Monday, November 23, 2009

US concerned about definition of aggression as international crime



US concerned about definition of aggression as international crime
THE HAGUE — A United States ambassador said Thursday that Washington was concerned about how aggression will be defined as an international crime.

"I would be remiss not to share with you my country's concerns about an issue ... to which we attach particular importance: the definition of the crime of aggression," US war crimes ambassador Stephen Rapp told a gathering in The Hague of the International Criminal Court's Assembly of State Parties (ASP).
at

7 comments:

  1. ananNovember 23, 2009 at 5:24 PM

    The US military has joint training programs with 150 countries. What is wrong with this?

    I think the US military should focus more, not less, on increasing the capacity of other countries. The goal has to be to reduce global reliance on US operational forces to maintain global security . . . to gradually over time make the US military increasingly obsolete.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thankgodimatheistNovember 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM

    Thank "god" for the big brother American policing the world and " maintening global security". What would we do without a benevolent well intended policeman..

    ReplyDelete
  3. ananNovember 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM

    TGIA, please be les cynical.

    The only way the US military can make itself less relavent and more obsolete over time is:
    1) end or reduce the causes of global instability (failed states, disorganized countries, organized crime, Takfiris)
    2) increase the capacity of other countries to provide global security services.

    For example, if India would create a third aircraft carrier group, it would significantly reduce the strain on the US Navy. {One aircraft carrier group is allocated to Pakistan. One to Malacca straights. A third would be allocated to the Persian Gulf or Somalia.}

    The Chinese naval contribution to the Somali coast has allowed NATO navies to outsource more of the burden and cost to China.

    A larger and more capable Malaysian military would greatly benefit Indonesia, Singapore, America, India, China, Japan, South Korea and Thailand.

    In general the world benefits from incrased global capacity to provide global security services.

    ReplyDelete
  4. thankgodimatheistNovember 23, 2009 at 6:47 PM

    anan
    You're free to comment but please keep me out of it. I'm not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  5. VAANovember 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM

    anan
    You MUST be aware by now , that EVERYTHING you say is B.S. and that anyone will find it hard to respond to irrelevant B.S.  >:o

    ReplyDelete
  6. VAANovember 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM

    anan
    A substantial part of your brain is malfunctioning , posting long comments is no cure,counting aircraft carriers etc. and endless statistics does not cover BS.

    ReplyDelete
  7. cruelnastyandabsurdNovember 30, 2009 at 8:15 PM

    You should just be happy GW Bush is gone, and now the US has an anti-war president.
    President Obama sends his most elequent apology,
    and nine thousand Marines. Let's Roll, Obomba

    ReplyDelete