3 ms·

To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_

To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals. > This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?

kergonath 6y ago
> They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. > To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. What? This is the definition of absurdity.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  ...if they arrest a service member I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Well, the US government can call this any way they want, good luck finding countries to agree that it is a valid one. So, sorry, still absurd sabre rattling. And oddly specific wording, which only applies to this particular court. The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > Well, the US government can call this any way they want "this"? > The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before So it is useless. > but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump. It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
mola 6y ago
Trade wars with Europe China Mexico
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  The Chinese trade war was going on for a while now. In addition it seems that issues regarding china are one of the things that both parties seem to agree on. Although you are right that there wasn't such an issue with Europe and Mexico before the current administration.
  - philjohn 6y ago
    And yet the US pulled out of the deal that would have curtailed Chinese influence in the region ...
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      I would not expect competence from politicians.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Trade wars across the Atlantic are not new to Trump. See this, for example: https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/ https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      This does not contain the article text. Just an image of bananas, some words about the supposed author, some tags, "leave a reply", and a bunch of useless "latest news".
      - kergonath 6y ago
        Might be an issue with an ad blocker or something like that. It’s archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econli... To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

kergonath 6y ago

> They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. > To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. What? This is the definition of absurdity.

dependenttypes 6y ago
...if they arrest a service member I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
- kergonath 6y ago
  Well, the US government can call this any way they want, good luck finding countries to agree that it is a valid one. So, sorry, still absurd sabre rattling. And oddly specific wording, which only applies to this particular court. The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > Well, the US government can call this any way they want "this"? > The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before So it is useless. > but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump. It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.

mola 6y ago

Trade wars with Europe China Mexico

dependenttypes 6y ago
The Chinese trade war was going on for a while now. In addition it seems that issues regarding china are one of the things that both parties seem to agree on. Although you are right that there wasn't such an issue with Europe and Mexico before the current administration.
- philjohn 6y ago
  And yet the US pulled out of the deal that would have curtailed Chinese influence in the region ...
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I would not expect competence from politicians.
- kergonath 6y ago
  Trade wars across the Atlantic are not new to Trump. See this, for example: https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/ https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    This does not contain the article text. Just an image of bananas, some words about the supposed author, some tags, "leave a reply", and a bunch of useless "latest news".
    - kergonath 6y ago
      Might be an issue with an ad blocker or something like that. It’s archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econli... To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.