What has the Iraq War wrought?

Quote:

I can easily forsee someone claiming Bush 43 is criminally liable for thousands of deaths worldwide because he didn't push for ratification of the Koyoto treaty here in the US. What safeguards are in place to ensure that type of scenario never happens? I don't see where any country failing to ratify a treaty could ever be considered a criminal act.

I agree, and I would therefore consider it an extremely unlikely scenario. (That is - what scenario is it exactly you would want safeguards for? That someone will claim Bush is criminally liable and ask the ICC to take up the case? Or that the ICC would actually accept it? How could it ever do the latter, considering the mandate it has - respectively, the mandate the ratifying countries would ever be willing to grant it? How are 90 countries ever going to agree that not signing a treaty should be grounds for prosecution by "their" court?)

But you're right, in the end we are talking, fundamentally, about an issue of trust. However many safeguards and checks and balances are built in and controlled by however many "member" states, there is still a fundamental step to be made to invest the modicum of trust to ever make such a delegation, in the first place.

One could make the same kind of arguments about our national judicial systems - I can "easily foresee" outrageous claims made through it, and even outrageous sentences, too (hell, an acquaintance of mine, recently ... etc). Nevertheless, we accept that we need such a system; we just insist on an extent of safeguards, checks and balances that reflect our measure of (dis)trust. I think that, talking of why not just the government, but the American people, too, have had such exceptional aversion, in global comparison, to the notion of an ICC, your point below about, let's say, the American "national character" was a good one.
(Lord knows we all remember shaking our overseas-head in incomprehension the last time "political goals were achieved through legislative means" in America ... <grins>.)

Quote:

The "problem" with this, from our cultural perspective, is that we (collectively) don't really trust courts (or any other governmantal body) to remain within their bounds. [..] All in all I think most countries of the world are much more trusting of courts in general than we are in the US - that's a result of the misuse of our court system internally by groups attempting to achieve politicla goals when they've failed through legislative means.

(aside: I wish this discussion was on the public domain of A2K, cause I cant answer all your questions by myself, I'm not that much of an expert ;-). Never mind, though, it usually doesnt work to paste a thread wholesale into another domain - people wanna be involved from the start, or they get too intimidated by the overload of already posted info to jump in).

0 Replies

Anyway - to put it another way - and just mix in the original topic of the thread as well -

If the American soldiers capture Saddam Hussein in some Iraqi suburb - what should happen with him?

Should he be brought to court? If so, who should try him?

What if the Polish soldiers capture him?

(Yes, the Iraqis could try him, too - that might even be fairest in this case. Though I dont think the US-led coalition would be all too eager, considering security and political risks, to have Saddam in custody in Bagdad for the duration of the months that a public trial will last.)

0 Replies

I dunno. I'd think that if Saddam is captured alive the Iraqi people should be the ones to try him if there is to be any trial (I presume there will be but..). I would push the idea that it is important for them to hold any trial as opposed to anyone else conducting it.

I'd have some concerns if this came about any time soon since I don't think they have a truely functional court system in place at the moment. Maybe something with judges from other Muslim nations using existing International law held in Iraq??? I dunno a good answer to that.

Quote:

Nevertheless, we accept that we need such a system; we just insist on an extent of safeguards, checks and balances that reflect our measure of (dis)trust.

Exactly. I think this is what most of us who are leary of the ICC are really asking for. No one seems to want to identify any safeguards though. If it's being done it is hidden somewhere. I, for one, don't see the UN General Assembly itself as adequate. Developing specific safeguards against abuse would be hard but I'd think something could be added to clearly define the limits of power of the ICC in the basic ICC aggrements. That would reassure the "leary" US public. Of course there will always be some hardliners that will refuse to accept the ICC but I think there are those in every country.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

No no! I wasn't saying they were the only countries that had ratified it.

No, but you suggested that the ratifying countries had "little to lose", whereas the USA would somehow be in exceptional danger should it enter into the same commitments. I don't see this. The United Kingdom, or France, who did ratify the ICC, would have exactly the same to fear as the US, wouldn't it? Its nationals could be indicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, if they were accused of having committed such since July 2002, and the UK refused to investigate the case, at all, itself. Same would hold for Americans.

