121–130 of 289 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No-one is going to invade Switzerland. A country like the US can invade any country they want. International law is irrelevant. But they can pressure a country like Switzerland without needing to resort to military action, which would be crazy anyway in the case of Switzerland.
US have already pressured Swiss to remove bank secrecy, which is kinda a big deal.
I appreciate and welcome this move by RISC-V foundation. With semiconductor industry being used as a major soft power, countries which don't have such power betting on RISC-V[1], it's wise to move to a neutral country. My only gripe being, there aren't many neutral countries which can stand up to powerful militarized nations. Edit: The reason, I mentioned lack of military power of neutral countries is because of the…
"Hague invasion act" =:-O The US truly are the bully in the room.
The world is a very fragile, dynamic balance of power and the US is the only thing holding it together.
Despite many grievances, it's sad to see people fail to grasp this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hague invasion act" =:-O The US truly are the bully in the room.
Just to clarify, it is officially called 'American Service-Members' Protection Act' which was supposedly passed as there was a chance George W. Bush could be arrested & tried at ICC for war crimes; media & human rights organizations call it 'Hague invasion act' for what it is.
Probably some boring demands and Netherlands will comply because big bad USA and such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hague invasion act" =:-O The US truly are the bully in the room.
How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted. The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of th…
It's an easy question to ask when you're the guy at the top of the pile with the biggest guns and the ability to kill or capture your perceived enemies anywhere in the world.
For everyone else, global institutions based on universal human rights are a welcome safeguard against the abuses of 20th century style sovereignty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hague invasion act" =:-O The US truly are the bully in the room.
How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted. The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of th…
You are an anarchist then? Otherwise as an sovereign individual, how can you justify being part of nation with laws over you?
It's not so much giving up sovereignty as pooling it. ie you trade your right to do so as you wish, for a guarantee that others can't just do as they wish on agreed areas - like rape, murder, stealing etc.
Same argument applies to countries - they submit to the ICC, but are also party to shaping it - it's an agreement between countries about what is 'beyond the pale'.
The sad fact is, however the US see's it's self, the rest of the world is increasingly seeing the US as the largest threat to world peace. https://fullfact.org/news/america-world-peace/
In my view, the US need to have a long hard look at themselves and re-discover their moral mojo.
I appreciate and welcome this move by RISC-V foundation. With semiconductor industry being used as a major soft power, countries which don't have such power betting on RISC-V[1], it's wise to move to a neutral country. My only gripe being, there aren't many neutral countries which can stand up to powerful militarized nations. Edit: The reason, I mentioned lack of military power of neutral countries is because of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hague invasion act" =:-O The US truly are the bully in the room.
How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted. The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of th…
What would effectively be the difference for you as an individual. You don't have sovereignty, you don't have self determination, the huge country you live in does. You have zero influence over your country's laws, constitution and institutions.
Why do you prefer to be ruled over by the US, which is corrupt to the bone and ruled by whoever pays the largest 'campaign contributions' (a.k.a. bribes). vs. something like the ICC ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted. The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of th…
> "...the real question is why others are so willing to give up their sovereignty and right to self determination?" It's an easy question to ask when you're the guy at the top of the pile with the biggest guns and the ability to kill or capture your perceived enemies anywhere in the world. For everyone else, global institutions based on universal human rights are a welcome safeguard against the abuses of 20th century…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted. The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of th…
> "...the real question is why others are so willing to give up their sovereignty and right to self determination?" It's an easy question to ask when you're the guy at the top of the pile with the biggest guns and the ability to kill or capture your perceived enemies anywhere in the world. For everyone else, global institutions based on universal human rights are a welcome safeguard against the abuses of 20th century…
The US is making it very explicit that they are above rules. They have the right to commit war crimes, while holding other countries accountable for their war crimes, and even for things that aren't even crimes at all. The US is a bully, and is very explicit about it.