100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The British Having to Pay For Global Crimes. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Sorry, but quite frankly, if Britain committed crimes against humanity, then us brits deserve what's coming to us. Humanity just wants to survive, yet as per usual, human preservation and bullying is the main thinking of Britain. Ho hum. Poor us. We must cry wolf. Not. It looks like we ARE crying wolf. Why should any other country care? How hypocritical my country is. One minute they mention how they do not want to be friends with other countries, and the next minute they do a flip and want other countries to give a damn. We can't have our cake and eat it. You reep what you damn well sow, imho. Don't cry wolf, when you started a battle. Nations on the receiving end will always play the victim card. That is how the world was back then, get over it and move forward, don't cry victim all your life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but quite frankly, if Britain committed crimes against humanity, then us brits deserve what's coming to us. Humanity just wants to survive, yet as per usual, human preservation and bullying is the main thinking of Britain. Ho hum. Poor us. We must cry wolf. Not. It looks like we ARE crying wolf. Why should any other country care? How hypocritical my country is. One minute they mention how they do not want to be friends with other countries, and the next minute they do a flip and want other countries to give a damn. We can't have our cake and eat it. You reep what you damn well sow, imho. Don't cry wolf, when you started a battle. Nations on the receiving end will always play the victim card. That is how the world was back then, get over it and move forward, don't cry victim all your life. Actually, there are nations that have been on the receiving end of immoral behavior on the part of another nation, such as the European nations that were taken over by Nazi Germany. However, if you are going to describe a particular act as being a crime, then please cite the legal document which says that such an act is a crime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time Britian ruled the world and now it looks like they may have to pay for the crimes they committed while in charge. Japan had to pay its victims. Germany had to pay its victims. America should pay but its early days yet. Bullies should never get a free ride. So, who gets to decide what was and wasn't a crime in reference to the above quote? Who has the authority to prosecute? What court of law has the authority to deal with the alleged crimes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time Britian ruled the world and now it looks like they may have to pay for the crimes they committed while in charge. Japan had to pay its victims. Germany had to pay its victims. America should pay but its early days yet. Bullies should never get a free ride. So, who gets to decide what was and wasn't a crime in reference to the above quote? Who has the authority to prosecute? What court of law has the authority to deal with the alleged crimes? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but quite frankly, if Britain committed crimes against humanity, then us brits deserve what's coming to us. Humanity just wants to survive, yet as per usual, human preservation and bullying is the main thinking of Britain. Ho hum. Poor us. We must cry wolf. Not. It looks like we ARE crying wolf. Why should any other country care? How hypocritical my country is. One minute they mention how they do not want to be friends with other countries, and the next minute they do a flip and want other countries to give a damn. We can't have our cake and eat it. You reep what you damn well sow, imho. Don't cry wolf, when you started a battle. Nations on the receiving end will always play the victim card. That is how the world was back then, get over it and move forward, don't cry victim all your life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time Britian ruled the world and now it looks like they may have to pay for the crimes they committed while in charge. Japan had to pay its victims. Germany had to pay its victims. America should pay but its early days yet. Bullies should never get a free ride. So, who gets to decide what was and wasn't a crime in reference to the above quote? Who has the authority to prosecute? What court of law has the authority to deal with the alleged crimes? Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about the ICJ: "Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council.
