"Whar did ah put that moral highground?" - GW "Got War? Bush

Well surely the UN and the court will unleash the full military might of their armies and bring both the Sudan and the United States to their knees and comply with the courts' rulings.

It's sad, but was predicted by libs here.

We want the world to follow in our footsteps. Hence why we need the moral highground.

W gave that up in the name of expediency and electoral victory.

It's sad, but was predicted by libs here.

Yeah, you told us so... man what fools we are for being against our soldiers being dragged before some UN court... we're such assholes.

YEAH!

Well there you go ------ A Real Lasting Bush Legacy!

we're such assholes

Nice to agree with you, asshole.

I don't understand people who want to hand over our sovereignty to yet another layer of corrupt beuracratic assholes. Governments work best on a small scale. The farther removed the top leaders are from normal people, the more out of touch and corrupt they are. Americans should understand this better than most. Look what we have now.

And anyone who thinks this guy would have shown up for his trial if not for our refusal to subject our soldiers to the ICC is very naive (to put it kindly). He's a genocidal prick, not a moron.

Asking this guy nicely to show up to face charges never had any chance of stopping genocide in Sudan. Zero. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. At this point the UN should either send an army or just admit it has no intention of taking any action that is going to stop the genocide and move on. There is no reason to insult the victims by playing games like this.

"Hence why we need the moral highground."

There is no such thing. Morality is subjective.

Pontificate much?

"Pontificate much?"

Aren't you the same douche who just posted a little "grammar lesson" on another thread?

"Well there you go ------ A Real Lasting Bush Legacy!"

The only difference it that the ICC doesn't have the balls to indict Bush. Meaning that after Bush's term is done, he will be free to travel to any country he wants, which is punishment for us.

If Mars looks like West Texas, bush should go live there.

Heck of a job georgie!!!

There is no such thing. Morality is subjective.

Posted by Sully at 2008-07-23 12:10 PM | Reply |

Please. Take a break Friedrich.

"Please. Take a break Friedrich."

Where some people see the ICC as a moral authority others see it as a group of people who have the same flaws and biases as anyone else. The idea that the ICC represents the moral high ground is completely subjective.

I know that contradicts the way you've been trained to think and the fact that you can't refute my logic in order to justify your belief frustrates you. But that's not a good reason to get snippy.

We're gonna do what we're gonna do, fuck what some international body thinks. I'm gonna do whatever I'm gonna do, fuck what my government thinks. It's all about me. Anyone else who disagrees has flawed and biased thinking. Rather than bothering with giving them a chance to stand trial, let's just jump to bombing them, yeah! Civilized society? Hah!

"Rather than bothering with giving them a chance to stand trial, let's just jump to bombing them, yeah!"

The guy has clearly stated he's not willing to stand trial. That's kind of the whole point of the article. Read it.

"Anyone else who disagrees has flawed and biased thinking. "

It is flawed thinking to assume that taking a pro-ICC is the "moral high ground". I've explained why I believe so. Anyone is welcome to explain to me why I'm wrong. Your post indicates you are incapable of doing so, however.

And inherent is labelling one's position as the "moral high ground" is the implication that those who do not agree with you are taking the low road. Its basically the same thing you are criticizing me for, although you don't seem to have a problem with it.

Bush and Cheney's crimes are nowhere near as bad as those under the leaders and ex-leaders in Burma, China, Russia, Sudan, Serbia etc. Nobody is suggesting they have practiced genocide but torture, illegal imprisonment and the occasional death are not misdemeanors against humanity, they are crimes against humanity.

The lunatic fringe will beat their chests and shout loudly("Sieg Heil, Bring 'em on") about how we're at war with savages so it's justifiable to push the envelope or whatever other euphemism they want to use. But that's the rationale Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest used. Not the kind of company the United States of America wanted to be associated with back in the day pre-Bush and Cheney.

It is flawed thinking to assume that taking a pro-ICC is the "moral high ground".

Since the othert option is apparently genocide, I'd say they've got a good case for being the high ground. If you want to get relativistic, the ICC is on HIGHER ground.

Was this douche gonna show up for his trial? No. But it hurts that his excuse was our piss poor and illegal behavior, and that this puke had a point. Hurts to the bone.

Really, think about this:

The Sudan just tried to jusitfy their beahvior by comparing themselves to US. And they weren't far off.

Jesus, I never thought I'd write that in a million years. How sad we have become.

Why is it that our current President seems to share so much common ground with a bunch African dictators, a la Mugabe and al-Bashir? This is new to the American political scene and should concern everyone paying attention and thinking about it. Even right wingers hopefully can see the loss of credibility GWB has created for the U.S. worldwide.

Well surely the UN and the court will unleash the full military might of their armies

rob, can you inform us where the UN and ICC armies are stationed? Do they have a Navy and Air force as well? Methinbks you know as much about the UN as McSame knows about Czechoslovokia, or GWB about military leadership.

