You seem to be the most ass hurt person on the planet. Congratulations .the $350 million dollar pier to nowhere seems to be having a few hiccups, something like 550 tons has made it over but it's not reaching the warehouses
What international laws/treaties do you think those bombings violated?The US has never been subject to accountability for mass murder and human rights abuses. The current era of impunity started in WWII with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Well they are correct that US leaders are immune to accountability. First, the US is not party to the Rome Statute but in a more practical sense no international law is binding in any meaningful way against the US because no one has the power to enforce it.The U.S. leaders obviously think we're (still) immune to accountability. Threatening the ICC? WTF
What international laws/treaties do you think those bombings violated?
There was no agreement that the Hague conventions even covered aerial bombardment. In fact, there was an attempt to revise the conventions to cover exactly this sort of thing and all the major powers rejected it. In addition not only had aerial bombardment of civilian areas happened before WW2 without the Hague Conventions being invoked, literally every single beligerrant in WW2 bombed civilian targets with gusto.Hague Conventions? How does it NOT violate those?
It almost entirely targeted/killed civilians. There were no military bases or installations in either city.
When someone defends the indefensible, find out their motives, their position on the topic.Hague Conventions? How does it NOT violate those?
It almost entirely targeted/killed civilians. There were no military bases or installations in either city.
To be honest even if they had covered aerial bombardment I'm pretty confident everyone in WW2 would have done it anyway because basically all the rules were thrown out in that war. This is the problem with international law as opposed to domestic law. Within a country the government has a monopoly on force so it can enforce its laws pretty effectively. Internationally that doesn't work so the only real international law is what you can get away with.Touche, and agreed about all countries involved in WWII doing similar. Though, I didn't claim the US was the only one bombing civilians. I guess it stands out in my mind because of the number killed in the two bombings relative to other bombing campaigns throughout the war (including London and Tokyo).
I'm not too surprised that aerial bombardment wasn't included when the conventions were written...there were warplanes in WWI but I'm not sure it was common. The Hague conventions were written pre-WWI and never revised to include it.
Knew from the beginning that it's like trying to pump your car with gas through a straw. Many other issues with security also.the $350 million dollar pier to nowhere seems to be having a few hiccups, something like 550 tons has made it over but it's not reaching the warehouses
The lack of any method of enforcement makes this a hollow statement.ICJ Ruling is in, the response will be calm and sane i bet
Whether its enforceable or not, it still has some bite on other levels. Israels leaders branded as war criminals and unable to travel to many countries where arrest warrants can be issued. They have gone ape-shit over this realizing how detrimental it is to their PR and countries image.The lack of any method of enforcement makes this a hollow statement.
Probably not the best optics to have GERMANY be the one to come out and say they'll arrest Bibi. Just saying ...
I can see your point to some degree, depending on POV.
WWII/Holocaust wasn't 10 or 20 years ago (which would make it *really* awkward, obviously). It's been 80 years; most of that time has seen an agreeable and cooperative relationship between the 2 countries.
If Germany is the first to make the statement, does that not make it that much more obvious that the warrant is justified? Or is that just my own imagination?
The lack of any method of enforcement makes this a hollow statement.
IIRC Germany is a faithful supporter of Israel. So there's nothing wrong with them speaking in favor of international law/ICC, and I don't see a problem with optics here. If one of your best friends tells you that you need an intervention, it actually means more.I can see your point to some degree, depending on POV.
WWII/Holocaust wasn't 10 or 20 years ago (which would make it *really* awkward, obviously). It's been 80 years; most of that time has seen an agreeable and cooperative relationship between the 2 countries.
If Germany is the first to make the statement, does that not make it that much more obvious that the warrant is justified? Or is that just my own imagination?
That was exactly my point.IIRC Germany is a faithful supporter of Israel. So there's nothing wrong with them speaking in favor of international law/ICC, and I don't see a problem with optics here. If one of your best friends tells you that you need an intervention, it actually means more.