What is stopping Russia being kicked off the UNSC?

[ecofarm]

The last time the US fought a war of aggression was less than twenty years ago. Britain was also involved in that war of aggression, as a matter of fact.

The US also passed an act which enabled the president to take “any means necessary” to keep American war criminals safely out of the hands of the ICC.

The history speaks for itself.

The ICC is for countries without the infrastructure to seek and attain justice domestically. The US is under no such condition. The ICC is a voluntary organization and countries that need it join.

It's a service for developing countries. There is no reason a US citizen should find themselves before the court. We did not agree to any such thing. Such would be an act of terrorism by those incarcerating the citizen.

 

[Tigerace117]

The ICC is for countries without the infrastructure to seek and attain justice domestically. The US is under no such condition. The ICC is a voluntary organization and countries that need it join.

It's a service for developing countries.

The ICC’s purpose is to prosecute crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, etc.

Given that the US keeps letting its war criminals walk free— and given that its operations are hampered by accusations of racism precisely BECAUSE countries like the US feel they are above it— the “Hague Invasion Act” actively harmed everyone involved.

And the very thought anyone thought said act was needed in the first place speaks volumes, frankly.

 

[ecofarm]

The ICC’s purpose is to prosecute crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, etc.

Given that the US keeps letting its war criminals walk free— and given that its operations are hampered by accusations of racism precisely BECAUSE countries like the US feel they are above it— the “Hague Invasion Act” actively harmed everyone involved.

And the very thought anyone thought said act was needed in the first place speaks volumes, frankly.

You misunderstand the purpose of the ICC.

The ICC is not "to prosecute war crimes". The ICC is to prosecute war crimes for countries incapable of attaining justice domestically.

If you can grasp the actual, real, factual purpose of the ICC, then maybe you can understand why the US is not party.

 

[Tigerace117]

You misunderstand the purpose of the ICC.

The ICC is not "to prosecute war crimes". The ICC is to prosecute war crimes for countries incapable of attaining justice domestically.

The ICC literally says otherwise.

About the Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

www.icc-cpi.int

Nowhere does it say “this court only applies to the Third World”.

 

[ecofarm]

The ICC literally says otherwise.

About the Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

www.icc-cpi.int

Nowhere does it say “this court only applies to the Third World”.

Where warranted means the country has volunteered to be party to the ICC.

Do you understand it is a voluntary organization? Do you understand why? No. You don't understand either of those things.

 

[mrjurrs]

What is stopping Russia being kicked off the UNSC? I mean should North Korea get a seat soon?

The Charter.

 

[ecofarm]

The ICC literally says otherwise.

About the Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.

www.icc-cpi.int

Nowhere does it say “this court only applies to the Third World”.

The court only applies to volunteers.

Only developing countries volunteer because only developing countries lack the infrastructure to seek justice domestically.

A developed country cannot be like, "hey, we lack the infrastructure too, sign us up!"

 

[Tigerace117]

Where warranted means the country has volunteered to be party to the ICC.

Do you understand it is a voluntary organization? Do you understand why? No. You don't understand either of those things.

Again, the fact that the US chose to implement an act to protect American servicemen who committed war crimes speaks volumes.

 

[ecofarm]

Again, the fact that the US chose to implement an act to protect American servicemen who committed war crimes speaks volumes.

That's moronic and a result of you not understanding the purpose of the ICC.

 

[Tigerace117]

The court only applies to volunteers.

Only developing countries volunteer because only developing countries lack the infrastructure to seek justice domestically.

A developed country cannot be like, "hey, we lack the infrastructure too, sign us up!"

The US threatened to abandon support for peacekeeping missions unless Americans were exempted from prosecution from the ICC.

That, too, speaks volumes.

The ICC is for when national courts REFUSE to act to punish war criminals and genocidal thugs.

 

[Tigerace117]

That's moronic and a result of you not understanding the purpose of the ICC.

The ICC itself literally stated you were wrong.

Yes, The Hague Invasion Act absolutely was moronic. Glad you agree.

 

[ecofarm]

The ICC itself literally stated you were wrong.

Yes, The Hague Invasion Act absolutely was moronic. Glad you agree.