According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another. Therefore there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, due to the absence of binding force, although there are 191 member states of the ICJ, the members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, the membership of the UN and ICJ does not give the automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it's the consent of each states to follow the jurisdiction that matters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to suggest The International Criminal Court but that seems to have its hands tied untill 2017. In any case the two biggest violaters of wars of aggression and humanitarian crimes havent signed the treaty. Is it 2017 when Obama leaves Office????????????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You specifically mentioned alleged "American imperialism". Yet, you gave no evidence of such a thing. Many just parrot the rhetoric without understanding the nature of 'imperialism'. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Philippine Islands, but the USA set the Philippines free. Once upon a time, the USA had complete possession of Cuba, but the USA set Cuba free. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Panama Canal, but then the USA gave it back to the nation of Panama. The giving away of such possessions is the opposite of what an imperial nation would do. Indeed, and many are fashionably and erroneously attributing the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'imperialism' when it is clearly nothing of the sort. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 05/16/13 08:42 AM
|
|
I was going to suggest The International Criminal Court but that seems to have its hands tied untill 2017. In any case the two biggest violaters of wars of aggression and humanitarian crimes havent signed the treaty. Is it 2017 when Obama leaves Office???????????? Besides Bush has Immunity under International Law! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2011/02/bush_not_at_risk_of_arrest_in.html Under "INTERNATIONAL INDICTMENT RULES", an arrest warrant for Bush can ONLY be issued if there is "DANGER".... Belief, provable, that the individual/people in question could/would repeat the crime (s)....... There are three (3) circumstances under International Law of which 1 or more "must" be present.... 1. DANGER that the crime could/would be repeated... 2. DANGER the person/people in question could/would become fugitives (s)... 3. DANGER The person/people would/could destroy or tamper with evidence... You think Bush is not aware of this...he just doesn't want to get tangles up in the muck...especially just to give a speech in another country..the man is retired for Gods sake.... CONSTITUTIONALLY, Bush cannot hold office again......whats the problem? Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed. This type of immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law and confers immunities on those performing acts of state (usually a foreign official). Any person who in performing an act of state commits a criminal offence is immune from prosecution. This is so even after the person ceases to perform acts of state. Thus it is a type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but will only end if the state itself ceases to exist. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality and state dignity. The offices usually recognised as attracting this immunity are Head of State or Head of Government, senior cabinet members, Foreign Minister, and Minister for Defence: see the Arrest Warrant Case, Pinochet Case (R v Bow Street Magistrates; ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) 1 AC 147, House of Lords). Such officers are immune from prosecution for everything they do during their time in office. For example, an English court held that a warrant could not be issued for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on charges of international crimes on the basis that he was a presently serving Head of State at the time the proceedings were brought: Mugabe, reported at (2004) 53 ICLQ 789. Other examples are the attempts to prosecute Fidel Castro in Spain and Jiang Zemin in the USA. OOps looks like they can't touch him even under international Law. The US has not ceased to be the US. Under this treaty he cannot be touched unless the US ceases to exist. Period.Just time for a little reminder! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_(international_law) and the very same holds good for Obama! Thus it is a type of immunity limited in the acts to which it attaches (acts of state) but will only end if the state itself ceases to exist. This type of immunity is based on respect for sovereign equality and state dignity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You specifically mentioned alleged "American imperialism". Yet, you gave no evidence of such a thing. Many just parrot the rhetoric without understanding the nature of 'imperialism'. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Philippine Islands, but the USA set the Philippines free. Once upon a time, the USA had complete possession of Cuba, but the USA set Cuba free. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Panama Canal, but then the USA gave it back to the nation of Panama. The giving away of such possessions is the opposite of what an imperial nation would do. Indeed, and many are fashionably and erroneously attributing the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'imperialism' when it is clearly nothing of the sort. TYPES OF IMPERIALISM Europeans began building their empires in the western hemisphere in the early 1500s, but by the 1800s, Spain and Portugal were no longer powerful countries, and the largest British colony had become the United States. