ICC to start investigation of Afghanistan

[The of Korea]

I'm sure they'll get on that right after they've built Trump's big beautiful wall.


Post it in r/The_Donald, it'll get to him eventually.

Anyhow. Back to seriousness.

While the ICC investigations probably have the opportunity to give us a diplomatic bruise or two, it's not like we aren't in the habit of prosecuting war criminals under our own laws. But with Trump in charge I'm not actually sure.

If we were still in the Obama years, I could see him selling the troops out to avoid ruffling feathers. Dropping the ICC a few token fall guys. Trump however a.) Doesn't seem to give a shit about war crimes, as evidenced by the whole affair of that guy who was posing with a corpse, and the more serious accusations that came up later. B.) Has already set a tone of non-compliance and adversarial behaviour With the UN, meaning it's not a far leap to take the same stance with the ICC, particularly given we aren't signatories to the Rome Statute.

So I guess the answer depends a lot on who wins the election and how long the ICC investigation/trials take.

This is of course, assuming the ICC charges US troops at all. Which they might not.

prosecuting war criminals is "selling out the troops"? Tf?

[The Emerald Legion]

Anyhow. Back to seriousness.

While the ICC investigations probably have the opportunity to give us a diplomatic bruise or two, it's not like we aren't in the habit of prosecuting war criminals under our own laws. But with Trump in charge I'm not actually sure.

If we were still in the Obama years, I could see him selling the troops out to avoid ruffling feathers. Dropping the ICC a few token fall guys. Trump however a.) Doesn't seem to give a shit about war crimes, as evidenced by the whole affair of that guy who was posing with a corpse, and the more serious accusations that came up later. B.) Has already set a tone of non-compliance and adversarial behaviour With the UN, meaning it's not a far leap to take the same stance with the ICC, particularly given we aren't signatories to the Rome Statute.

So I guess the answer depends a lot on who wins the election and how long the ICC investigation/trials take.

This is of course, assuming the ICC charges US troops at all. Which they might not.

prosecuting war criminals is "selling out the troops"? Tf?

Yes. Have a look at what the ICC considers a war crime. It's expansive as fuck and basically entirely impractical. Any sort of 'invasion' is a war crime.

[Aclion]

I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

why else would they antagonise the United States?.

As part of their constant attempt to extend their jurisdiction to the United States so that they can leverage that jurisdiction to be a politically relevant institution.

[Alvecia]

prosecuting war criminals is "selling out the troops"? Tf?

Yes. Have a look at what the ICC considers a war crime. It's expansive as fuck and basically entirely impractical. Any sort of 'invasion' is a war crime.

Less invasions is always a good thing

[Ifreann]

prosecuting war criminals is "selling out the troops"? Tf?

Yes. Have a look at what the ICC considers a war crime. It's expansive as fuck and basically entirely impractical. Any sort of 'invasion' is a war crime.

Sounds good.

[Telconi]

Yes. Have a look at what the ICC considers a war crime. It's expansive as fuck and basically entirely impractical. Any sort of 'invasion' is a war crime.

Less invasions is always a good thing

Only in a fantasy land.

[Aclion]

Yes. Have a look at what the ICC considers a war crime. It's expansive as fuck and basically entirely impractical. Any sort of 'invasion' is a war crime.

Less invasions is always a good thing

Operation Overlord?

[Infected Mushroom]

why else would they antagonise the United States?

Clearly, they want to be offered some benefits by the national government in exchange for not pursuing the matter further.

To reiterate: I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

I do. I keep all possibilities open. In light of real politics, this is a highly realistic explanation for the dynamic at play.

No one expects the ICC to go forward, so why make the move? Clearly, they are hoping to back off at a later point in exchange for some institutional benefit. Unless you expect them to actually go ahead and prosecute the USA? They couldn't afford to. They could cause some embarrassment but they'd lose out in the long run. However, America may offer some benefit to offset this mutual loss.

[Alvecia]

Less invasions is always a good thing

Operation Overlord?

Yes?

[Aclion]

To reiterate: I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

I do. I keep all possibilities open. In light of real politics, this is a highly realistic explanation for the dynamic at play.

Maybe you should make an effort to understand the relationship between the ICC and the US and the motivations of the ICC before talking about what's realistic. The Idea of the ICC covering for the US is laughable. The US has been targeted by the ICC since the Clinton administration opted not to submit the Rome Statute to congress for ratification.

Operation Overlord?

Yes?

... you understand that that was the allied invasion of Nazi occupied France, right?

[The New California Republic]

To reiterate: I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

I do. I keep all possibilities open. In light of real politics, this is a highly realistic explanation for the dynamic at play.

