“First, Moses don’t make me laugh by saying that the Democratic Party is liberal. It, much like the republicans, is rather a loose collection of constituincies than a party. The thing is, the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, don’t pretend that they are for the people or that they are anything other than soft money whores.”
I never said that the Demo Party was truely liberal, though much more than the GOP. It’s true that the Republicans are having “inner-problems” (changing of the “Guard”) and the Democrats have, too, but there’s a reason they been around for so long. I don’t think both parties are as shaky as you would make them seem to be. Also Democrats and Republicans are worlds apart, though I do agree, that Democrats “pretend” they represent the common interest of the people. In reality, this is just effective ploy at getting votes– “He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”
“Second, Moses, didn’t you say you were an agnostic/theist rather than a christian?”
What made you think otherwise?
“Third, Fisternis, I don’t know why Moses incorectly labels himself. If he is unsure that any lable applies (like me) then DON"T LABEL YOURSELF. It is almost like lying.”
Hmmmm… funny how you never answered my post when I questioned you to compare my “conservative” points with my “leftist” ones. Also, I think my label is quite right – it serves its purpose. It’s also funny how you take such great offense to this.
Now moving back to the subject at hand, for now I have to agree with TM on the International Courts. I have not studied it thoroughly, though a few questions arise:
-There is a danger that the court will be seen as geographically unrepresentative and Western dominated.
-Only one Arab state has joined so far (Jordan) and hardly any from Asia.
-The ICC would have to figure out some way to “adjust” judicial laws in the existing governments that have signed the treaty
-Expense of the ICC would mostly be done on a national wealth basis, meaning that USA would have to foot much of the tab :o
-other questions, such as the actual running of the court system and representation
However, FinsterniS does raise some good questions. There’s been talk of this “Double Standard” against Americans, but we might be provoking it by refusing to sign. A lot of this stems from our wanting of immunity for our soldiers and diplomats brought before the court on cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, while other countries are not subject to such “privileges.” But us Americans can counter with our fear of politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions on our soldiers. Then again the Europeans can counter that various safeguards were introduced partly to meet this objection. Also the International Courts is more of a “last-resort” option, intervening only when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.