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the Netherlands continued to colonize during this era, but they also devised other ways to spread their empires. In the late 19th century Japan and the United States joined the European nations as an imperialist power. Types of imperialism in the 1800s included: Colonial imperialism - This form of imperialism is virtual complete takeover of an area, with domination in all areas: economic, political, and socio-cultural. The subjugated area existed to benefit the imperialist power, and had almost no independence of action. In this era, almost all of Africa and southern and southeast Asia were colonized. Economic imperialism - This form of imperialism allowed the area to operate as its own nation, but the imperialist nation almost completely controlled its trade and other business. For example, it may impose regulations that forbid trade with other nations, or imperialist companies may own or have exclusive rights to its natural resources. During this era, China and most of Latin America were subjected to economic imperialism. Political imperialism - Although a country may have had its own government with natives in top political positions, it operated as the imperialist country told it to. The government was sometimes a relatively permanent "puppet government," as happened in late Qing China, and other times the control was temporary, as occurred in the Dominican Republic when the United States ran its government until it got out of debt. Socio-cultural imperialism - The dominating country deliberately tried to change customs, religions and languages in some of the countries. A good example was British India, where English was taught in schools, Indian soldiers dressed British-style, and western trading rules were set up. Generally, the imperialist countries assumed their cultures to be superior, and often times they saw themselves as bringing about improvements in the society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 05/16/13 09:48 AM
|
|
You specifically mentioned alleged "American imperialism". Yet, you gave no evidence of such a thing. Many just parrot the rhetoric without understanding the nature of 'imperialism'. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Philippine Islands, but the USA set the Philippines free. Once upon a time, the USA had complete possession of Cuba, but the USA set Cuba free. Once upon a time, the USA had possession of the Panama Canal, but then the USA gave it back to the nation of Panama. The giving away of such possessions is the opposite of what an imperial nation would do. Indeed, and many are fashionably and erroneously attributing the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'imperialism' when it is clearly nothing of the sort. TYPES OF IMPERIALISM Europeans began building their empires in the western hemisphere in the early 1500s, but by the 1800s, Spain and Portugal were no longer powerful countries, and the largest British colony had become the United States. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and the Netherlands continued to colonize during this era, but they also devised other ways to spread their empires. In the late 19th century Japan and the United States joined the European nations as an imperialist power. Types of imperialism in the 1800s included: Colonial imperialism - This form of imperialism is virtual complete takeover of an area, with domination in all areas: economic, political, and socio-cultural. The subjugated area existed to benefit the imperialist power, and had almost no independence of action. In this era, almost all of Africa and southern and southeast Asia were colonized. Economic imperialism - This form of imperialism allowed the area to operate as its own nation, but the imperialist nation almost completely controlled its trade and other business. For example, it may impose regulations that forbid trade with other nations, or imperialist companies may own or have exclusive rights to its natural resources. During this era, China and most of Latin America were subjected to economic imperialism. Political imperialism - Although a country may have had its own government with natives in top political positions, it operated as the imperialist country told it to. The government was sometimes a relatively permanent "puppet government," as happened in late Qing China, and other times the control was temporary, as occurred in the Dominican Republic when the United States ran its government until it got out of debt. Socio-cultural imperialism - The dominating country deliberately tried to change customs, religions and languages in some of the countries. A good example was British India, where English was taught in schools, Indian soldiers dressed British-style, and western trading rules were set up. Generally, the imperialist countries assumed their cultures to be superior, and often times they saw themselves as bringing about improvements in the society. Why not just come out with it,and let the Cat out the Bag ,that you hate the West? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh get over yourself will ya.us brits are not the tyrants .good grief check out other countries.we all done bad things.so why hammer the brits?are you a terrorist or a one handed typer.is there a difference?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh get over yourself will ya.us brits are not the tyrants .good grief check out other countries.we all done bad things.so why hammer the brits?are you a terrorist or a one handed typer.is there a difference?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a Lover not a Fighter. xxx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haah that should set happybun off nicely.
methinks he chose the wrong name bigoted against the brits woweeee are we supposed to be scared now lmao.why single us out?what about neuremberg trials and Auschwitz and pol pot and a million other things.none of them were british things.bah cant be doing with him and his up yours to the brits attitude!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the Vikings for rape and pillage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haah that should set happybun off nicely. methinks he chose the wrong name bigoted against the brits woweeee are we supposed to be scared now lmao.why single us out?what about neuremberg trials and Auschwitz and pol pot and a million other things.none of them were british things.bah cant be doing with him and his up yours to the brits attitude!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh really well while yer mentioning iran back then ask yerself this.the shah of iran ran off to the usa to hide in exile WHY?????we know why. but swearing not allowed on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh really well while yer mentioning iran back then ask yerself this.the shah of iran ran off to the usa to hide in exile WHY?????we know why. but swearing not allowed on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol I give up me brain hurts.end of the day nobody can change anything its history things happened but don't single us in Britain out.nor the US.theres way worse doing way worse right now as we speak.kim il jung fatboy korea for one .anyhoo its been fun but I got a few chores to do.if yer anti british then ignore us simplesss byebye now am bored.
|
|
|
|
|
