Please, stop cherry picking
985 Jan 18
President Reagan declared that the U.S. would not take part in
the
World Court ruling on Nicaraguan charges.
Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court, ReaganR Click to see the
source
(s) for this event
On Apr 10, 4:55 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> read your own dates and try to order them oldest to newest:
>
> 1985 Oct 7
> The United States announced it would no longer automatically comply
> with World Court decisions. This was in response to a June 25, 1985,
> World Court ruling that U.S. involvement in Nicaragua violated
> international law. The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in April
> 1984 after revelations that the CIA had directed the mining of
> Nicaraguan ports. The U.S. later vetoed two U.N. resolutions calling
> for compliance to the World Court ruling.
> Links: Nicaragua, USA, UN, CIA, World Court Click to see the source
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:50 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 5th paragraph from the bottom
>
> > >>> And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it
> > make... the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the
> > US under Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ
> > jurisdiction
>
> > >>> AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict
> > was rendered for war crimes............
>
> > Reagan took the same stance as France did in 1974 -- that is refused
> > to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ... He did so in 1985 BEFORE
> > the ICJ made any ruling... In your statement your state or infer
> > Reagan was the first to openly ignore the ICJ (false) and that Reagan
> > did so After the Judgment (again false)... The facts you DID not
> > include were Iranian open rejection of the ICJ Judgment in 1980...
>
> > You are NOT ENTITLED to your FACTS when they are false...
>
> >http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=537&title=World%20Court
>
> > 1980 May 24
> > Iran rejected a call by the World Court in The Hague to release the
> > American hostages.
> > Links: Netherlands, Iran, World Court Click to see the source(s)
> > for this event
>
> > 1985 Jan 18
> > President Reagan declared that the U.S. would not take part in the
> > World Court ruling on Nicaraguan charges.
> > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court, ReaganR Click to see the source
> > (s) for this event
>
> > 1985 Oct 7
> > The United States announced it would no longer automatically comply
> > with World Court decisions. This was in response to a June 25, 1985,
> > World Court ruling that U.S. involvement in Nicaragua violated
> > international law. The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in April
> > 1984 after revelations that the CIA had directed the mining of
> > Nicaraguan ports. The U.S. later vetoed two U.N. resolutions calling
> > for compliance to the World Court ruling.
> > Links: Nicaragua, USA, UN, CIA, World Court Click to see the source
> > (s) for this event
>
> > 1986 Jun 27
> > World Court ruled that US aid to Nicaraguan contras was illegal.
> > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court Click to see the source(s) for
> > this event
>
> > On Apr 10, 4:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Response one:
>
> > > Someone has to.
>
> > > TWO:
>
> > > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they think
> > > affect or affected their interests in any way.
>
> > > Gee, the US does just that as well.
>
> > > THREE:
>
> > > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert move
> > > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of another (the
> > > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US method
> > > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act.
> > > FOUR:
>
> > > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had resigned
> > from
>
> > > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in the
> > outback
> > > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be made by
> > > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during their
> > > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet bloc.... Is
> > the
>
> > > US responsible for UN actions ??
>
> > > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it
> > make...
> > > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the US
> > under
> > > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ
> > jurisdiction
>
> > > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict
> > > was rendered for war crimes............
>
> > > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way.
>
> > > I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and ON TOPIC
> > > (unlike yours) questions.
>
> > > And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads of state
> > and
> > > he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che was not part
> > of
> > > the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc.
>
> > > You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and trying your
> > best
> > > to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT being discussed
> > > regardless of your interpretation.
>
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the Us have
> > > > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest
> > > > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to answer
> > > > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... In one
> > > > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that
>
> > > > >>> the first to openly ignore the UN
>
> > > > which you altered after the fact to in effect
>
> > > > >>> the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment
>
> > > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what do you
> > > > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your dig is
> > > > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic"
> > > > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no
> > > > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, why did
> > > > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply that was on
> > > > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC...
>
> > > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you claiming
> > > > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on topic??? If
> > > > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being off
> > > > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for honest,
> > > > open and civil debate here are we not???
>
> > > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue.
>
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > > > ouch!!!
>
> > > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Further examples as I twist the knife into your false claim's
> > back...
> > > > > > > Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common starting from
> > > > > > > 1951....
>
> > > > > > > Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice
>
> > > > > > > Andrew Srulevitch
> > > > > > > Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
> > > > > > > July 8, 2004
>
> > > > > > > Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue its
> > > > non-binding
> > > > > > > advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might Israel
> > react
> > > > > > > to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? Attack the
> > > > > > > enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the disputed territory?
>
> > > > > > > So responded France, Iceland and Morocco, respectively, to ICJ
> > > > > > > decisions against them. Ignoring the ICJ ruling would not be
> > > > original
> > > > > > > either. The United States, Albania, Argentina, Guinea-Bissau,
> > Iran,
> > > > > > > Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania, South Africa and Thailand have all
> > > > > > > followed that path.
>
> > > > > > > If Israel does not accept the ICJ’s conclusions, Palestinians and
> > > > > > > their supporters will argue that the Security Council should
> > enact
> > > > > > > sanctions against Israel, as it did against apartheid South
> > Africa.
> > > > > > > Lawyers for the Palestinians made this argument explicitly in
> > their
> > > > > > > oral presentation to the court:
>
> > > > > > > This is a classic case in the light of the opinion issued by the
> > > > Court
> > > > > > > in the Namibia case. As a result of the serious breaches of
> > > > > > > international law by the State of Israel, other states are
> > obliged to
> > > > > > > co-operate with one another and with the United Nations and other
> > > > > > > competent international organizations, in order to put a stop to
> > > > these
> > > > > > > violations; not to recognize the unlawful situations arising from
> > > > > > > these violations; not to assist in the maintenance of these
> > > > > > > situations. If Israel persists in its refusal to apply the
> > above-
> > > > > > > mentioned rules of international law and does not accept the
> > > > > > > consequences of its responsibility, the General Assembly is
> > entitled
> > > > > > > to expect the Security Council to take the necessary coercive
> > > > measures
> > > > > > > which, in the case of violations of mandatory legal rules, should
> > not
> > > > > > > be amenable to the use of a veto by any member of the Council.
>
> > > > > > > Their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Just as the
> > general
> > > > > > > comparison between Israel and South Africa is specious, so is the
> > > > > > > specific linkage of the Namibia and Security Fence cases.
>
> > > > > > > The history of the ICJ not only contradicts the Palestinian
> > argument,
> > > > > > > it leads to the opposite conclusion: states have not been subject
> > to
> > > > > > > Security Council sanctions for non-compliance. The ICJ’s judges
> > have
> > > > > > > issued decisions in various formats: in contentious cases between
> > two
> > > > > > > states, as advisory opinions for other UN agencies, and as an
> > > > > > > arbitration panel. Though the circumstances of each
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
