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...



..

--- 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)

Hello Björn,

As we speak, the ICC is conducting investigations on Putin's war crimes in Ukraine. This is big, but...

His acts of "denazification" have been noted. But nobody is going
to do a darned thing about it.

The ICC was agreed upon in Rome, the Rome Statute, in 1998.

And what has that fine group of gentlemen done about anything worth
note since that time?

Every *real* country in the world signed up to it.

Not every country is a real country, as some are tax havens for
the wealthy (the Cayman Islands come to mind).

The rest of the so called countries didn't bother to even understand what it
meant.

Does it matter? What did the League of Nations matter when the world
went mad? What does the United Nations mean today, with the world going
mad once again? You are talking about a group of old men whose only
interest was to get together for a few drinks to discuss nothing of
any real importance to any of them.

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.

Politics is personal relationships. Sometimes people get along.
Sometimes not. What to do with those who refuse to get along is
when cooperation is often needed. If only it can be found.

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.

According to the United Nations, there are 193 *real* countries in
the world today. How many countries that are not recognized by the
UN as being real is unknown, as those countries have never been
counted.

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.

Ukraine declared its independence in 1991. Vladimir Putin still
does not recognize Ukraine as an independent sovereign state, claiming
it is part of Russia (always was, always will be). So what does it
matter? Ukraine is not a *real* country, so counts for nothing.

But hey. This is not about Vladimir Putin. It is about Ukraine -

A 2001 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the
Rome Statute is inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Notwithstanding, in October 2006, the Ambassador to the United Nations
stated that the Ukrainian government would submit a bill to the
parliament to ratify the Statute. Ukraine ratified Agreement on the
Privileges and Immunities of the Court (APIC) without having ratified
the Rome Statute on 2007-01-29. On 4 April 2012, the Foreign Minister
of Ukraine told the President of the International Criminal Court that
"Ukraine intends to join the Rome Statute once the necessary legal preconditions have been created in the context of the upcoming review
of the country’s constitution." A bill to make the necessary
constitutional amendments was tabled in Parliament in May 2014.
Article 8 of the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement, which
was signed in 2014, requires Ukraine to ratify the Rome Statute. In
2016 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the necessary constitutional
amendments to allow for ratification of the treaty, however they will
not enter into force for three years.
[Wikipedia]

What's even more remarkable is, that four (4) single states have declared that they no longer intend to ratify the treaty they signed.

Why should any of those four states sign a treaty that is no longer
relevant in today's world?

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.

The alternative is being assimilated by Vlad "The Borg" Putin.

--Lee

--
Drive One

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

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 ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

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 ...

And according to recent polls, Putin managed to turn Sweden's two century long neutrality policy around as well.



..

--- 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)

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




..

--- 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)

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.

Yeah, that policy. The one that couldn't have existed without the USA
and NATO protecting you.

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

It's precious to you too, you just can't admit it. See above.


... Reality failure. Press Enter to continuum.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

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.



..

--- 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)

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.

Something that is often forgotten ... even the French Mirages are better than anything from the USA....

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, a lot of insects too and it's impossible to become drunk because you'll be bankrupt first.

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)?

Belgian F16s are doing the same for the Baltic states. The bad thing is when those Russians turn their transponders off.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

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)

Very interesting and informative video.

Thanks.

On Mar 04, 2022 01:40pm, Bj”rn Felten wrote to Ward Dossche:

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)

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! (3:640/1321)

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?

NATO has done that every day, since 1949. It's mere presence/existance provides the deterrent to keep the entire region safe. Also, since you brought up the fact that WWII was over in 1949, you acknowledge that the
USA pretty much single-handedly protected you PRIOR to 1949. So....
yes, as to my original statement, your "200 year old policy" of being
neutral couldn't have existed without the assistance of USA/NATO.

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.

Riiiigggghhhhttttt......

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...

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).

Okay.... that's nice. One rifle doesn't win any wars. Well, other than
the USA's M1 Garand, maybe.... :-)

Do I need to go on, proving to you that Sweden is capable to
defend ourselves without NATO help, thank you very much.

Yes, you'll need to go on quite a bit, I'd say.

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)?

Sure, although that was not much more than the Soviets making a bad
mistake, and then having a shouting match with Swedish officials until
the boat was released.

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.

You do need it, whether a member or not, and it has already served you
well for decades. You're welcome, from the world leader in defending democracy.


... Post may contain information unsuitable for overly sensitive persons.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hello Ward,

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 ...

And to think Finland used to be part of the old USSR.
And seceded.
Just like Ukraine.

--Lee

--
Big Or Small We Lay Them All

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

Hello Bj”rn,

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.

Will it be enough to stop a Russian madman who is hellbent on
starting WWIII from invading Sweden? Be prepared to grab your rifle
and head to G”tland Island ...

