US Politics

Mark B said:
I must have hurt your feelings pointing out that you have no clue what you are talking about. Do you need a hug? I'm not a Trump voter, but he is correct in regards to things like Europeans not contributing their share to NATO and letting the US carry the burden.

I'll add definitions since you don't seem to understand what word's in the English language mean.

Overreach: Exceeding Authority (Verb / Noun): Going past the limits of your official power, legal jurisdiction, or mandate. Example: A government agency or court acting outside its designated legal bounds.

Let's review whether the ICC has authority over Russia or Israel or has it overreached its mandate.
  • Is Russia a signatory of the Rome Statute?
    • Nope, so investigating and charging them is overreach because they don't have the authority.
  • Is Israel a signatory of the Rome Statute?
    • Nope, so investigating and charging them is overreach because they don't have the authority.
  • Has the UN Security Council given the ICC authority to independently investigate Russia or Israel? Nope, so the ICC is overreaching.

So where have those nations given the ICC authority over their citizens? Oh, they haven't? So did the ICC go beyond its mandate in investigating and trying to prosecute Israeli leaders? Sure did, that is overreach, no matter how you try to pretend its not. Definition of overreach has been met and you are wrong.

Virtue signaling is the public display of a moral, political, or social viewpoint with the primary intent of communicating one's own good character, empathy, or high standing, rather than taking meaningful action or possessing deep conviction.

If all you are doing is "raising awareness" then you are virtue signaling.

Seriously, even your statements are validating my positions, you are kind of struggling at presenting a logical argument with facts presented to support your argument instead of mine. You don't even know the basic facts of the people involved and what is going on. Speaking of teenagers, my teenagers can put together a more effective argument, so maybe I'll let them help you craft a response in the future.
Click to expand...
As a bold fact, you cannot argue with this point. However, the historic facts are a lot more nuanced.

After the War, Europe was flat broke. The Marshall Plan propped up many of our Continental cousins where you could hardly expect them to simultaneously build serious militaries. Some countries were constitutionally forbidden from doing so for obvious reasons. In that fiscal culture, the Cold War caused the US to step in to fill the gap.

What is puzzling, is the feeling in the US that you have been used. That we have sponged off US largesse. That is absolute crap. The US could have withdrawn its support at any time. We were not holding a gun to your head as you held the only big gun. So why did you stay and pay?

The US has done very well out of its expansion policies and has projected power and control over many parts of the globe for decades. At home, millions of jobs and the pockets of many powerful people have grown dependent on the industrial military complex. And the power has allowed the US to flourish as it exerts pressure through muscle. Some places like Bolivia that pressure is obvious. Elsewhere, like here, the pressure has to be more finessed.

But you do not need to spend more on defence than the next 10 nations combined to protect your nation. The US is profiting from this and has always done. Otherwise it would not do it.

However, like all empires, you are in decline and one of the main causes and symptoms is overstretch. Trump realizes this and is seeking to force the wealthier nations where the US has presence and elements of control to up their spending so the US can correspondingly withdraw theirs. However, I am afraid the degree of reversal required is beyond his ability, or that of his successor. The decline will continue and is irreversible.

However, to somehow apportion culpability for this malaise on those countries it occupies and props up at least partly for their own interests is nonsense. It is like us blaming Kenya or India for the fall of our empire.
 
silvertop said:
As a bold fact, you cannot argue with this point. However, the historic facts are a lot more nuanced.

After the War, Europe was flat broke. The Marshall Plan propped up many of our Continental cousins where you could hardly expect them to simultaneously build serious militaries. Some countries were constitutionally forbidden from doing so for obvious reasons. In that fiscal culture, the Cold War caused the US to step in to fill the gap.

What is puzzling, is the feeling in the US that you have been used. That we have sponged off US largesse. That is absolute crap. The US could have withdrawn its support at any time. We were not holding a gun to your head as you held the only big gun. So why did you stay and pay?

