41–50 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess "genocide" is also defined by the winners, or their defenders. And if it's not a genocide, then it's just mass killing of innocents, and that's... fine! Wonko the Sane is right.
do you define the dresden firebombings or the hiroshima nuclear attack as genocide?
This reminds me of the old gangster trick of having their "ho hold the strap" because they're a prohibited person who can't have guns. It doesn't stop him, merely means anything requiring an actual identity is likely done by proxy of his wife/mistress/cousin.
TLDR: he's a member of the ICC. Issues warrants against Israeli political leaders. Neither Israel nor the USA (nor China, Russia, India) are parties to the international conventions that formed the ICC. He's being sanctioned as a result by the USA, which flowed down to US companies who must follow US law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. Lots of countries out there led by thugs. It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing (not that it always succeeded, but it did its best). Looks like that time has passed.
> used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously The US looked like it stood out but it has its own internal and external legal problems such as slavery, Native American repressions, the legacy of slavery, anti-Asian policies, coup-ing foreign countries, etc etc etc
This is infuriating. The EU should block US sanctions violating EU interests. I'm also definitely moving my personal stuff out of US and into EU, starting with Gmail.
There is a guy on here, weev (username rabite) who was soft sanctioned by the US and can't use banks that transact in the dollar. Last I read of his comments, he was in Ukraine or Transnistria, surviving off of crypto and direct rents from crypto purchased real estate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. Lots of countries out there led by thugs. It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing (not that it always succeeded, but it did its best). Looks like that time has passed.
> It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing I think it looked like that, because the US always been very effective at propaganda, and until the internet and the web made it very easy for people to communicate directly with each other without the arms of media conglomerates. It's now clearer than ever that US never really believed in its own…
The situation we find ourselves in is that the American of today does not represent us well. I have hopes for the future, but time will tell.
Only the U.S. would actually sanction someone for trying to indict a war criminal.
The ICC somehow managed to create an institution even more useless than the UN. The very concept of an International Criminal Court, operating in some idealistic moral space above war and diplomacy, is completely divorced from the reality of realpolitik and total war. If everyone agreed to arbitrate world matters in the ICC, why even have militaries?
That's… kind of the point? To not have to kill and destroy each other to settle disputes.
This is a weapon that the US has been honing for a long time. Pretty much every modern company has some footprint in the US (for example, maybe trades on a US stock market) and is liable for even mild sanctions violations to the tune of millions at least.
And the EU apparently has the counter ready, which would make such companies liable for millions when they enact US sanctions in the EU. I'm very curious what would happen then? Nothing presumable, as nothing ever happens, or it might be another step to separate the EU market from the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU is in a very tough spot right now. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while simultaneously facing a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. The relationship with the American administration has deteriorated badly and any action seen as "retaliation", such as this policy blockade, would almost definitely result in USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war. I think,…
A referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed.
Politics (almost) never works like this. In a secret vote, you don't even know who voted yes or no or at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU is in a very tough spot right now. They're getting squeezed on all sides economically by USA and China while simultaneously facing a Russian invasion on their eastern borders. The relationship with the American administration has deteriorated badly and any action seen as "retaliation", such as this policy blockade, would almost definitely result in USA withdrawing even more support for Ukraine in the war. I think,…
A referendum about whether the EU should "put boots on the ground" seems like a good idea to me as long as only those who vote yes get deployed.
I also wonder what good any sort of military/defensive pact is if any country can unilaterally decide when or when not to participate. It means you can’t depend on it and you may as well not have it then right? To be clear I am not saying military pacts are a good thing, but they do currently exist and participating counties can’t (at least shouldn’t) just pretend they aren’t part of one when it’s inconvenient.