Viewing Single Post From: LD topics

Viewing Single Post From: LD topics
*Sentenal*	Jan 6 2009, 06:24 PM
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Posts: 15,616 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #1 Joined: May 16, 2005	Reaver Jan 6 2009, 06:51 AM Sentenal In the past, UN operations have always been spearheaded by the US, and I don't see how that would change in the future. So only more incentive for the US to agree to an international court if they're to carry out the sentencing. Sentenal So then that would only leave the possibility of the con, allowing the US to be prosecuted for something. If that makes any sense. Normally you don't get prosecuted for going after somebody comitting human rights violations, especially after being found guilty of such by an international court. I think you missed my point on the last one, Reaver. The US won't get any benefit from a UN Court backing the US, because the UN has no army, and mainly just uses the US to do its work. The United States giving the United States aid in a war is a given, so we don't care about the UN helping us, since they can't. However, then the other point I made was the direct opposite of that. Lets say the US did do something "wrong" in the UN's eyes. And then they decide to prosecute the US for something. That in no way at all that would be beneficial to the US or its people. The 'pro' of UN help is worthless to the US, just leaves the 'con' of being subjected to their judgment. Those two facts alone should be enough for the US not to submit itself under UN jurisdiction.


LD topics · Debate Forum