Underlying the argument I sense the feeling that somehow, if a supranational institution like this is founded, it is bound to "go after" America (whereas a country like Gabon would supposedly have little to fear). I'm rather surprised at this, considering the historical record on such things. I would suppose, for example (now that we're supposing things Smile

, that should a convincing case be brought to it that the former Gabonese prime minister was guilty of war crimes, a supranational institution like the ICC would have few qualms about grinding into action. Whereas it would be exponentially less likely to accept to take on the case, if the accusation were levelled at an American ex-president. Supranational organisations are usually supremely unlikely to go out of their way to punish their most powerful member. That's why Putin's Russia can get away with things the Council of Europe would have harshly condemned the Moldavian government for.

fishin' wrote:

Exactly. I think this is what most of us who are leary of the ICC are really asking for. No one seems to want to identify any safeguards though. If it's being done it is hidden somewhere. [..] Developing specific safeguards against abuse would be hard but I'd think something could be added to clearly define the limits of power of the ICC in the basic ICC aggrements.

I'm really no legal expert, but the Rome Statute that the ICC is founded on (it's the Statute that those 91 countries ratified) seems pretty specific to my layman's eyes when "defining the limits of power of the ICC", and it's not hidden. Here it is online, for example. See, e.g., Art 6-8 that define the exact crimes the Court has jurisdiction over, and Article 17-20 for "Issues of admissibility". For example, Art 17 explains that, in principle, noone can be prosecuted by the ICC if their own state is already prosecuting, or has already prosecuted, him for the case, or has investigated the case and decided not to prosecute him.

The website of the ICC itself also explains and replicates the Court's basic documents. And Human Rights Watch has all kinds of info. Its got a simple Q & A on the ICC and the USA, for example. E.g.:

Quote:

[Can] future American presidents or policy makers [be tried]?

There may be people who would want to bring a politically motivated case against a U.S. leader, but they're not likely to make the ICC their instrument. The Court's Prosecutor won't even be able to begin an investigation against an American without the approval of a panel of judges. The judges and the prosecutor will know that if they abuse their authority, they can be removed by a simple vote of the ICC's member nations, which include virtually every U.S. ally. What's more, the United Nations Security Council can adopt a resolution to stop any ICC investigation [..].

How do we know the ICC won't treat a U.S. service member unfairly?

No U.S. service member could be brought before the ICC so long as the United States launched a good faith investigation of its own, which it's committed to do as a matter of policy. But if an investigation were to happen, the ICC Treaty contains a list of rights enjoyed by any accused person that is as comprehensive as the U.S. Bill of Rights, including: presumption of innocence; right to counsel; right to present evidence and to confront witnesses; right to remain silent; and right to have charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [..] Indeed, an American citizen would enjoy more due process before the ICC than before the courts of most countries to which the United States extradites its citizens.

Their 'Myths and Facts' page adds, furthermore, that, in addition to the Security Council being able to suspend the ICC from investigating or prosecuting any case, (my emphasis)

Quote:

if a U.S. citizen were accused of a crime, the court's judges would be obliged, upon request, to defer to U.S. justice, standing down for at least six months while the United States pursued its own investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution. After that period, the judges would be able to authorize investigations only if they decided that the U.S. judicial system was willfully obstructing justice - a very high threshold. Any indictment would also require confirmation by a Pre-Trial Chamber of judges.

Finally, "The US and the ICC") notes that:

Quote:

the Security Council approved a limited, one year exemption for U.S. personnel participating in UN peacekeeping missions or UN authorized operations [and] has expressed its intention to renew this exemption on 30 June next year.

0 Replies

nimh, regarding your observation in your post of Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:09 pm in which you state:

Quote:

Now I'm all for JM's argument for a new multilateral spirit to reinvogarete European-American affinities and alliances. But the part that I dont get is how any of that could be a "more realistic alternative" for the ICC. I dont see the connection you're making.

Absolutely correct, there would purposefully be little connection so as to eliminate a source of contention between Atlantic allies for the near future. This would allow us to focus on building a "Western Consensus" rather than generating more contention between natural and historical allies, something I feel could hurt all of us in the future. I merely propose putting the ICC on the back burner for now, not its abolition, until Westerners sort some things out. Let me think out loud here so perhaps I might be better understood.

The ICC, like the UN, is a concept whose origin springs from Western thinking. Most would agree that these ideas are the brainchild of the former academic and American president Woodrow Wilson. The main foundations of the idea are the rule of law along with upholding individual rights, where life and property protection are tantamount. Self-determination, democracy, and liberty round out this American Creed but The Rule Of Law is most important to my thinking here.

