http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/01/crime.usa.aid.reut/index.html
I just thought I’d add a poll… Mods, It would be cool if you could merge the two threads 
The US isn’t obligated to provide military aid voluntarily to any country. They do it so that one day those countries can throw a few votes our way as repayment for our troops being stationed there. It’s not fair, but that’s the small price you have to pay to have a well-organized military presence that is not your country’s own. There were several countries (primarily African) that were exempt - probably to curtail any civil wars, etc. Why continue supporting troops to relatively peaceful areas (with the exception of Columbia)? 
Simply enough, those countries didn’t support something the US wanted, therefore they have lost their aid. It isn’t as if those countries are paying the US as contract peacekeepers or anything. 
Cheers!
Kirupa 
Come on kir - it’s outrageous that America should be demanding that it not be judged like every other country in an international criminal court.
If it behaves itself it has nothing to worry about, and if it doesn’t why should it get away with it?
honestly, if you where president, if someone didnt back you up on one thing, you wouldnt back them up either.
You can’t look at it like “it’s just one thing” - it’s important and to give in despite moral objections would be wrong. This is an extreme example but it would be the same thing as killing someone and then turning around to some tramp who you have given a dollar to every day for the last couple of years and saying “If you tell anyone about that, I’ll stop giving you money”. If that tramp had any moral backbone the money shouldn’t come into it, he should do the right thing. The countries that have stood up to America should accordingly be commended.
they can try their own soldeirs for crimes…
But that’s not an independant international court is it? “America” would not be held to account for its actions.
Yeah, Its kinda a swing both ways kinda thing,
Yes alot of these countries dont really need it urgently (or at least to my knowledge) Except Central African Rep. and Colombia. And honestly, if you where president, if someone didnt back you up on one thing, you wouldnt back them up either.
But, its true it is unfair, because other countries though independently, or for themselves, are now punished for it. Well that just says it for independance dosen’t it. And it seems like they are punishing them for not supporting against the beleif of what the USA was doing was wrong…
But need more info… (preferably from another source)
It dosent sound too bad, it seems there are many flaws within the ICC, while I am for it, I can understand why the US is against it, plus they can try their own soldeirs for crimes…
Its not issue Urban,
Any country would withdraw support to anyone who dosent support them back… it dosent matter what form it is, thats why I said it might be unfair, but thats how it is.
Second:
the ICC has alot of flaws. Just because a country dosent want other countries to try their soldeirs, dosent meant it wont. And powerfull countries will never allow other nations to hold such power over them. And nobody in america wants anyone else to hold them accountable for anything by anyone else…
It seems the US wants to have the only power over their own soldeirs…
i would need a bigger article to form an opinion
My complaint is not that the US cut military aid o the 50 countries. What I don’t understand is why we threatened to veto the vote if our troops didn’t get special treatment.
Maybe this will help
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/06/international.court/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/01/bosnia.peacekeeping.court/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/time.might.is.right/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/07/11/us.icc.peacekeepers/index.html
