Record $100 Million Settlement Reached in Lawsuits Alleging Torture, Rape, Starvation at Christian School

The Myth of the Indispensable Nation and the Quagmire of Forever Wars

The choice before us: International law or a ‘rules-based international order’?

The indeterminate and undefined nature of the ‘rules’ of the RBO and the failure to consider their relationship with international law has led to the questioning of the reason for the resort to the RBO on the part of the United States. The manner in which the United States has justified apparent violations of international law by its own forces or those of it close friends has inevitably resulted in a cynical, albeit plausible, explanation for the US preference for the RBO.

According to this view, the rules-based international order may be seen as the United States’ alternative to international law, an order that encapsulates international law as interpreted by the United States to accord with its national interests, ‘a chimera, meaning whatever the US and its followers want it to mean at any given time’. ¹⁹ Premised on ‘the United States’ own willingness to ignore, evade or rewrite the rules whenever they seem inconvenient’, ²⁰ the RBO is seen to be broad, open to political manipulation and double standards. According to Professor Stefan Talmon, the RBO ‘seems to allow for special rules in special – sui generis – cases’. ²¹ (...)

There are several reasons that may explain why the United States prefers to invoke a ‘rules-based international order’ and not international law.

First, the United States is not a party to a number of important multilateral treaties that constitute an essential feature of international law. It is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention which means that it is compelled to reprimand China for threatening the ‘rules-based international order’ in the South China Sea rather than international law. ²² It is not party to a number of fundamental treaties governing international humanitarian law, including the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention. Nor is it a party to the Rights of the Child Convention or the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Inevitably this makes it difficult for the United States to hold states accountable for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law to the extent that these rules are not considered by the United States to be part of customary international law. (...)

*

The Krazies
Bill Kristol leads charge to make Republicans think ‘right’ on Ukraine

Notorious neoconservative Bill Kristol has just launched a $2 million campaign to prevent more Republicans from jumping off the forever war train and to remind them that true Republicans support Ukrainians by backing unfettered aid and weapons for the conflict.

That is the clarion call promoted in this Washington Post story announcing “Republicans for Ukraine,” which is designed to provide “counter-programming” to the “populist” strain that has captured the base, particularly on foreign policy. It is the latest advocacy effort by Kristol’s group, Defending Democracy Together, which has been trying desperately to maintain the hawks’ grip on the GOP since Donald Trump began questioning it during his 2016 presidential campaign.

“Supporting Ukraine is in the best interests of the United States and the best traditions of the Republican Party. Now is no time to give up the fight,” declares the Republicans for Ukraine website.

In previous years (and before the Ukraine war) DDT also pushed campaigns like “Republicans Against Putin” and “Standing with Allies” (which advocated maintaining a U.S. presence in Syria and Iraq). It has leaned in hard on the Never Trump camp, particularly with the super PAC “Republican Voters Against Trump,” which raised over $10 million in the 2020 election cycle, spending $5.6 million in support of Democrat Joe Biden, and $3.3 million against Trump, according to Open Secrets.

Critics say it has been a long time since Kristol was considered a part of the Republican or conservative movement. Aside from his opposition to Trump, it’s obvious that the populist shift in the base against the Washington war policies of the last 20 years has also driven his estrangement.

Conservatives were quick to point out on Tuesday that Kristol doesn’t speak for them or for voters who have soured on the Washington’s foreign policy playbook, particularly on Ukraine. That Kristol’s campaign, through its cultivated Republican testimonials, is unabashedly deploying the Manichean language not only of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror, but also the Domino Theory and the Messianic talk he and his friends favored in 2002, makes the gambit even more out of touch. (...)

Seventy-five percent of Americans had a negative view toward China,
while 84% saw Xi at least slightly unfavorably. Some 65% felt China's
government was trying to influence the U.S. election.

It’s been 70 yrs since the CIA-assisted coup in Iran
Relations between Washington and Tehran were never the same as before Eisenhower approved ‘Operation Ajax’ in 1953.

More Americans Are Ending Up Homeless—at a Record Rate
High housing costs and evictions push more people from homes, advocates say

Congress looks to gut emissions reporting requirements for military contractors

The open letter comes amid a growing debate over how to balance America’s world-spanning military — which emits more greenhouse gasses each year than most countries — with the Biden administration’s efforts to fight climate change. Researchers have been able to get reasonable estimates of the Pentagon’s annual emissions, but data on emissions produced by weapons contractors is far harder to come by and often relies on back-of-the-napkin math. Research from Neta Crawford of Brown University suggests that the U.S. military industry may actually emit more than the Department of Defense itself.

The White House proposed a regulation last year that would force all major federal contractors to disclose their emissions and create a plan to reduce them, but lawmakers in both chambers of Congress quietly added carve-outs for the defense industry in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). (...)

Can Washington pivot from its maximalist aims in Ukraine?
Biden may have to shift to a plan B, but can he do it after insisting the freedom of the global world order is at stake?

(...) Yet such maximalist talk is now conventional thinking in the U.S. political landscape. Republican presidential contender Chris Christie recently met with strong agreement from the liberal hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe when he charged that, should the United States “cut and run” from Ukraine, it would trigger a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (which, he argued, would inevitably necessitate sending “American men and women” to fight Chinese troops) and lead currently friendly governments in the Middle East to abandon the United States for China.