As we all know all nations have and use Laws to regulate their societies. However the Western concept of the Rule of Law differs from all other cultures in that it is not a tool for tyrants to use to oppress but a concept employed by western societies to avoid the very repression, which fosters and ultimately emanates from despotism. The phrase "fairness for all under the law" defines the western concept of "Rule of Law". All voices on this thread have demonstrated a serious concern for this, so the good news is that we are all on the same page here.

A question, however, comes to mind: Is it realistic to expect all societies in the world to conform to such a deeply western idea? We have seen how the most powerful western nation looks upon the ICC with a jaundiced eye with apparent good cause sighted by both sophia and fishin'. Given some individual nations in the western fold have not signed on; is it valid to assume that some nations, culturally considered none-western, foster certain misgivings? One might find these misgivings natural and ask, as has fishin', why have they so readily signed on to a "Western" idea?

Contrarily, looking at the list of signatories that ratified the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court as of 14 July 2003 I find some notable abstentions. Indeed, missing among those standing up to be counted in favor of the ICC are non other than China, India, Iran, and Russia--all core states in their respective "civilizations" or spheres of influence, if you will. Are these all pariah or rogue states? If this question is asked in relation to my emphasis on a civilization basis the answer is, No. If one considers the same question operating on the U.S. the answer could very well be yes since its operating tenets, unlike the other core states, fall under the above "Western Values". But if the object of the ICC and the UN is to promote and indeed is based upon multilateralism then the U.S. seems in good company and totally consistent with its counterparts in other civilizations.

So, to come back and answer nimh's question of my emphasis on strengthening the Atlantic alliance and putting the ICC on the back burner for now my answer would be:

It seems, at this point more realistic and pragmatic to get the U.S./European house in order. This would then afford the West legitimacy through consensus and avoid the vaporous goal of UN legitimacy reached by institutional fiat subject to votes by nations not sharing our western values and concerns. This latter concept might be demonstrated by asking the question:

How would Iraq look now if the U.S. had waited another six months and definitely received EU approval for its regime change/nation building efforts and how would the Arab world feel about the ultimate outcome of Iraq?

This perceived end run or flanking maneuver around the court might actually enable it to retreat and regroup and be strengthened for the future. Witness that the ICC has already made concessions to the U.S. for at least a couple of years as nimh has noted. This may rightly be perceived that the U.S. is getting special treatment from the ICC, so...what does that say to the rest of the world about this court's impartiality and legitimacy?

Respectably,

JM

P.S. Saddam should be given the chance to face his accusers, the Iraqi people should have first crack at him. Legal niceties aside, I think the Iraqi people will accept no less.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Maybe something with judges from other Muslim nations using existing International law held in Iraq??? I dunno a good answer to that.

Doesnt sound like a bad idea in itself. But the problem is that every new impromptu arrangement (after the Security-Council ordered Tribunals on Rwanda, Yugoslavia) increases the wariness about the impression of victor's justice. The more into details you delve, the more questions it raises. Who would appoint the judges? Any arrangement in which the US would appoint the court would ensure a martyr status for Saddam, no matter where the judges hail from. (There's a possible answer to your question about what the US would have to gain, in the long term, by having an ICC around, instead). A Security Council-appointed Tribunal, meanwhile, still would carry less credibility than a permanent court acting on the recognition of more than the five superpowers.

Practically speaking, nevertheless, its still the lessest [?] evil, I guess. My question on Saddam was rhetorical, on the lines of, 'what would you like to happen in a case like this', since in practice, the ICC can't do much with Saddam, because it can't prosecute for events that occurred before July 2002.

The US administration, meanwhile, doesnt seem to opt for it, though. "In one of its first acts, the new Iraqi Governing Council announced the formation of a commission to establish a tribunal to bring Saddam and his henchmen to justice", notes HRW again; a tribunal, that is, that excludes judges from other countries, since, HRW opines critically, "Washington is adamantly opposed to [an international] approach", calculating that a tribunal of Iraqis selected by the Council of unelected, American nominees is "more likely to impose the death penalty, and [..] less likely to indirectly enhance the legitimacy of the detested International Criminal Court". The arrest of "Chemical Ali" last week may pose a test-case.

