hahahaha, this post is pretty sad.
First off, of course I support MM and cynt's beliefs, for they are that which run america today.
Also, Ponuh, you are an ignorant piece of shit that is making generalizations of americans from a movie created by famous comedians. What the fuck kind of argument are you trying to start by basing all reasoning off of a movie made with puppets? Alright, so I guess egypt is full of terrorists and world-domination-intentioned rulers from that last James Bond movie I've seen, oh and canada is full of pot heads and shitty cops because of that road trip movie I saw. Oh wait, I'm not ponuh so I understand that those movies do not talk about all people from that alleged country/state, but a minority which has been revealed through fictional or nonfictional media.
princess- I doubt you have any schooling on U.S. documentation, of course I'm assuming this from your previous posts. So I guess, if you had been tought this, you would know that all americans do have constitutional rights, and they do not relate in any way with the allowance of a world court that would dominate their being, if they were not supported by a U.S. court(which is exactly what ICC is). "many congressional critics see a permanent international criminal court as an assault on U.S. freedoms and advocate no-holds barred opposition to the Court..." (
http://www.amacad.org/projects/iccarticle.htm). As quoted, the ICC will in many ways oppose current U.S. amendments, including that of V and VI, which state,
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (article 5), and
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" (article 6).
After desimating that one credulous defense, I do inquire why you would ratify justice as being placed upon a court, that in turn houses many states which, have in previous engagements, performed such knavish acts such as the goal of world domination. These states, of course, would also be compiled of many whom were rock-solid-against war with saddam (meaning, many from the UN). In turn, if this court had been in effect at 1998, these states would have not allowed war for the capture of saddam, for they would most likely rule against it; this assumption is based off of the action which they took by going against the war. Of course, this would have resulted in Saddam still being in power today, and would make him immune to any accusations from the world; due to the fear of many court members.
Do you have any other oppositions to the so called nation of 'inflated self-importance' that, has in the past, saved the very being of the democratic governments across the world?
Along with dinav, whom I rarely agree with, I do believe that the world would be under communistic rule if not for the intervention of the U.S..
_________________
WoW: 70 Rogue/Sham 60Mage/Priest
FFXI: 75 Thief (retired)
Login
