←back to thread

89 points henearkr | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.825s | source | bottom
Show context
mikkupikku ◴[] No.45706107[source]
> MAGA

What's even in it for America? This is "Make Israel Great Again" politics.

replies(1): >>45706156 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706156[source]
> What's even in it for America?

Washington has brokered a peace deal that it’s very proud of and expects a Nobel Peace prize for if it holds. At this point, we’re dealing with one man’s ego more than any policy position of the United States.

replies(3): >>45706205 #>>45706213 #>>45707677 #
1. wombatpm ◴[] No.45706213[source]
Well let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing.
replies(1): >>45706394 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45706394[source]
> let’s not forget the extrajudicial murders in international waters the US is currently performing

Sure. Every one of the great powers is currently engaging in killings that are highly illegal under international law.

replies(2): >>45707372 #>>45707396 #
3. tastyface ◴[] No.45707372[source]
> On the flight home, Stephen Miller — then a senior advisor to the president — sat down across from me and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard. What followed was a conversation I’ll never forget.

> “Admiral,” Miller asked, “the military has aerial drones, correct?”

> “Yes,” the Admiral answered.

> “And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?”

> “Sure,” the Admiral said, beginning to catch on.

> Miller pressed further: “And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?”

> The Admiral clarified that while technically true, international law still applied.

> “Then tell me why,” Miller said, “can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?”

> The Admiral, a veteran of military command, was dumbfounded. “Because it would be against international law,” he replied. You can’t kill unarmed civilians just because you want to.

> Stephen Miller didn’t appear interested in the legal implications. Indeed, he seemed more interested in whether anyone could stop Trump from committing such acts.

> “Admiral,” he concluded, “I don’t think you understand the limitations of international law.”

(From: https://archive.ph/20250922161327/https://www.treason.io/p/r...)

And then: "Stephen Miller takes leading role in strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug boats"

(From: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/29/stephen-mill...)

"Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party.

replies(1): >>45708133 #
4. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.45707396[source]
What else is every great power currently engaging in that will be ok when we start to next?
replies(1): >>45708860 #
5. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45708133{3}[source]
> "Every great power" is not currently doing this kind of shit. This is a straight-on white supremacist murder party

What the fuck do you think Russia is doing in Ukraine and Africa? Israel in Gaza? China in Xinjiang and Tibet?

International law is currently not protective against great powers. And not every issue in the world collapses into the American White-Black dichotomy.

6. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45708860{3}[source]
> What else is every great power currently engaging in that will be ok when we start to next?

We’re pretty even to each other at this point. Threats of annexation, no rule of law, murder on the high seas, allegations of genocide.

The next series of horrors will emerge around robotics, lasers and potentially the collapse of free navigation of international waters. (I don’t see deëscalation until both Trump and Xi are dead.)