Sully, please explain why there are no common standards of behavior that we can all agree on.

Would you say that genocide is not bad because morality is all relative?

Cheers

The Sudan just tried to jusitfy their beahvior by comparing themselves to US. And they weren't far off.

Jesus, I never thought I'd write that in a million years. How sad we have become.

Posted by Alexandrite

well, since Bush got his torture techniques from the North Koreans, the bar is set about as low as you can go.

"Since the othert option is apparently genocide, I'd say they've got a good case for being the high ground. If you want to get relativistic, the ICC is on HIGHER ground."

I don't see why the two options are "Everyone cowtows to the ICC or we accept genocide whenever it occurs". Its not an honest way to frame the issue.

Putting that aside.....If the ICC operates under the assumption that genocidal leaders are just going to show up to trial, why pretend the ICC has any shot at ever stopping genocide? The ICC can only try a genocidal leader AFTER someone else has put an end to his rule. Alot of people have to die without a trial before the lead killer can be put on trial. To pretend otherwise is silly.

"But it hurts that his excuse was our piss poor and illegal behavior"

There is nothing illegal about choosing not to participate in the ICC.

"Sully, please explain why there are no common standards of behavior that we can all agree on."

There are common standards for behavior. Some are laws (like those against murder) and some are rules (like no shirt, no shoes, no service).

Not everyone is going to agree that laws and rules respresent the last word on morality. I don't think it is immoral for an 18 year old to have a beer, for example. There are billions of people who think it is immoral for anyone to have a beer. I think they are nuts and they think I'm going to hell.

"Would you say that genocide is not bad because morality is all relative?"

No. My own sense of morality is strongly anti-genocide. I would say most people would agree. There are plenty of behaviors that most people on Earth would consider immoral - murder, assault, theft, rape, etc. And even then there are grey areas like stealing to eat.

But when you get into issues like whether choosing to participate in the ICC is "moral" or not, things get blurry. Who appointed the members of the ICC the arbiters of morality? They're career politicians and they make decisions for political reasons. I see nothing moral about handing over a piece of our sovereignty to them and I haven't seen one arguement that makes a decent case to the contrary. Everyone just wants to assume the ICC somehow represents "morality". Bullshit.

The ICC can only try a genocidal leader AFTER someone else has put an end to his rule.

I wonder who that "someone" is? Who has it traditionaly been? The ICC? The U.N.? Sudan? I would put our record against Sudan's anyday. And you liberal traitors are wrong for suggesting otherwise. Do you think if the U.S. was participating in the liberal ICC, they would listen? You arent fooling yourselves like that are you? If so, I have some land in San Francisco to sell you...

U.S. sovernty should NEVER be given to any foreign body. Thank god I am conservative..

But what about another nations sovereignty? Especially when our egregious behavior is occurring in that foreign country? Or do we have the right to walk all over anybody we want and not give a damn? Sounds like the Bush Admins justification for torture and Abu Graib.

I would put our record against Sudan's anyday.

The fact that you would suggest a comparison here suggests that you are missing the point.

We shouldn't have to make such a comparison, it should be known.

My have we dropped in a short 8 years.

"But what about another nations sovereignty? Especially when our egregious behavior is occurring in that foreign country? Or do we have the right to walk all over anybody we want and not give a damn?"

I'm not against US participation in the ICC because I want the US to get away with going into other countries and committing atrocities.

The belief that the ICC would prevent the US or any other major power from doing so isn't realistic anyway.

I wonder if Bush paid a visit to Idi Amin on his trip to Saudi Arabia?

The idea that the ICC represents the moral high ground is completely subjective.

The same could be said for any court,Sully, including Nuremberg. The courts merely exercise the morals espoused by those they govern. Not, fortunately, always the morals the governed actually use.

The belief that the ICC would prevent the US or any other major power from doing so isn't realistic anyway.

And that is the point. So why be a part of it? Why should we do it if the ones we wish to prevent dont either? To give our enemies an advantage on us? What do you do about countries who would take advantage?

Touche! To the Sudanese Govt for if America can get away with torture,murder and genocide why shouldn't they have the exact,same legal immunity!!!!

"The same could be said for any court,Sully, including Nuremberg. The courts merely exercise the morals espoused by those they govern. Not, fortunately, always the morals the governed actually use."

Nuremberg was just a way for the winning powers to legitimize their intended actions. The way the ICC could be used by major powers today would be to legitimize their bad behavior by scapegoating lower level people.

Send a few GIs from Iraq to the ICC for war crimes. The anti-American crowd would be happy and Bushco could claim they make human rights a priority because we participate in the ICC. Its a win-win all around, except in the case of the poor suckers who get sacrificed and their families. That's the only way the ICC would ever be used against an American as the people in charge would be pretty much exempt.