As we speak, the ICC is conducting investigations on Putin's war crimes in Ukraine. This is big, but...
The ICC was agreed upon in Rome, the Rome Statute, in 1998.
Every *real* country in the world signed up to it.
The rest of the so called countries didn't bother to even understand what it
meant.
As of now, if you ask how many countries we have in this world, you will not
get an exact answer, since it's a totally political matter.
Well, the 139 *real* countries in the world signed the Rome Statute in 1998
or a couple of years after, and most of them ratified it in the following years, meaning it was part of their national laws.
However, even now, more than 20 years later, of the 139 states that signed the Rome Statute, 31 have not yet ratified it. One of them being Ukraine.
What's even more remarkable is, that four (4) single states have declared that they no longer intend to ratify the treaty they signed.
Those four states, that obviously think they must be able to continue being
war criminals, *did* sign the Rome Statute (i.e. the ICC) in 2000:
Sudan
Israel
Russia
United states of America
Welcome to the gang of war criminals, all of you four...
Switzerland ditched its neutrality in regards to sanctions against
Russia. Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
Russia. Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch
their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
I think Finland just did ...
Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch
their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
Björn Felten wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch
their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
You mean the policy that has kept Sweden out of war for more
than 200 years? Yes, we still consider that to be precious.
And then there are a few (just one even?) countries that think
that their military industrial complex is more precious than e.g.
social welfare for the people. YMMV
Yeah, that policy. The one that couldn't have existed without the USA
and NATO protecting you.
From thereon, Sweden has created some of the best fighter planes
(except for Canada's Arrow, that was so superior to anything the US could make, USA forced Canada to cancel the program) still in existence.
Do I need to go on, proving to you that Sweden is capable to defend ourselves without NATO help, thank you very much.
Just the other day, Swedish Gripen planes intercepted four Russian
fighter jets that violated our airspace. We could have shot them down,
but didn't -- such mistakes happens 10-20 times a year here, we think
that the Mad Vlad knows better than to test our determination. Remember Whiskey on the Rocks (S-363)?
Is there any reason why someone would want to conquer Sweden? It's
beeeg, a lot of insects too and it's impossible to become drunk because you'll be bankrupt first.
Is there any reason why someone would want to conquer Sweden? It's
beeeg, a lot of insects too and it's impossible to become drunk because
you'll be bankrupt first.
LOL! That's true, and probably our best defence, almost cost free
even.
BTW, speaking of Sweden, I came across this Tube clip, where a former Swedish PM explains all you need to know about Mad Vlad and the present situation in Ukraine, already four years ago:
https://youtu.be/8_SQuLf74n4
He even mentions the criminally downing of MH17...
..
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125 * Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yeah, that policy. The one that couldn't have existed without the USA
and NATO protecting you.
Ahem... NATO? How did they ever protect Sweden? You *do*
realize that in 1949, when NATO was created, WWII was over?
From thereon, Sweden has created some of the best fighter
planes (except for Canada's Arrow, that was so superior to
anything the US could make, USA forced Canada to cancel the
program) still in existence.
Sweden has submarines that over and over again demonstrated
that they can sink any US aircraft carrier easy peasy.
Sweden is producing the Carl Gustaf Grg m/48 now used by
military all over the world, including most NATO countries (oh
yes, USA as well).
Do I need to go on, proving to you that Sweden is capable to
defend ourselves without NATO help, thank you very much.
Just the other day, Swedish Gripen planes intercepted four
Russian fighter jets that violated our airspace. We could have
shot them down, but didn't -- such mistakes happens 10-20 times a
year here, we think that the Mad Vlad knows better than to test
our determination. Remember Whiskey on the Rocks (S-363)?
Not saying that we should not join NATO though, only that it
sure as hell would never be because we need it, but rather to
prove that we are all in on democracy.
Switzerland ditched its neutrality in regards to sanctions against
Russia. Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch
their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
I think Finland just did ...
Please let us all know when Finland and Sweden decide to ditch
their precious neutrality in favor of joining NATO.
You mean the policy that has kept Sweden out of war for more than 200 years?
Yes, we still consider that to be precious.
And then there are a few (just one even?) countries that think that their military industrial complex is more precious than e.g. social welfare for the people. YMMV
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Sweden has submarines that over and over again demonstrated
that they can sink any US aircraft carrier easy peasy.
This one actually did make me Laugh Out Loud. Where/when did Swedish submarines "demonstrate" this? hahahahahaha Just to save you some
time, I'm talking about post-WWII...
Is 2005 post enough for you? You could have used that saved
time, searching Youtube for "swedish submarine" and you'd end up
with a lot of videos about it. But I don't think that Fox News
ever reported anything about it.
https://youtu.be/L26RZdmQ2nE
Do I need to go on, proving to you that Sweden is capable to defend
ourselves without NATO help, thank you very much.
Is there any reason why someone would want to conquer Sweden? It's
beeeg,
They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger land area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.
They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger land
area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.
Yeah, that's interesting, for sure. Rather "theoretical", but interesting. What's also interesting is how the USA chose not to pursue development or continued testing of such a submarine; instead dismissing it as not an actual threat in the Real World. The key limitation of
such a vessel is it's limited ability to function where aircraft
carriers typically are - in the blue waters far from shore. For coastal defense of Sweden, it's a valid weapon, but realistically no significant threat to a USA battle group.
https://youtu.be/L26RZdmQ2nE
The SAAB 37 Viggen is still, 50 years later, the most powerful
single motor aeroplane ever produced...
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yeah, that's interesting, for sure. Rather "theoretical", but interesting. What's also interesting is how the USA chose not to pursue development or continued testing of such a submarine; instead dismissing it as not an actual threat in the Real World. The key limitation of
such a vessel is it's limited ability to function where aircraft
carriers typically are - in the blue waters far from shore. For coastal defense of Sweden, it's a valid weapon, but realistically no significant threat to a USA battle group.
I wonder if you really understand what you are saying here.
Yes, our military, like that of every civilized country in the
world, is focusing on defence. The US is wasting all their tax
dollars on offence. Obviously a 100% defence weapon like our subs
does not fit in with the worlds most severe military threat to
world peace.
Ironic, though, it's called the Department of Defence in the
US. You couldn't even defend your country from the attack of four
slow flying commercial jets in 2001. So, who are you pretending
to defend? Canada and Mexico?
You're nothing but a hateful, bitter old piece of discarded bread crust, whose irrational hatred of the USA only makes you look ..... pitiful.
They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger land
area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.
Do you have relatives in the Netherlands?
They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger DD>DD>> land area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.
Do you have relatives in the Netherlands?
Not that I know of - we're a wide spread mob though, so possibly.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 142:39:58 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 5,389 |
| Messages: | 223,270 |