jacob29

Irrelevant, as I'm not arguing that US should accept whatever claims are made. I have no problem with the US rejecting their findings or jurisdiction and going about their business. Threatening investigating parties with sanctions for merely daring to investigate, is the problem here. So please, enough with the red herrings.

I pre-empted your low effort reply by adding that clarification, as I figured you would go with that distortion of what I said.

I clarified in the same sentence, that 'since always' does not mean 'in every instance'. Please finish reading the sentences you're replying to. Once again, you're implying that when dealing with terrorists, there should be no restrictions - that human rights are no longer applicable. Xinjiang investigation in China? That's an anti terrorism campaign, so China should sanction any party calling for investigation. That's your logic. That's the precedent being set, and if the US wants to lead by example, this is not the example to be setting.

The proportionality principle is implied in my response, why do you think I asked if there any level of casualties that are unacceptable. Once again, I'm talking about the mafia like statement coming from the rep - which ignores the matter of credibly, instead threatening anyone who dares investigate the US or allies. He did not make it conditional on non-credible charges, or hint that if they were credible then there wouldn't be an issue.

Would it be appropriate for Hamas to sanction any international court investigating this?

Wasn't even aware he was a Republican, thought rep meant representative. Democrats vs Republicans didn't even cross my mind. Since always, which doesn't mean every instance is deemed a war crimes. Are you suggesting there is no number of civilian collateral deaths, that could be considered excessive?

Whoa hold the phone. Biden, of the same government, had the same opinion? What are the odds? Your enemy being a terrorist doesn't exempt you from war crimes, as the civilians caught in the crossfire aren't terrorists.

If you like thuggish threats, yes it was brilliant. Personally not the direction I like to see governments moving in.

Then the rep should not have fired his mouth off with the statement 'We may not recognize you, but you sure as hell will recognize what happens when you target America or its allies'. That is a warning that regardless of whether it's for the 'right' reasons or not, you will risk sanctions. Anyone who believes less accountability for government is a step in the right direction, isn't thinking through the implications.

You don't see any issues with the precedent it sets? They stated it was done because the ICC pursued a US ally, not because the ICC was necessarily wrong. The message is clear enough, no accountability. China may as well sanction the PCA next, for their ruling in the SCS.

Not sure if it's the same for vehicles, but for a lot of used home items, when it comes to selling, fast and fair price are mostly incompatible. If you go with Facebook marketplace and get a dozen messages overnight asking 'is this item still for sale', don't be fooled, most are probably tyre kickers. It's unbelievable how many messages you get that never even reply. If no messages jump straight to when can I view, or making an offer, consider lowering the price. The earlier advice about taking the dealership midpoint buy/sell price, sounds spot on as a starting price.

The word 'chose' may not necessarily apply. If their Thailand account doesn't have sufficient reserves, they don't have a wizard that can conjure up THB to transfer instantly. They have to predict requirements in advance, sometimes they get it wrong. Yes, they could hold more than they would reasonably need in Thailand banks (as in borrow funds, and get paid near 0% on those funds in Thailand), but then service fees go up. Strongly suggest you find a new provider if this is a problem, and you need reliability over low fees. What wise should do better, is let you know in advance how long it's going to take, so you can decide accordingly.

Probably the amount involved. If they don't have sufficient cash reserves in their Thailand accounts, they have to wait to balance this first. I've faced this in the past (with smaller amounts), and a few hundreds dollars will transfer instantly, but the larger sum will not.

You don't think the present course could lead to WW3? Do you believe Serbia had no alternative but to invade Srebrenica? That it was acceptable to annex that territory if they wouldn't accept their demands? Was the invasion justified though? Is that the sort of behaviour we should be apologists for?

Getting other countries involved with a peacekeeping coalition. Iraq didn't acquiesce to all of the demands of the US, so the invasion was the only alternative - right?

Do you sincerely believe that was the only other alternative? If someone asks me whether I condemn it, I'll gladly say yes. This is what I don't understand. The problem is with governments and unchecked power. Not western governments, not authoritarian governments, governments in general. When they lack effective checks and balances they go rogue. Also there is a whole lot of pushback over that other invasion. When I see apologists over Iraq, or Snowden, I'll similarly complain.

So.. you didn't finish your sentence. Acceptable or not? Are you on the fence, is that why you can't give a straight answer? Russia is no stranger to ethnic cleansing, maybe they should lead by example in future? There are many ways to tackle that issue, without unilaterally invading and annexing territory.

See that wasn't so hard. You could have just replied earlier that you have neither the time nor inclination to provide clarification for the tripe you post. Could have saved us all some time.

Are you capable of a civilized discussion, or are you just here to troll?

Is it unreasonable to ask for clarification on what you meant?

Clarify whether you believe Putin orchestrated this, or if it was an uncomfortable 'new reality' that he decided at the last minute it wasn't worth his resources to address? Will the same apply to Georgia and Transnistria if anything kicks off there?

That doesn't answer my question, I did not ask why it happened. I asked if you believe it's acceptable for a country to invade another country, on the basis of being provoked by a third party state. Would you be ok with US invading Cuba? I would not, but it seems to me you would be ok with that, and to hell with what Cuba wanted. No you're not, you're trying to whitewash the actions of Russia. It doesn't matter what Russia's red lines were, as it's not their call to make and demand what can or cannot happen inside Ukraine.

Why can't master strategist Putin just leave Ukraine, and then claim it's to his advantage? The s-400 missile system they're evacuating has a price tag of around a billion USD. Do you really believe someone who planned this, would delay transporting such expensive hardware until the region went hot?

How is that the fault of Ukraine, the ones who suffer? They don't deserve to get invaded due to US actions. If US warns Russia to back off from Belarus, and Russia keeps propping up Lukashenko, are you trying to tell me it's fair game for US to launch an invasion of Belarus because of the actions of Russia? I'm not claiming the moral high ground, I denounce the Iraq invasion as well. Should I defend what happened in Iraq because groups in that region kept 'poking the bear'? What kind of precedent are you trying to set here?

How does that grant Russia the right to invade Ukraine? Was Assad democratically elected as well? Kim Jong Un? Do you see the pattern here?