The US has done very well out of its expansion policies and has projected power and control over many parts of the globe for decades. At home, millions of jobs and the pockets of many powerful people have grown dependent on the industrial military complex. And the power has allowed the US to flourish as it exerts pressure through muscle. Some places like Bolivia that pressure is obvious. Elsewhere, like here, the pressure has to be more finessed.

But you do not need to spend more on defence than the next 10 nations combined to protect your nation. The US is profiting from this and has always done. Otherwise it would not do it.

However, like all empires, you are in decline and one of the main causes and symptoms is overstretch. Trump realizes this and is seeking to force the wealthier nations where the US has presence and elements of control to up their spending so the US can correspondingly withdraw theirs. However, I am afraid the degree of reversal required is beyond his ability, or that of his successor. The decline will continue and is irreversible.

However, to somehow apportion culpability for this malaise on those countries it occupies and props up at least partly for their own interests is nonsense. It is like us blaming Kenya or India for the fall of our empire.
Click to expand...
I understand why it happened, I was simply pointing out that it did happen. Social programs became the priority while defense was allowed to atrophy with the belief that there was not a threat to Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The issue wasn't post WWII until the fall of the Soviet Union, until then, most nations were trying to do their best within their economic capabilities, especially the Germans. The issue arouse afterwards when Europe cut its defense funding again and again to push money into social programs. I get why governments want to do this, it makes sense to keep the voters happy. I equate it to kids having their parents pay their bills after they leave, if someone is dumb enough to pay your bills, why wouldn't you let them?

The US stayed in Europe because the continental Europeans, specifically the Eastern ones, wanted the US there because they simply don't trust Germany and France to be able to help them out. The US tried closing down most of its bases in Europe (with a few exceptions) and pulling units back to the US but ended up keeping more then they wanted to because European leaders asked them to stay behind closed doors. While most NATO nations don't trust Trump, they trust each other even less when it comes to security.

Am I personally offended by nations prioritizing internal voters over their military? Not in the least, but I am frustrated that European Armies are equipped so poorly that they have to make do with legacy equipment. This is especially so for reserve forces. When I trained with the Royal Yeomanry (great guys by the way) two and half decades ago their equipment was already 30 years old and I still have PTSD from the electrical shocks I got from getting the radio to actually work. That is my issue, NATO nations that want to send their forces overseas but not give them the equipment that they deserve. Nations who are willing to sacrifice soldiers and then not take care of them.

The US doesn't spend 10 times more then every other nation, the issue with that is that China is flat out lying about how much they are putting into defense. The reality is that the Chinese military budget was around $700 billion this year. If China thinks they can beat the US, they will go for Taiwan and attack throughout Asia to get it. The less confidence that China has of winning, the less likely of a war that would be drastically more expensive as well as crash the global economy. Which is why the US defense budget is likely going from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion next year.

Where I do disagree is the "Decline of the US" nonsense. When you look at actual metrics, the US is cruising along better then any other country in the world. The US trying to be less involved in other areas is reprioritization, not decline. The US retains force projection capabilities unmatched in the world so that if it wants to go somewhere, it can get there. The nation in decline that the world needs to be concerned with is China. As their economy slows and their aging population leaves the work force, there will be a lashing out when they can no longer hide everything that they have been lying about. Such as how they "only" actually have 800 million people and not the 1.4 billion that they claim.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
You are continuing to do what I accused you of doing. Repeating lies in the hope they will be seen as truths by the dumb. Just like Trump you are so convinced by your own ability that you are unable to realise how ridiculous your position is. I don't need to mock you! You manage it very well yourself.

Neither Russia, nor Israel are signatories to the Rome Statute. That's not, and never has been, in dispute. Both though are members of the UN. They don't need to give the ICC explicit authority over their citizens. It already exists as a consequence of their UN membership. If the UN refers a matter to the ICC for investigation the ICC has all the authority it requires. It is within it's mandate to investigate and identify those reponsible for any crimes. No overreach of any kind, despite your claims, which are either based on ignorance or the propaganda spread in the USA on this subject.