That the outcome in Ukraine will decide whether or not China invades Taiwan has been similarly advanced by U.S. commentators, strategists, members of Congress, and even by the administration itself.

It’s not a leap to hear in these words — and those of NATO officials — the echoes of the Cold War-era “domino theory,” the discredited doctrine that led the United States to get pulled into the disastrous Vietnam war.

Even if officials don’t truly believe U.S. and European security is on the line, it’s clear something else might be: The prestige and credibility of the United States and NATO. Just as the support for Ukraine has re-energized and, at least publicly, unified the alliance, bringing the war to a close after a failed offensive and with Ukrainian control over its territory far from restored, could have the opposite effect.

Worse, any Russian successes — whether real or perceived — could be viewed as politically unacceptable or even humiliating for NATO’s leadership, along with exposing divisions that have until now been largely suppressed. Fear over loss of prestige and credibility was one of the factors that kept U.S. involvement in Vietnam going and going, as it did for Iraq, Afghanistan and other wars. (...)

 R_P wrote:
You have to click through to the John Hopkins analysis to get the full picture.

Using provisional data,  about 49,000 committed suicide in 2022 .... and .... "26,993 people died by gun suicide in 2022".  Guns accounted for 55% of all suicides.  

Those are impressive numbers.  For reference, 58,300 US soldiers died during the Vietnam War of whom 200 were Canadians.

This is in part an unfortunate consequence of the widespread availability of 'freedom guns' but obviously something else is going on here.  

This from one of the past regime's fans on a friend's page in response to this...

you know what's going to happen?

Trump gets to present the 2020 election data and its game over. 

My friend responded...
Yep, he will be proven to be the most arrogant, narcissistic, and biggest liar in American history! He is an embarrassment to this country!

The last part here is probably no joke because as we've seen these people are reality challenged.

i do not believe you're right. But, name removed, make sure you guys have enough water saved up and maybe a generator. We are planning on a communication and electrical blackout to control the narrative once the cat is out of the bag.

 kurtster wrote:

Some of Trump’s more notable broken promises

One of my favorites from that list, since it’s so easily proven: 

In 2015, shortly after announcing his run for President, Trump said if elected he would “rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done.” He also criticized Obama for “all of the time spent on the golf course, often flying to Hawaii in a big, fully loaded 747, to play.”

And yet, Trump left the White House repeatedly while he was president, often to spend time at his Mar-a-Lago property in Florida or at his golf courses across the nation. In 2019 alone he spent 1 in 5 days at a golf club, per CNN’s count.

 kurtster wrote:
“When bad folks have problems, they do bad things.” 

You could call it a "Special Military Operation."

 kurtster wrote: A very sad situation.
I'm for some sort of action, rather than "Come on over!"

 Steely_D wrote: 
I think I already addressed that with this ...

"I would get a handle on the border before entering Mexico, otherwise why bother in the first place ?"

It has been threatened before.  It is not a new one.  People gonna say things, doesn't mean they are going to happen. 

Kinda like saying we'll move our embassy to Jerusalem and it never happens.

Moving on, it also falls into the category / axiom of desperate times call for desperate measures.

Like I said, how long do we have to take this ?

Do you see a different way to solve this ?

 kurtster wrote:

OK, but let’s talk about what DeSantis said.

DeSantis said. “We have the right to hold them accountable, and it’s not just if they happen to come over our border. If Mexico is not going to help us with that, well then we’re going to have to do what we have to do,” he continued. The comments represent a growing group of Republicans calling for military intervention in Mexico, as the southern border remains one of the 2024 presidential campaign’s biggest talking points.

 R_P wrote: 
This situation as we now have has been caused by Biden's totally open border and all the Sanctuary Cities who beckoned this migration. Period end of story.

The Cartels hacked his asylum entry app and it has not been fixed.  The Cartels are running the border like it's the gate to Disneyland.  Uncle Joe is the new Walt to their Disneyland.

100 k per year poisoned and no one cares.  How long do we have to take this ?

I would get a handle on the border before entering Mexico, otherwise why bother in the first place ?

Drone-based order
DeSantis suggests he would use drone strikes against drug cartels

Republican presidential candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis (Fla.) said he would use “whatever force we need to” to take down Mexican drug cartels if elected president, with or without help from the Mexican government. The remarks came after a question at a Thursday campaign event in Iowa where he was asked if drone strikes on Mexican soil were on the table.

“We will lean in against the drug cartels. We will absolutely reserve the right. If they’re invading our country and killing our people, we have the right to defend this country,” DeSantis said.

“We have the right to hold them accountable, and it’s not just if they happen to come over our border. If Mexico is not going to help us with that, well then we’re going to have to do what we have to do,” he continued.

The comments represent a growing group of Republicans calling for military intervention in Mexico, as the southern border remains one of the 2024 presidential campaign’s biggest talking points. (...)

 haresfur wrote: 
yeah, like that was not the purpose of RP's post in the first place.  Uh huh ...

EVERYTHING he posts in this thread is meant to serve his own political vendetta.

SMH ...

 kurtster wrote:

Yeah, let's turn other peoples' tragedies into your own political vendetta