Sorry, I think I mixed the French presidential order, Pompidou should be first.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > *d'Estaing nor Pompidou were named in the action. Reagan was. Back to head > of state named.* > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Mark that is exactly what France did in 1974... Or did you miss that >> point... >> >> On Apr 10, 5:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Refusing to participate is NOT the same as pulling out. Does a defendant >> > need to testify or offer any evidence even in US courts?? >> > >> > I do see that the US never recalled the judge assigned to the court... >> he >> > retired from there. Some pullout. >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Reagan pulled out BEFORE by refusing to take part... >> > >> > > On Apr 10, 5:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Your source PROVED my point..... reagan pulled out AFTER the >> conviction. >> > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > I did and you did not answer my points... I cited sources and >> you >> > > > > are not... Be original here, cite original documents from the >> > > > > founding of the ICJ showing the US accepted the view the ICJ had >> the >> > > > > jurisdiction as you claim... I cited one source which said >> > > > > otherwise... Your turn to do the research and linking... >> > >> > > > > Please cite a source which cites an American offical at the time >> > > > > stated YOUR assumption... >> > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 4:53 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > > > rad response to Dick and try again. >> > >> > > > > > On Apr 10, 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 >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more » >> >> >> > > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, , > www.filacoffee.com > -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