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

I do not think Putin is all that concerned about the social welfare
of his own people, much less the social welfare of other peoples ...

--Lee

--
As good as it looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se:4119 (2:203/2)

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





..

--- 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 <=-

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

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.



... All the easy problems have been solved.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 4/03/2022 20:54, Ward Dossche : Björn Felten wrote:

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,

As in "big"?

I guess compared to Belgium it may be considered big - for a certain value of big. Compared to Russia, USA or even Australia "big Sweden" isn't in the discussion.

They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger land area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.

:)

--
Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
* Origin: Bucca, Qld (3:640/305)

On 5/03/2022 10:49, David Drummond : Ward Dossche wrote:

They have cattle properties (ranches?) in Australia with a bigger land area than Belgium so I can understand your confusion.

OK - I may have overstated that a tad...

Belgium/Area 30,689 km²

According to Google:

Anna Creek is not only Australia's biggest cattle station; it's the largest in the world. The station covers a total of around 24,000 square kilometres. When you consider that the country of Israel is only 21,000 square kilometres in size, you realise how vast this station is.

AAMOI:
Sweden/Area 450,295 km²
Australia/Area 7.692 million km²

--
Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
* Origin: Bucca, Qld (3:640/305)

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?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

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?

As for your original claim that NATO is saving Sweden, you are excused because you are not told everything that took place at the Swedish border throughout the Cold War. Like e.g. when Sweden saved NATO:

https://youtu.be/L26RZdmQ2nE

The SAAB 37 Viggen is still, 50 years later, the most powerful single motor aeroplane ever produced...



..

--- 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)

https://youtu.be/L26RZdmQ2nE

Sorry, wrong link, that was the old one. Here's the fascinating story that took some 35 years to declassify:

https://youtu.be/y5Z2Bb-wnls



..

--- 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)

The SAAB 37 Viggen is still, 50 years later, the most powerful
single motor aeroplane ever produced...

And as for the "NATO is protecting Sweden" myth, here's some more information about the Swedish resolve to be able to care fore their own:

https://youtu.be/g6VZUoLW4QE

The SAAB Viggen was, 50 years ago, such a formidable fighter jet, that the US spent a lot of effort to prevent any other country in the world from buying it. The Volvo Flygmotor designed engine was unfortunately based on a US engine. However that US engine was so poorly designed it had to be totally re-engineered by Volvo. Down to the fastening bolts -- metric is used in the rest of the world. But USA used their military might vetoing any attempt from Sweden to export the Viggen, just because of this US based engine.

And now we have the SAAB Gripen. It costs a fraction of any US manufactured offerings, not only for purchase, but more importantly maintenance. But NATO managed to convince even our neighbours in Norway to rather buy the abomination F-35 that even the US Congress is slowly realizing is a total failure. Two F-35 vs. ten Gripen at the same cost. Not to mention what Gripen means to have support from some hundred km away by someone that even speaks almost the same language. Yeah, that's how NATO is helping Sweden...


..

--- 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'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.

I laugh in your general direction.



... Pity the poor corpuscle, for he labours in vein.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Dan,

You're nothing but a hateful, bitter old piece of discarded bread crust, whose irrational hatred of the USA only makes you look ..... pitiful.

Actually, you may not like him, but Bjorn's words are correct.

The Swedish Viggen and Gripen are superior aircraft and the story about the Swedish submarine which successfully engaged a US carrier battle group and scored hits on a carrier during war games is 100% genuine.

Sweden also developed the only successfull anti Excocet weapon to shoot it out of the sky (adopted by the US) and when the US tried for the first time to enter Swedish airspace with an F117 Stealth Fighter, the Swedes detected it immediately and sent-up 2 Viggens, much to the surprise of the American pilot ... The Americans didn't like that either.

Dutch radar systems also from day-1 could detect stealth planes...

And, yes, Canada also had a superior aircraft which was eventually cancelled as the US refused to provide the engine...

It's not just Putin who's good at propaganda ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

You're nothing but a hateful, bitter old piece of discarded bread crust, whose irrational hatred of the USA only makes you look ..... pitiful.

This concept of hating a country is rather interesting. A country is a 100% political entity, defined by politicly decided borders. How can you hate a certain part of our planet? That would be irrational for real.

Ah well, so much for standing up for your claim that it's thanks to NATO that Sweden successfully has been able to stay alliance free for more than two centuries -- neutrality can only be proclaimed in times of war, but I guess that distinction is unfamiliar to you?


..

--- 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)

On 5/03/2022 19:10, Ward Dossche : David Drummond wrote:

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?

Not that I know of - we're a wide spread mob though, so possibly.

--
Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
* Origin: Bucca, Qld (3:640/305)

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.

Well, you act like one ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)