|
|
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.
If that were the case, NATO would have a very different structure and purpose. There's only opposition to that military being used for the purposes of invading its neighbors. There's no general opposition to Russia having a military.
That second sentence is bunk and I know you know it. Not that it's false, but that it belies the continued existence of NATO after the soviet collapse and the staunch refusal of NATO to entertain Russia as a member state. There are things NATO has done to perpetuate a less than friendly relationship with Russia. However, "anti-Russia military alliance" is a scandalous mischaracterization of NATO.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Sadly we are.
How on Earth was the sarcasm of that comment lost on you. I even invoked Hitlerpoleon (they/them) for you to make it clear.
SMH my head
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As for war crimes, they happen in every war. The vast majority of people who commit war crimes do not face justice. That's just how it is. Nothing will change that. The international courts will only prosecute those they have the motivation to prosecute, which is why the likes of Blair will never see the inside of an international court.
No. War Crimes can only be prosecuted if the court that wants to do so has jurisdiction over their alleged war criminals.
Tony Blair will not face international court either because they don't have enough evidence to pursue anything or because they do not have jurisdiction over UK politicians. Either is enough.
People throw the words "War Crimes" around in situations where there simply are no authorities to impose those laws. Ergo, those laws don't actually exist aside from lip service for the purpose of virtue signalling.
I prefer the term "crimes against humanity" as it at least sounds as unenforceable as it actually is.
|
Reply With Quote