Hehe, this is where Poland is actually situated:

http://www.worldpress.org/profiles/Poland.cfm

Well, I doubt that.  As the big kid on the block, we don't need anything like the ICC.  I think we've just proved that.
I just really don't see the need for something like this.  Why would it be any different to have it around?  If a country sees another country comiting crimes like this, why do you need an official body to sanction invasion?  If you're serious about human rights, just do it.  
The way I see it, the world needs less Govt, not another buracracy to manage other peoples affairs.

Does having a response make you happier now?

So then?  Where was the ICC?  Where is it now?  Why don't we see it?  Surely just because America doesn't ratify it  doesn't mean it can't do anything.
Maybe ICC will declare war on us?

And...

I hope it's as good for you... etc etc etc

By your own arguements, if we don't ratify it, the ICC is powerless, so there won't be a war.

I'm dissappointed; you didn't put much thought into your last post.

Devlar, im actually in agreement with what you just posted.

Legitimacy accorded by whom? The only thing legitimate to extremists of any type is body bags. Being recognized as "legitimate" by some politbureau in Europe will change nothing in the hearts and minds of people in developing countries who see richer nations as decadent and thuggish. They will see the ICC and any OTHER big powerful body no differently.

Which is not the case. Some will not, this is true, but take a good look at how many times the UN gets attacked compared to how many times the US (or Israel) gets attacked abroad. Some don't see it as legitimate, but some will not see anything that doesn't favour their cause as legitimate, what we have seen though, is that for the masses the UN is seen as legitimate, even in the middle east. The UN doesn't get attacked as often because for the most part its seen as part of the solution not as part of the problem, the US has the opposite image.

He blamed the Jews and the other rich, powerful capitalists for Germany's poverty and shame. Take the poor and desperate, convince them it is someone else's fault, and feed their anger until it becomes an inferno, and you have WWII. THIS is the formula that is being perpetuated in the Islamic world right now.

Except in the case of the Islamic world the formula is fairly accurate, globalization which is being pushed through at the expense of the majoirty of arabs in the middle east by rich capitalists from the west is largely responsible for the fact that they live under monarchal oppressive regimes, simply because they are pro-US. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are not on the chopping block, not because they are massive human rights abusers, because they are, but simply because they support US interests. If there was a fundamental basis in human rights in international politics, regimes like those in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not be allowed to exist, even if the US objected, someone would take care of them, and their actions would be seen as legitimate, right now they are tied up in a broken system that was created 500 years ago and has long since become obsolite.

You said it yourself Devlar, "bullying" has made people angry, so now they're lashing out. If that's the case, do you honestly think they'll stop because some international body just up and says so? These people have nothing to lose because they have nothing at all. Do you think the terrorists who are convinced they'll get 70 virgins when they die in a fiery plane crash are going to "respect international law"?

Yes i think they could, because these terrorists are not born terrorists. If we create an environment for these people to develop where they are poverty striken, because the US supports regimes that take away all their property, where they are not shot at constantly with guns that the US gave to the Israelis, where they DO have something to lose, because they are able to support themselves and their families, then there will not be anti-US terrorists for very long, then you will get respect for human rights. Terrorism is a symptom of the current system not a cause of it.

As for the UN, well I'll give them this much credit as far as providing leadership goes - they pulled out of Baghdad and fled to Qatar after the first attack against them. Kind of hard to get attacked repeatedly when you cut and run at the first sign of trouble!

At that point it wasn't their war, they had no sanctioned it, they had nothing to gain by remaining there and aiding the unilateral American effort. They are still knee deep in Afghanistan, you remember that place that the US forgot about? with that Osama fellow. Although the Taliban is trying to make a come back, there are considerably fewer attacks on the UN forces there than on the US forces in Iraq.

However, the short-term is the problem. How to break the cycle of violence is the question, and the cycle must be broken before this can come to pass.

You are correct, the improvement in conditions seems like the wisest path at the moment though, we have proven repeatedly that violence cannot be fought with violence especially in regards to terrorism.

Israel is a fine example of this. The desire for vengeance is strong - too strong - so that any time the table is approached someone blows someone else up, and it starts all over again. The only thing moving forward is the body count on both sides. I fear it will end only when a wall is built to completely divide them, or else when one people exterminates the other.

I doubt anyone will be able to solve the Israeli problem, its a religious thing, something that would survive until the last jew or the last arab are dead in that country. Even if the Israeli problem cannot be solved, the anti-US one can be, since it not based on religious tension but rather on economic convenience.