How is that relevant?

The worst I ever did was smashing pumpkins that were placed as ornaments on a farm fence, or peeing in someone's mailbox. but that's all..

A friend of mine once climbed up the scaffolds next to the Sint-Nicholaschurch in Ghent (http://www.belgiumview.com/belgiumview/toonmaxi.php4?pictoshow=0001391ae&taal=1&volgnummer=%20237&voterid=&viewid=0001391). Together with his friend, he climbed all the way up to the top of the tower (using the stairs once they got inside) and started clanking on the churchbells, playing "Smoke on the water". No one seems to have bothered calling the police though....

I know, it's not that shocking, but at least we didn't beat people or harmed anyone

Deci is Sideshow Bob! A charismatic and eloquent vilain..

"This is what the Mercenaries were doing. They said you go rebeling, not doing politics and economics, and getting a peaceful takeover of lands, and you will be destroyed. IE if you do force we will fight you with force, and we will kill you. We will not debate, we will not wait, you can wave a white flag later, but we will hang you for your crimes, you will have nothing if you do these actions."

Hanging the people resonsible, is that what happened to Osama Bin Laden then?

God hadn't any hnad in ot, but silkt: congarts!

[flaming]

"I give a shit less what the EU "GAVE" to Ireland, or "MAY" continue to give to Ireland.
Really.  I dont care.
I do know that Ireland has a low corporate tax, and they have attracted a lot of business to their country because of this."

You said the EU didn't do anything. "Not caring" doesn't make you less wrong

"As to the Greatly at odds, who knows why they are even called a country, very ununited conglomerate of individual entities (not feifdoms tongue) known as Belgium."
"Why stay under the shackles of a false federal structure known as BELGIUM."

You have absolutely no clue. The Belgian state isn't a suppressing body that prohibits the freedom of it's parts. If you use that standards, then the UK, Sweden, Spain, France, Switzerland, Germany, Poland, Russia, Hungary and some others should all stop to exist. Belgium is exactly like those, only here, they seem to struggle over silly problems like dividing a constituency (that's the wikipedia translation for "kieskring"). I'm sure you wouldn't let the Native Americans claim a region of the USA as a seperate country, would you?

"I cant wait to see the Wallonia Olympic uniforms."

I find that both offensive and racist.

"Simlarillion would make one heck of a movie if you exclude the first 30 pages or so"

Except for the part that no one except a person who read the book a few times would be able to distinguish the different heroes (how many are there, a few dozen?)

As a matter of fact, most sequels are pretty disappointing, so I'm not going to name one. But I'm quite sick of all the superhero movies. I hope Hollywood will come up with something different soon...

"Lol. Well if that were the case, then the Nazis would have never been prosecuted because they were not part of the UN, and the genocidal maniacs being charged now would have left the UN during their term of office as head of state."

Wrong again, the nazis were persecuted by the Nurnberg trial by their own people. And the UN didn't even exist then However, they did join asap..

"And glad you admit that the EU supports a strong UN. That reinforces my conviction that Europeans are responsible for the increasingly active role of international courts, when 10 years ago these activities would have been thought to be unthinkable. Moreover, a stronger UN would actually increase the power of European states, because it would undermine the the major powers that use it as their little puppet and enable Europeans to be the center of a powerful organization of international justice. Yes the location of the courts is important for inferring who has power. And the little third world countries probably don't want a strong EU either, because they are frequently guilty of "war crimes." Really, the only countries who would want a strong UN, apparently, would be located in Europe."

Once again: sources! I can't say wether the activity went up or not. I rather think it hasn't, at least not compared to 10 years ago.. If it has, 10 years ago, the court couldn't put the leaders of the balkan to trial yet, simply cause it wasn't ready.
And once again, the "great forces" have a bloody veto. They can't be controlled for the love of god!
If the location matters: the UN is based in New York.
I think you shouldn't consider the "3rd world" as a whole. I think there are quite a lot of people who would want to see genocides punished by an international community. But that too is merely a thought and you should start to supply sources lad....

"Yes there is a power game with the UN, especially by the world's major powers. But nonetheless a strong UN is dangerous, and it should be kept weak."

How?

"
What does this say about Europe?"

Nothing! The US doesn't care about the UN when it doesn't fit them (see: the 2nd gulf war), same for the soviets. And the 3rd world shouldn't be treated like 1 country.
All it says about Europe is that it tries to settle international arguments in a trusted international body rather than going to war...

"I don't see how national autonomy and economic interdependence are mutually exclusive. We can trade and so on, and forget having an organization that attempts to supercede the power of states. Issuing and enforcing international law is a no no. Making trade agreement, communication, and resolving differences is fine."

Doesn't matter, as far as I know, the international court only applies on countries that are part of the UN. So there, it's a voluntary thing.

"Yes there are heads of states who are nasty, but none or few of them compare to the total slime like Stalin or Hitler. Before the UN, states used political means to deal with an imperialist or scumbag. They didn't trust them and they formed coalitions to destroy them or create a balance the power. What you did affected your relations with your neighbors. These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization."

Shall I start listing other genocides? And again, the UN IS politics, only a more sublime version. The UN is a coalition to destroy scumbags and to create a balance of power. It was Roosevelt who was a prime defender of the UN, the Europeans were rather synical about it at first, as they saw the League of Nations fail. Don't pretend it was 1) an evil thing and 2) from the europeans.

"These recent acts of the UN are setting a dangerous precedent where nation states no longer have the autonomy they once had, and are instead subject to the power of a much larger organization."

They do, all they have to do is to pull out of the UN..

"In other words, I am in favor of a weak UN. A strong UN is threatening. I am also saying that European actions suggest a favor for a strong UN, because their media criticizes the independent actions of the US and Russia and Russian agents assassinate vocal European journalists, and the first victims of the expansion of the UN's role as a judicial power are targeting former heads of state in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the other major powers are probably not involved, because the US, Russia, and China act very independently from the UN and seem to be vigilant of it performing such a role. All this leads to European involvement, although yes, it is only conjecture. But I think it is a sound conjecture given Europe's history and apparent attitudes toward the UN.

THe UN is already weak, with systems like vetos etc. The EU indeed favours a strong UN, and Russia didn't kill a European journalist (at least not that I know of). These "victims" were leaders who carried out genocides dunderhead, or at least most of them.
For the rest: please, supply some sources, cause it's so untrue even I can't laugh with it anymore....

The UN is used by the US as a tool for international politics, and often gets the support of Europe. Examples are: economical restrictions on Cuba, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. None of these were european conflicts. The difference is that Europe sticks with the UN decisions and the US doesn't (look at Iraq a few years ago, when the UN decided not to invade)...

Please, don't claim it's a european tool to control international politics, cause it's not clucking true!
The only arrogance that's been displayed in this thread is yours Justinian, an arrogance to just disregard facts only to bash Europe..

"That security council history only reinforces what I said. The US uses political means to accomplish its objectives. The US' veto record only demonstrates that it has protected its interests from the UN, not that it uses it necessarily to advance its interests. And who do you suppose brought up the challenges to US foreign policy? Europe. After all, it's always some European journalist that challenges the US or Russia, and then gets killed by Russian agents."

Oh, are we claiming the cold war was Europe against the Soviets now?