I've never listened to Marshall before now, but I found this video to be pretty interesting. He talks about the European leaders clinging to the facade that is "international law" and how the reality is that military might is the only real deterrent of bad actors.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

International law is the will of the American establishment.

---

Davos craves it.

You think they would know that Chamberlain didnt stand on the shores of Dunkirk waving the treaty. In front of 300,000 soldiers hunted down by the third Reich.
British might made right - and created the empire. Our might earned our freedom.

Ag In Ok said:

---

You think they would know that Chamberlain didnt stand on the shores of Dunkirk waving the treaty. In front of 300,000 soldiers hunted down by the third Reich.
British might made right - and created the empire. Our might earned our freedom.

---

Might made right as that the nature of the world. The British industrialized it, which led to their empire.


We got an empire after ww2, albeit a new type- one based on money, influence, new tech/media/pop culture and the threat of force.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

I've never listened to Marshall before now, but I found this video to be pretty interesting. He talks about the European leaders clinging to the facade that is "international law" and how the reality is that military might is the only real deterrent of bad actors.

---

Foreign nations throw around "international law" in all it's many forms in order to keep the USA in check.

WHO, WTO, ICC, OECD, UN, etc

He's British, but he knows the truth. I loved his line at the end. "It's not international law that keeps Europe safe. It's America. American defense, American might, American courage, and American sacrifice. And if America were to leave that role, it would not be replaced by international law, but rather by a great tyrant"

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

International law is the will of the American establishment.

---

Fact. Literally. Via Bretton Woods.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

He's British, but he knows the truth. I loved his line at the end. "It's not international law that keeps Europe safe. It's America. American defense, American might, American courage, and American sacrifice. And if America were to leave that role, it would not be replaced by international law, but rather by a great tyrant"

---

His debate with Pelosi was fantastic.

Also known as an asymmetric request of moral nations to behave morally and an allowance for ****hole nations to act like ****hole nations and then cry international law when they don't like the consequences.

Laws have enforcement. International law is a polite request to behave.

Obligatory "sanction me with your army!" reference.

Sid Farkas said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

International law is the will of the American establishment.

---

Davos craves it.

---

It's like Brawndo. It's what the scumbag globalists crave.

At the end of the day, he who has the biggest guns wins.

_mpaul said:

---

At the end of the day, he who has the biggest guns wins.

---

No, I slightly disagree. Its whomever has the will to use the guns they have. Obviously, size matters, but willingness is just as important

You could be Obama and let countires step over your red line and do little to nothing, or do things of no consequence.

Last year's Nuremberg is, in my opinion, a good coverage on the concept of international law and international justice.

You don't have to agree with Associate Justice Robert Jackson, but as he ponders the concept and works to get at best a tenuous buy-in (including a heavy hand with the Pope) the movie provides a thoughtful example of how such a concept does really boil down to the biggest bully getting the cooperation of a gang to pass judgment on the "loser".

I think many folks view the Nuremberg trials as a shining example of justice. I would argue it set a terrible precedent for how international justice should / can be applied.

World history is conquest. The question is do we want to be the conquered or the conqueror?