I did look at the dates... choosing not to participate in a trial is every defendants rights. Withdrawing a nation from a signed agreement unilaterally is quite something else and was NOT done until the verdict was in.
EXACTLY which part of this is NOT absolutely correct ?? On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:45 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark look at the dates, the one you did NOT quote was many months > prior to one you did... So yeah you cherry picked > > On Apr 10, 5:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > So now pointedly answering your post with your words that prove you wrong > is > > Cherry Picking ?? > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:12 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
