How can it? It's outnumbered 20 to 1 by anti-Semitic Muslim neighbors. In any kind of pseudo-democratic scheme like the UN where the mass of dictators each get one vote, what can you expect?

Not the point, nevermind. In any case, this has gone rather far off topic...

Yeah, silly of me to actually learn from history, to see the same squalid farce replayed over and over, and think there's a reason there.

But that's why the Left has so much blood on its hands -- it ignores history and substitutes wishful thinking. And when the dead pile up again and again and again, they skate on to the next fiasco, without a backward glance or even an acknowledgment..."after all how could WE know?"

LOL!

Looking at history and learning from it: short sighted.

Ignoring history and flitting to the next perfectly forseeable bloodbath: visionary.

How do you figure?

A working definition of insanity is to keep trying the same failed thing and expecting a different response this time, presumably because your intentions are good. But when people starve and die AGAIN, I lose patience with your supposed good intentions. The superhighway to Hell, and all that.

...so then expecting an international court to work is insanity, because it's already been tried and failed....I think there's a bit more to it than that. Perhaps if you tried it with the same people as you did before and used the same methods, you would get the same results.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where is the road paved with bad intentions gonna lead?

Actually if you try the same thing(case in point if you try to acquire an International Criminal Court), there is a good chance that it can work, even if it has failed once or many times in the past.

No, there isn't, especially when we understand why it fails.

Same place. The "good" intentions of "useful idiots" merely enable their bad intentions.

Right. And maybe THIS time the next genocidal Communist dictatorship will have a good chance of working too.

Please stop trying to change the subject.

Thank you.

It's all the same subject -- the unwillingness of some people (usually the Left) to learn from history. The ICC is just the latest instance.

I have already proven that the ICC will not inherently fail due to past failures.

One can also point to the actions of America as an attempt to make it fail, due perhaps to a feeling of horror at how easily they might be found guilty of certain crimes.

Although that would lead to a debate on what crimes America might have done, and this thread isn't based around that but how Republicans don't want the ICC to exist while the Bush Administration does.


Can you explain why the Bush Administration is flying in the face of the wishes of the Republicans?

You are confusing "baseless assertion" with "proof." That explains a lot, actually.

No, I'm using logic.

If something fails, it does not necessarily mean that the same thing will fail again.

In order for something to fail continually the exact same situation must be recreated when that event occurs, therein allowing for only a specific path to be taken.

The fact that the world is in a constant state of altering political stupidity, the ICC can at times fail and at other times succeed.

Sorry, that's illogical. We're not talking about random tosses of a coin. We're talking about well understoof political phenomena. We see the same things repeat themselves over and over.

Those who let wishfull thinking and ideology trump observable reality and mandates of history are many things -- "logical" is not one.

Completely false.

No one is talking about chemistry experiments.

Understood, not understoof.

We are talking about an experiment, and as I said many variables can alter the out come.

Scientifically speaking any event wherein the variables are different each time the test is done means that different outcomes can be acquired, including an outcome that one might call a success.

The fact that America is so against the ICC is one of the major reason that it will currently fail. If America supported the ICC then most other countries would follow suit primarily due to the power and influence that America wields.

No we're not talking about an experiment. We're talking about large scale political trends, human nature, how institutions tend to function -- this is all qualitative but still well understood. Over and over again, we observe how people operate in large groups.

If you can't grasp that social science is different than physics -- well, that, too, explains a lot.

I did not say that social science and physics are the same.

However it IS an experiment.

Main Entry: 1ex·per·i·ment
Pronunciation: ik-'sper-&-m&nt also -'spir-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin experimentum, from experiri
1 a : TEST, TRIAL <make another experiment of his suspicion -- Shakespeare> b : a tentative procedure or policy c : an operation carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law
---

As is demonstrated this is quite easily a "Test" or "Trial".
If the ICC itself fails this time we all know one of the primary reasons for that failure was the fact that America failed to wish to back it, and instead actually threatened to cut off certain economical aide to certain people. As such, America is basically blackmailing people to try and keep the ICC from appearing.

As such it will fail not because of any sort of inherent social problems or flawed laws, but rather because America is incapable of attempting to reach a middleground with the ICC.

And yet again: Why is the Bush Administration in conflict with the Republican Party on this topic?