You also misrepresent "virtue signaling". Those who do this do so in an attempt to portray themselves in a good light. It is entirely to their personal benefit. The ICC identifying criminal activity and the individuals responsible is entirely aimed at the activity and the criminals responsible. This is not virtue signaling.

There are some very good reasons why we, through the UN and the independent ICC, are doing this. Allowing crimes such as we have, and are, witnessing to go unchallenged is to allow authoritarianism to rise unchallenged. Democracy cannot allow that to happen. The likes of Trump, Netanyahu and Putin might not like it, but it's essential that it happens. Allowing the kind of things described below to continue without them being examined forensically is a threat to all of us. You included.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hundreds of IDF investigations into killings without public outcome, BBC Verify finds

BBC Verify has identified 254 incidents from the past three years the Israeli military said it is reviewing after being accused of harm.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
You are stuck on copy and paste with your same rhetoric and lack of actual facts. You don't like what definitions actually are so you create a fiction in your own mind of what you want the definition to be.
- The ICC has no authority over Israel and his given itself the authority. Which is overreach.
- Your entire argument is virtue signaling. Every single nation who is the part of the ICC could go after Putin, Bibi or Trump, yet you don't do a single thing because you are only virtue signaling.

If the world needs it so much, then you and the ICC should nut up and try to bring Trump on trial. Looking forward to it as I could use the laugh.

1792076793323.webp
 
Mark B said:
You are stuck on copy and paste with your same rhetoric and lack of actual facts. You don't like what definitions actually are so you create a fiction in your own mind of what you want the definition to be.
- The ICC has no authority over Israel and his given itself the authority. Which is overreach.
- Your entire argument is virtue signaling. Every single nation who is the part of the ICC could go after Putin, Bibi or Trump, yet you don't do a single thing because you are only virtue signaling.

If the world needs it so much, then you and the ICC should nut up and try to bring Trump on trial. Looking forward to it as I could use the laugh.

View attachment 4437
Click to expand...
That is one of the most ignorant replies I have seen here, and there’s plenty of competition.

It’s only me who has provided facts. All you have done is repeat the excuses that you have heard in the USA.

The ICC doesn’t claim to have authority over Israel, or any other country. It investigates criminal activity and prosecutes the individuals responsible for it. Not countries.

The ICC is the way that countries who are signatories prosecute such people. Those people being able to be prosecuted, whether their country is a signatory or not, because of their UN membership.

Putin has been indicted, along with Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova.

Trump hasn’t been. Yet! He does though both expect and fear it. He can pardon himself at home but a new administration could remand him to the care of the ICC if they so chose or if the UN Security Council asked the ICC to investigate. Don’t believe me? Ask Duterte about his experience.

The ICC is a court of last resort and action will only be taken against someone when there is no prospect of any in their own country. That though isn’t yet the case in the USA.

Why We’re Suing to Defend the International Criminal Court

Open Society is fighting the Trump administration’s sanctions regime.
www.opensocietyfoundations.org www.opensocietyfoundations.org
 
Last edited:
Mark B said:
So watching a terrorist die who murdered over a dozen people is evil.

But watching a video of a tiger maul guy with severe mental health illness who never hurt another person is perfectly acceptable.

View attachment 4440
Click to expand...
No it isn’t. Neither are acceptable in any decent society.

In fact anyone who thinks it is needs to be treated themselves for mental health problems.

This is a completely seperate issue to whether the death penalty is justified, or not. There are respectable opinions on both sides of that argument.

There is no respectable opinion in support of any execution being made publicly available. Not because of any rights the one being executed might have. It’s the dehumanising influence it would have on society as a whole that’s the reason. In return for nothing more than some gruesome personal gratification.
 
Last edited:
Wisbech Eagle said:
That is one of the most ignorant replies I have seen here, and there’s plenty of competition.

It’s only me who has provided facts. All you have done is repeat the excuses that you have heard in the USA.

