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
 
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.

1792111326919.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top