Your ignorance has you spewing horsehit about the ICC and the US. End of story. Maybe someday you'll learn the purpose of the ICC. Not like I did... grad school in Europe. But maybe you'll learn someday somehow.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your ignorance has you spewing horsehit about the ICC and the US. End of story. Maybe someday you'll learn the purpose of the ICC. Not like I did... grad school in Europe. But maybe you'll learn someday.

Dude, the ICC website itself says you are wrong. Deal with it.

 

[ecofarm]

Dude, the ICC website itself says you are wrong. Deal with it.

Your ignorance is allowing you to misread it.

Do you understand the ICC is a voluntary organization? You don't even know that, do you. You don't know a god damn thing about the court.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your ignorance is allowing you to misread it.

Do you understand the ICC is a voluntary organization? You don't even know that, do you. You don't know a god damn thing about the court.

Nowhere does it say war crimes magically become okay when committed by Americans.

And nothing you said changes the fact that an act was literally passed to keep American war criminals safe.

 

[ecofarm]

I, on the other hand, was in Kenya during the ICC trial of Kenyatta. So I've seen the entire discussion from inside a country undergoing the process. Everything was discussed. So, aside from learning about the ICC in grad school in Europe, I also learned about it by spending months in a country undergoing an ICC trial. From start to finish, I was there.

I know the purpose of the court. It is a service for volunteering countries in need.

I've spent plenty of time studying the ICC. I didn't just google a minute ago.

 

[Fledermaus]

2003. They gave it up again for the most part since the locals hated them...does not change the fact that the US went into Iraq to gain territory that had oil under it.

Unmitigated BS.

We were there to crush Saddam and did so.

There was ZERO territory gained and ZERO oil contracts awarded.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

What war of aggression in order to gain territory?

To gain geopolitical power, by invading a country across the world that presented no threat to either. Both bombed civilian infrastructure and resulted in millions of refugees

The US invasion of Iraq was by far a more serious breach of the international order than the Russian invasion of Ukraine

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Unmitigated BS.

We were there to crush Saddam and did so.

There was ZERO territory gained and ZERO oil contracts awarded.

Geopolitical power

Sadam was no threat to the US or UK, the US invaded to install a compliant government and the US leaders at the time desired to use Iraq as a base to invade Syria and Iran

 

[psikeyhackr]

Lots of nuclear weapons?

 

[Fledermaus]

Geopolitical power

Sadam was no threat to the US or UK, the US invaded to install a compliant government and the US leaders at the time desired to use Iraq as a base to invade Syria and Iran

??????????????????

 

[Fledermaus]

To gain geopolitical power, by invading a country across the world that presented no threat to either. Both bombed civilian infrastructure and resulted in millions of refugees

The US invasion of Iraq was by far a more serious breach of the international order than the Russian invasion of Ukraine

 

[Tigerace117]

According to Wesley Clark, he’s absolutely correct.

US ‘plans to attack seven Muslim states’

Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

According to Wesley Clark, he’s absolutely correct.

US ‘plans to attack seven Muslim states’

Presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark says the White House devised a five-year plan after the 9/11 strikes to attack seven majority-Muslim countries.

www.aljazeera.com

I read a lot about the US and PNAC after the US invasion of Iraq, it was meant to transform the ME into a US dominated region, to gain geopolitical power

It was not about stealing oil, but controlling the flow of it. As every country runs on oil, the ability to restrict the flow of oil to countries provides massive geopolitical leverage. If the US controlled the Persian Gulf it would have massive geopolitical control over any country that imports significant amounts of oil. It is the same reason the US has been trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela from the early 2000's. It stopped being a US puppet, and as such the US lost control of its oil

 

[Fledermaus]

I read a lot about the US and PNAC after the US invasion of Iraq, it was meant to transform the ME into a US dominated region, to gain geopolitical power

It was not about stealing oil, but controlling the flow of it. As every country runs on oil, the ability to restrict the flow of oil to countries provides massive geopolitical leverage. If the US controlled the Persian Gulf it would have massive geopolitical control over any country that imports significant amounts of oil. It is the same reason the US has been trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela from the early 2000's. It stopped being a US puppet, and as such the US lost control of its oil

And how did the US "control" the oil in Iraq?

Oh, that's right. Everyone EXCEPT the US ended up with Iraqi oil.

The nation of IRAQ controls Iraqi oil.