--

Just by ways of an afterthought, btw, I can see how the drastic shifts in foreign policy the Bush Jr. administration initiated can have escalated a latent American paranoia about a world thats out to get it, as much as 9/11 will have. After all, back in the days, the US would have relatively little to fear from the UN and its institutions. With its allies Britain and France wielding the same veto rights in the Security Council it had itself, too, chances that the organisation would lash out at it with punitive resolutions posed relatively little threat. The confrontative Rumsfeld-type policies, however, have left the US rather isolated, and thus exponentially more vulnerable in the world of tomorrow's international relations. That crash course does, in the long term, threaten to eventually leave the US in the position JM described for Israel - doomed to torpedo every opportunity of an international settlement, because any consensus between its neighbours would, in the current political climate, automatically be directed against it.

In a way its kind of ironic, if you look at it like that - the president of 'national security', doomed to perpetuate a state of relative, dangerous chaos in the world, because any consolidation of forces might be directed against him. But then again, perhaps there's no irony, just cynism. Because in a way you're right, Fishin'. In today's world, the US enjoys "plenty of diplomatic clout". Even when increasingly isolated, it is so far ahead of all other countries in terms of military and economical prowess, that it can feel relatively free to do whatever it wants, whereever in the world it wants to. In a fragmented world, the US reign supreme - in that sense, why encourage stable international institutions that would only restrain that freedom? "Much to lose and little to gain", indeed, though that is an utterly a-moral, realpolitik perspective. More relevantly, it's also short-sighted. 9/11 should have shown that no matter how great the unilateral supremacy a country gets to enjoy, it can not defend itself against the exponential increase of the chaos in the world around it. Weakening the overarching, supranational institutions and outspending any prior balance of forces might seem to handily eliminate the threat of rival authorities, but the resulting new disorder will hit you right back in the face, eventually.

(exponentially is just my new favourite word of the moment, btw, just ignore it Smile

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

No, but you suggested that the ratifying countries had "little to lose", whereas the USA would somehow be in exceptional danger should it enter into the same commitments. I don't see this. The United Kingdom, or France, who did ratify the ICC, would have exactly the same to fear as the US, wouldn't it? Its nationals could be indicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, if they were accused of having committed such since July 2002, and the UK refused to investigate the case, at all, itself. Same would hold for Americans.

But I didn't say all of the countries that had ratified it. I wasn't implying that it was 100%.

Sure, France, the UK, etc.. have the same thing to fear. I'd guess most 1st world countries do.

Quote:

Underlying the argument I sense the feeling that somehow, if a supranational institution like this is founded, it is bound to "go after" America (whereas a country like Gabon would supposedly have little to fear). I'm rather surprised at this, considering the historical record on such things.

Just a guess on my part but I don't think many of the other participants in this thread are much surprised. I think there is a concern (valid or not..) that there are several countries/groups out there that would like nothing better than another avenue to go after the US in any way they can.

Quote:

I would suppose, for example (now that we're supposing things , that should a convincing case be brought to it that the former Gabonese prime minister was guilty of war crimes, a supranational institution like the ICC would have few qualms about grinding into action. Whereas it would be exponentially less likely to accept to take on the case, if the accusation were levelled at an American ex-president. Supranational organisations are usually supremely unlikely to go out of their way to punish their most powerful member. That's why Putin's Russia can get away with things the Council of Europe would have harshly condemned the Moldavian government for.

Agreed! At the same time though there is a concern (again, valid or not..) that someone like the Gabonnesse Prime Minister might be a target once where the US would be a target daily.

Quote:

I'm really no legal expert, but the Rome Statute that the ICC is founded on (it's the Statute that those 91 countries ratified) seems pretty specific to my layman's eyes when "defining the limits of power of the ICC", and it's not hidden.

Well, I meant not publicised - at least not here in the US. I'm sure the rules are all out there somewhere but how many people (from anywhere in the world) are going to pour through all the documents? Even the people that are pushing the ICC here in the US don't argue with information. It's all rhetoric. The argument here is "Our soldiers will be on trial constantly" vs. "It's stupid not to". Neither is a very convincing argument! :p

Thanks for the links. I'll look through them. Wink

0 Replies

JM, good to see another post of yours.

JamesMorrison wrote:

I merely propose putting the ICC on the back burner for now, not its abolition, until Westerners sort some things out.

Even if one would want to "put the ICC on the back burner", how would you do that? It already exists, judges have been appointed, and started work. In the meantime, the US is waging a veritable campaign against the ICC, pressuring third countries into signing bilateral impunity treaties about US citizens. What practical course of action would you suggest?

