July 3, 2002

Ever hear the story about the frog in a saucepan of water?

Yeah, it's an urban legend. A frog isn't stupid or complacent enough to let itself be boiled alive, nor are the American people stupid or complacent enough to allow tyranny.
posted by ljromanoff at 8:15 AM on July 3, 2002

A little shit splattered on MeFi's walls adds some character to the place.

And this attitude is exactly why I object to your posting style. Your views or political orientation are irrelevant; your chosen and admitted style foments divisiveness and incivility and sullies the site.

I don't appreciate it and if i ever meet you face to face i'm going to shove your head up your ass so far you'll be able to lick your own g-spot.

And you, Zool, are worse and clearly should be banned. Personal threats do not constitute an argument.
posted by rushmc at 9:54 AM on July 3, 2002

Yeah, it's an urban legend.

It's an analogy. An instructive fable, if you will.

nor are the American people stupid or complacent enough to allow tyranny

Well, that would appear to be the point under discussion. Restating your position as 'it is' rather than 'I think' doesn't exactly further your argument.
posted by ook at 12:41 PM on July 3, 2002

It's an analogy. An instructive fable, if you will.

Is that what it is? Gee, thanks.

What it is is meaningless, since the metaphor is dubious. Rather like saying something is as flat as the Earth.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:43 PM on July 3, 2002

And this attitude is exactly why I object to your posting style. Your views or political orientation are irrelevant; your chosen and admitted style foments divisiveness and incivility and sullies the site.

Heh. rushmc, let me explain this to you all civil-like, since the last time I got pissy, I was banned. Your opinion means nothing to me. Get it? Zero...you have no credibility. Your thoughts are supercilious, as I've mentioned before, and devoid of any real content. If you continue to berate me, do so knowing that I'm no longer sinking to your elementary level. Buh bye babe.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:11 PM on July 3, 2002

Actually, flat as the earth isn't that bad a metaphor, in a sarcastic way. "That president of yours, he's about as smart as the earth is flat."
posted by Apoch at 2:11 PM on July 3, 2002

except I used it as an analogy. Doh!
posted by Apoch at 2:50 PM on July 3, 2002

...nor are the American people stupid or complacent enough to allow tyranny.

Are you offering yourself as an example of eternal vigilance against impending tyranny? If you are, I think you should try a bit harder. Keep up that blinkered slapdown of dissenters, and before you know it, you'll be denouncing people like a good McCarthyite, just to ensure that your precious country's safe from harm.
posted by riviera at 3:20 PM on July 3, 2002

Keep up that blinkered slapdown of dissenters, and before you know it, you'll be denouncing people like a good McCarthyite, just to ensure that your precious country's safe from harm.

riviera, your slippery slope must be lubed with a mighty slick oil, because to go from defending the Bush Administration's policies to suddenly denouncing people as commies is a rather ridiculous ride.

You offer nothing except intellectual "nyah"s. You cannot prove that the ICC is beneficial to the US because it's not. It's beneficial to most countries OTHER than the US, which explains why so many Europeans love the idea. You have yet to offer solid proof as to why the Constitution is irrelevant. In fact, all you've concluded is that this policy is formed based on a bigger dick. Well congrats...for all your ::cough:: witty banter, you've yet to prove anything except your dissatisfaction with the current administration. Whoopee.

BTW, which US leader stepped away from the table during the Kyoto protocol hearings? This isn't about left or right. Some world policies are beneficial for the US and the world. Other policies are simply beneficial for the rest of the world, leaving the US with its pants around its ankles, bent over. This is the latter.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:02 PM on July 3, 2002

Crasspastor, get a fucking grip you tosser nowhere in my last post did i mention you nor was it directed at you, they where directed at a fuckwit who cannot assemble an argument without using sarcasm.

I'm starting to care about your opinion about as much as that other tosser who needs to get a grip on reality.
posted by Zool at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2002

Zool, your medication's calling. I think BlueTrain may have stolen your last prescription and used it as an enema.
posted by riviera at 8:18 PM on July 7, 2002