The ICC doesn’t claim to have authority over Israel, or any other country. It investigates criminal activity and prosecutes the individuals responsible for it. Not countries.

The ICC is the way that countries who are signatories prosecute such people. Those people being able to be prosecuted, whether their country is a signatory or not, because of their UN membership.

Putin has been indicted, along with Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova.

Trump hasn’t been. Yet! He does though both expect and fear it. He can pardon himself at home but a new administration could remand him to the care of the ICC if they so chose or if the UN Security Council asked the ICC to investigate. Don’t believe me? Ask Duterte about his experience.

The ICC is a court of last resort and action will only be taken against someone when there is no prospect of any in their own country. That though isn’t yet the case in the USA.

Why We’re Suing to Defend the International Criminal Court

Open Society is fighting the Trump administration’s sanctions regime.
www.opensocietyfoundations.org www.opensocietyfoundations.org
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I cannot take your opinion on this seriously, between the outright lying about ICC authorities and the constant virtue signalling, I just cannot take the commentary earnestly.

- ICC doesn't have the authority to go after countries, or the citizens of countries, who are not members of the ICC.
- Trump isn't afraid of the ICC at all. The ICC on the other hand is in panic mode over US sanctions and the end of its ponzi scheme.
- Duterte was given over to the ICC because his political rivals wanted him gone and the PDP-Laban neutered as a political organization after the PDP-Laban VP (who happened to be Duterte's daughter) attacked President Marcos. That your evidence of the ICC being not corrupt is them doing the dirty
work for Marcos is hilarious to me.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No it isn’t. Neither are acceptable in any decent society.

In fact anyone who thinks it is needs to be treated themselves for mental health problems.

This is a completely seperate issue to whether the death penalty is justified, or not. There are respectable opinions on both sides of that argument.

There is no respectable opinion in support of any execution being made publicly available. Not because of any rights the one being executed might have. It’s the dehumanising influence it would have on society as a whole that’s the reason. In return for nothing more than some gruesome personal gratification.
Click to expand...
The counterargument is that public executions should show accountability, transparency, and public oversight of the justice system. If society, through its laws and courts, has the authority to sentence someone to death, then citizens have a legitimate interest in the execution of that punishment.

If the state executes someone in the public's name, the public should not be entirely shielded from the consequences of that decision. Transparency forces society to confront the reality of capital punishment rather than treating it as an abstract legal process conducted behind closed doors. To put it simply, if you aren't embarrassed about your actions then there is no reason to hide them.
 
Mark B said:
The counterargument is that public executions should show accountability, transparency, and public oversight of the justice system. If society, through its laws and courts, has the authority to sentence someone to death, then citizens have a legitimate interest in the execution of that punishment.

If the state executes someone in the public's name, the public should not be entirely shielded from the consequences of that decision. Transparency forces society to confront the reality of capital punishment rather than treating it as an abstract legal process conducted behind closed doors. To put it simply, if you aren't embarrassed about your actions then there is no reason to hide them.
Click to expand...
This is a great AI generated post- but what do you think, as opposed to Chat or 365? Execution live streamed or in private with invited viewers?
 
kevlee said:
This is a great AI generated post- but what do you think, as opposed to Chat or 365? Execution live streamed or in private with invited viewers?
Click to expand...
I get that you are incapable of being able to have conceptional counterpoint conversations regarding capital punishment so I'll dumb it down for you next time.

His questions didn't ask for my opinion, he challenged whether there was valid antithesis to his. Which I provided. This is how intellectuals discuss things but since you need it written in crayon, I'll try to do better in the future so you can keep up with the rest of the class.
 
Mark B said:
I get that you are incapable of being able to have conceptional counterpoint conversations regarding capital punishment so I'll dumb it down for you next time.

His questions didn't ask for my opinion, he challenged whether there was valid antithesis to his. Which I provided. This is how intellectuals discuss things but since you need it written in crayon, I'll try to do better in the future so you can keep up with the rest of the class.
Click to expand...
Well I’m asking for your opinion. Live streamed execution or in private?
 
kevlee said:
Well I’m asking for your opinion. Live streamed execution or in private?
Click to expand...
US military tradition has always been a closed group of military personnel. No fanfare, all business, so that is where my opinion on the matter lies.