Furthermore, the number of signatories, even if still lacking, as you point out, some notable countries, increased much more quickly than had originally been expected, signalling how a number of countries hold the institution dear to their heart. Many of those countries are not from the zone of Western culture, as the list of ratifyers shows. How do you tell these countries that they should forget about the institution they just subscribed to - that, as you say, so clearly embodies an epitomically Western value, the modern state's rule of law - while the countries that first brought that value to them make a strategic retreat to "sort things out"? And even if it is possible to do so, is it right?

The question about whether it is right also begs itself in the light of your Huntingtonian cultural pessimism, if I may call it that; for if we do indeed consider the concept of modern rule of law that the ICC embodies a "Western value", here, then, are scores of non-Western states "readily signing on" to it. One could well take that as one of various current cultural developments counterweighing the Islamic and other fundamentalisms that fuel the notion of an unavoidable clash (or separation) of civilisations; and one could well ask about the wisdom of squandering the cultural progress it illustrates.

JamesMorrison wrote:

Witness that the ICC has already made concessions to the U.S. for at least a couple of years as nimh has noted. This may rightly be perceived that the U.S. is getting special treatment from the ICC, so...what does that say to the rest of the world about this court's impartiality and legitimacy?

Good point. <nods>

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Any arrangement in which the US would appoint the court would ensure a martyr status for Saddam, no matter where the judges hail from. (There's a possible answer to your question about what the US would have to gain, in the long term, by having an ICC around, instead). A Security Council-appointed Tribunal, meanwhile, still would carry less credibility than a permanent court acting on the recognition of more than the five superpowers.

Were I running the show I'd go to the Arab League and ask them to select either 5 or 7 people of their choice to serve as judges in any such tribunal. I don't think the Iraqi people would see a UN directed tribunal as anything more than a railroading. Of course, I'm not running the show sooo.. All bets are off! lol

Quote:

Just by ways of an afterthought, btw, I can see how the drastic shifts in foreign policy the Bush Jr. administration initiated can have escalated a latent American paranoia about a world thats out to get it, as much as 9/11 will have. After all, back in the days, the US would have relatively little to fear from the UN and its institutions.

"Back in the day" when the US was a respected partner in the US was back in the 1950s. You must have missed the hissy fit's about Madeline Albright from the last administration. Take a peek: http://www.mathaba.net/info/bitch.htm People have been using the UN to take pot-shots at the US for quite some time now.

In case you hadn't noticed the UN has been pretty much seen as anti-US for the last 30 years or more. Why do you think prior administrations have withheld paying UN dues several times?

If anything the paranoia seems to have lessened overall since 9/11. The US public saw events happening (i.e. the 1st bombing of the WTC, Khobar Towers, Somolia, etc..) under the last administration and saw little or no action taken against it. I'd guess a good many at least feel some relief that something, even if misguided, is being done.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Whoa! This is like playing simul chess. <big grin>

fishin' wrote:

I'm sure the rules are all out there somewhere but how many people (from anywhere in the world) are going to pour through all the documents? Even the people that are pushing the ICC here in the US don't argue with information.

Well, I'm putting my best foot forward today <grins>. But now I'm going to bed .. :wink:

0 Replies

[edited]

fishin' wrote:

In case you hadn't noticed the UN has been pretty much seen as anti-US for the last 30 years or more.

Well, I know that. But "being seen as anti-US" is something different from actually undertaking significant action against the US. How often did the UN actually, as I put it, "lash out with punitive resolutions" against the US?

Voting Khadafi's Lybia into the Human Rights Committee is an obvious sneer at the US, but its all still just symbolism and rhetoric. With the US and its allies constituting a majority of veto-carrying SC members, the UN in the end was toothless vis-a-vis the United States, even while it was well willing and able to heap resolutions, boycotts, inspections and "bluehelmets" on more minor countries.