Except it isn't realistic in the slightest.

[Alvecia]

Yes?

... you understand that that was the allied invasion of Nazi occupied France, right?

I am somewhat historically literate, yes.

[Telconi]

Operation Overlord?

Yes?

Can you show us on the doll where the French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians, Albanians, Yugoslavs, Jews, Romani, Mentally handicapped, Physically handicapped, and Homosexuals hurt you?

[Alvecia]

Yes?

Can you show us on the doll where the French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians, Albanians, Yugoslavs, Jews, Romani, Mentally handicapped, Physically handicapped, and Homosexuals hurt you?

I got punched in the arm by a Polish bloke at my cousin's wedding last month, does that count?

[Thermodolia]

Good. More publicity for America's historical and presumably on-going war crimes should help pressure democratic governments to stop cooperating with them.

Like those governments care. Poland, Hungary, France, and others don’t give a shit about human rights abuses by the US or their own government.

The UK is basically our puppet so they aren’t going to do anything. All that’s left is Germany really

[Telconi]

Can you show us on the doll where the French, Belgians, Dutch, Poles, Czechs, Norwegians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Russians, Albanians, Yugoslavs, Jews, Romani, Mentally handicapped, Physically handicapped, and Homosexuals hurt you?

I got punched in the arm by a Polish bloke at my cousin's wedding last month, does that count?

Only if you're horrifyingly evil.

[The Emerald Legion]

I got punched in the arm by a Polish bloke at my cousin's wedding last month, does that count?

Only if you're horrifyingly evil.

It's a bit much even by my standards of disproportionate response in the name of petty revenge.

[Alvecia]

I got punched in the arm by a Polish bloke at my cousin's wedding last month, does that count?

Only if you're horrifyingly evil.

"less invasions pls"
"what are you, a Nazi?"

[Infected Mushroom]

I do. I keep all possibilities open. In light of real politics, this is a highly realistic explanation for the dynamic at play.

Except it isn't realistic in the slightest.

what makes you say so

[The New California Republic]

Except it isn't realistic in the slightest.

what makes you say so

Conspiracy theories are never usually realistic, and given your penchant in previous discussions to arrive at wildly inaccurate conclusions, it is a safe bet that what you are saying has next to no relation to reality whatsoever.

[Bear Stearns]

Neoliberal global institutions have always been jokes.

[Ifreann]

To reiterate: I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

I do. I keep all possibilities open. In light of real politics, this is a highly realistic explanation for the dynamic at play.

The word is "realpolitik", not "real politics". It's a German loanword.

No one expects the ICC to go forward, so why make the move? Clearly, they are hoping to back off at a later point in exchange for some institutional benefit. Unless you expect them to actually go ahead and prosecute the USA? They couldn't afford to. They could cause some embarrassment but they'd lose out in the long run. However, America may offer some benefit to offset this mutual loss.

As we've covered already, you don't know anything about the ICC except their name. You don't know what they might want, what might benefit them, what they might stand to lose. And you know that you don't know any of those things. So what are you doing here?

---

Good. More publicity for America's historical and presumably on-going war crimes should help pressure democratic governments to stop cooperating with them.

Like those governments care. Poland, Hungary, France, and others don’t give a shit about human rights abuses by the US or their own government.

The UK is basically our puppet so they aren’t going to do anything. All that’s left is Germany really

I would have thought it was obvious by me saying "pressure democratic governments" that what I'm talking about is not appealing to the better natures of those governments themselves, but the people of those nations using their votes("democratic") to convince("pressure") their governments to cease their complicity in American war crimes.

[Page]

The American occupation of Afghanistan is certainly criminal. Even if you disregard all the death and devastation inflicted by this war, it is more than terrible enough that trillions of dollars that could have given the American people health care, education, renewable energy, food, and housing have been squandered on an 18 year war that America lost as badly as the Soviets did.

All that said, I don't expect the ICC will produce any substantial justice.

[The East Marches II]

I would have thought it was obvious by me saying "pressure democratic governments" that what I'm talking about is not appealing to the better natures of those governments themselves, but the people of those nations using their votes("democratic") to convince("pressure") their governments to cease their complicity in American war crimes.

That would require those populations to have spine. Which they do not.

[The New California Republic]

[...] an 18 year war that America lost as badly as the Soviets did.

And the Soviets used chemical weapons and deliberately shelled villages to displace the populace, as well as the widespread use of torture via the KHAD and the GRU/KGB. Even going to those extremes they still lost. I remember back in 2001 watching the footage of the B-52 bombers annihilating the Taliban's mountain bases, I think a lot of us back then mistakenly thought that the end result would be different, but it wasn't.