My issue with suddenly turning it public is that Pete wanted to turn it into political spectacle. If this was going to be a change in AR 190-55 and that every military execution that followed would be public then sure, that would be the new standard. But it isn't.

I'm strongly against using the US military for purely political attention grabbing. Parades to celebrate the US Army, sure, why not. A military band to celebrate the 250th Anniversary. Sure. Political grandstanding public execution, no thank you.

And to be far, I think Pete is an idiot and openly believe that Pete is the least qualified person in the administration.
 
Spindle said:
I want to see the shooting live. Put it on Sky Box Office

Wisbech is getting chewed up and has no idea lol
Click to expand...
Trump says no...

For now. If the Republicans lose the House and Senate, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump reverses again as a middle finger to centrist Republicans. If people think Trump has not cared what others thought so far, wait until he has nothing left to campaign for and stops having any hesitation about using his authorities.
1792178914249.webp
 
Mark B said:
Trump says no...

For now. If the Republicans lose the House and Senate, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump reverses again as a middle finger to centrist Republicans. If people think Trump has not cared what others thought so far, wait until he has nothing left to campaign for and stops having any hesitation about using his authorities.
View attachment 4443
Click to expand...

His last two years will be most entertaining 😀
 
Mark B said:
I'm sorry but I cannot take your opinion on this seriously, between the outright lying about ICC authorities and the constant virtue signalling, I just cannot take the commentary earnestly.

- ICC doesn't have the authority to go after countries, or the citizens of countries, who are not members of the ICC.
- Trump isn't afraid of the ICC at all. The ICC on the other hand is in panic mode over US sanctions and the end of its ponzi scheme.
- Duterte was given over to the ICC because his political rivals wanted him gone and the PDP-Laban neutered as a political organization after the PDP-Laban VP (who happened to be Duterte's daughter) attacked President Marcos. That your evidence of the ICC being not corrupt is them doing the dirty
work for Marcos is hilarious to me.
Click to expand...
I can agree that you aren’t serious. You are also simply wrong. There are no “lies” of any kind from me, or indeed virtue signalling. You are just repeating the attempted spin that’s put about in your country. The ICC certainly doesn’t have authority to “go after” countries. No court does. It does though possess the authority, mandated by the Rome Statute, which authorises it to take action against anyone who commits a crime, of the type within its remit, on the soil of one of the signatory countries, OR, if the UN Security Council requests it to do so.

Those are facts. Not lies. Your issue is therefore not with the ICC at all, but with those countries who established it and with the UN which supports it. Just like Trump has such issues. He having withdrawn US funding and is also very sceptical about the UN. This will last as long as Trump, or a Trump like character is POTUS. Which, with any luck means 2 more years.

The UN and ICC will survive Trump and his petulance. Others will ensure they are given the necessary funding. The world wants to see the back of Trump and the USA genuinely becoming great again, and not the pale shadow of itself that it is now. It used to be regarded as the bastion of democratic values, of freedom and opportunity. Now it’s seen as a tyrant, run by a self serving bully.

You probably don’t know that I lived in the Philippines for several years, some whilst Duterte was President. It would take a book to try to explain Philippine politics and the various clans that hold power. That his ultimate arrest had a lot to do with that there is also no doubt at all that he was responsible for many extra judicial events, including using the police to murder many people. He openly defended doing so. The ICC being involved in bringing him to justice is primarily due to the justice system in the Philippines being institutionally corrupt. It’s not pretty, but it’s a necessary step if that country is ever going to be governed under the law. Marcos is an idiot but he has avoided doing anything that might risk him being referred himself. Duterte remains very popular in the south of the country where his actions are seen as an expedient necessity.

If you don’t see shades of similarity in the way the USA has been going that must only be because you are too close to the action to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top