The same would in principle go for the ICC-era. Note the role of the ratifying "member" countries and the role of the Security Council, which can stop a case respectively dismiss judges and prosecutor, and which both include a notable number of loyal American allies, as well as the usual range of countries who won't be too eager to offend the mightiest country around. That might actually not plead for the strict neutrality of the ICC, but does contribute to my continuing surprise about the perception that the US would somehow have particular reason to fear the long arm of supranational institutions.

okbyefornow ;-)

0 Replies

Go get some sleep! We'll banter more tomorrow. lol Wink

0 Replies

nimh said--

Quote:

(aside: I wish this discussion was on the public domain of A2K, cause I cant answer all your questions by myself, I'm not that much of an expert ;-). Never mind, though, it usually doesnt work to paste a thread wholesale into another domain - people wanna be involved from the start, or they get too intimidated by the overload of already posted info to jump in).

This has been an invigorating exchange--and I am appreciative to members for the content and style. I can imagine nimh handling one side of a rather complicated and emotion-laden subject (it is surely laden with my emotions) can be tiring. I kept hoping fbaezer would appear with his stimulating, informed opinions on the subject. Crying or Very sad

Involved members may discuss and decide if they would like to move the discussion to the larger forum. Perhaps the unwieldiness and magnitude of the entire thread can be side-stepped.

Members involved in the discussion may choose to select one, two or three of the most focused exchanges--(2, 4 or 6 posts), gain permission from the authors--and relocate them to the main board for wider continued conversation. I, for one, would be very interested to see where the conversation would lead-- and nimh could get a drink of water--and perhaps, a nap. Very Happy

Once again-- thanks to all. I think we cut through a lot of BS, and got out the true concerns on this thread. No positioning or posturing, recriminations or insults--and I know most of us on both sides of the issue have closely held views -- It made me feel great! :wink:

0 Replies

It has been a good interaction. I like bantering with nimh. He doesn't roll-over and give up and he doesn't get pissy or take things as if his mother has just been personally insulted. Smile

No insults, no snide comments and some actual argeement. Now if only the public politics forum could do the same.... *sigh*

0 Replies

just to add to the general feel-good feeling ... <grins> ...

before I went to work this morning I was planning to, tonight, post a post thanking you all for one cool thread.

you didnt get aggressive or dismissive, nor - even more special <grins> - did you get bored by my overlong post and just give up. Thats a pretty rare combination ;-).

plus, you asked all kinds of hard questions that make me have to look up all kinds of interesting things and reformulate and complete my trains of thought and arguments.

yeh, like fishin' said - if only more public forum threads were like that ...

0 Replies

i dont think i'll be in the mood for much political and research banter tonight though ... 's been too much hard work & problematic **** going on here.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

i dont think i'll be in the mood for much political and research banter tonight though ... 's been too much hard work & problematic **** going on here.

"over here" is what i meant, i think - what i ought to have said - as in, i didnt mean in this thread, i meant over here, in the real world.

I only just realised this post could have been taken as saying something very rude ... I hate the ambiguities of written language.

0 Replies

Sophia, I think we all have experienced thread degradation and I am always surprised when a thoughtful well-expressed, well-reasoned thread descends into pettiness.

nimh has admitted to experiencing the luxury (and I suspect pleasure) of his learning by discussion with others. I have always considered myself lucky to be able to discuss issues with other people with similar interests in the subject matter and felt the value from these threads does not lie in the opportunity to show others how right I am about a subject but the opportunity to learn and adjust my own thoughts. I am trained in the hard sciences, which accepts nothing but hard truths. If the evidence demands one must change his theory, then so it must be. However, most discussions on A2K come down to opinions, so it is not only important on what one bases said opinions but at least equally important on how one expresses those opinions.

In addition, it is easier to listen to other's opinions when they are not shouting. Seems a select few individuals on A2K feel positionally insecure to the point that when held to task regarding their "facts" or reasoning it is seen as a personal attack. I would suggest they might turn their considerable energies inwardly and improve themselves by some research and thoughtful contemplation. Shouting louder merely makes one appear more childish.

That being said I have no problem submitting this thread to the "General Population" on A2K. Twisted Evil

But to paraphrase a wise man, it would be best to expect the worst in order to avoid disappointment.

JM

0 Replies

The three main contributors can decide if they want to move the thread. I wouldn't place too much hope in much good coming of a move to the wider forum, either. But, there's always hope.

I guess you could also discuss the possibility of extending a couple of 'time-limited' Roundtable guest passes to specific individuals. If there are two or three people you'd like to visit for two weeks (or so), discuss and let me know.

I would just feel obligated to ask our membership if it has their blessing.

0 Replies

The debate has continued (and today been revived) in this thread, from around here onwards.

0 Replies

What has the Iraq War wrought?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know