Thread

US sanctions force The Netherlands off Microsoft and toward alternative NixOS

388 points · 396 comments · mywacaday

MadrasThorn · 1790684474 · focus · HN ↗
Trump attacking the Netherlands means transatlanticism is really dead.
I think this has a lot to do with how the case against Putin was built and Trump used his influence to disrupt it.
1. ParentiSoundSys · 1790685876 · focus · HN ↗
  It's because the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for committing war crimes.
  1. jonnybgood · 1790686583 · focus · HN ↗
    The US had issue with the ICC since it first began in 2002. Multiple administrations saw it as a problem.
    sickofparadox · 1790687436 · focus · HN ↗
    The year the ICC was established, Congress passed a law providing enduring authorization for a full scale military invasion of the Netherlands should the ICC imprison any US service member, government employee, or those of allied nations (including Israel).[1] It even prevents any level of the US government (local, state, or federal) from working to assist the ICC. Americans do not want to be beholden to a foreign court.
    [1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
    b5n · 1790690347 · focus · HN ↗
    Taking issue with accountability is a long lived American tradition enjoyed predominantly by those with wealth/power.
  2. antonvs · 1790686782 · focus · HN ↗
    And because Trump and co don't want to have to deal with such warrants against themselves.
    It's the ultimate expression of US corruption. There's not even a pretense of fighting for justice any more, just fighting justice.
  3. MadrasThorn · 1790686826 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm probably wrong but I could have sworn there was an article that came out when Trump was elected something happened with data on microsoft accounts/server huh. I guess it's ungoogable right now. Might have just been hosted by US gov. Must have been funding related.
    Anyway I don't support ICC grabbing power it does not have over other countries who do not sign on.
    If the ICC wanted to be consistent they should target Hamas leaders, Iranian leaders, ect
    petre · 1790687462 · focus · HN ↗
    > If the ICC wanted to be consistent they should target Hamas leaders, Iranian leaders, ect
    Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute and the court has not officially opened a case against Iranian leaders.
    However, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, Commander-in-Chief of Hamas' military wing for war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from the October 7 attacks.
    ShadowOfThePit · 1790693610 · focus · HN ↗
    > Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute
    Neither are Israel or Russia, so the point is moot.
    djaro · 1790695116 · focus · HN ↗
    But Ukraine and Palestine are, which is where the crimes are being committed. When you enter a country, you are subject to their laws, not those from your own country.
    input_sh · 1790688609 · focus · HN ↗
    You'd be happy to know that ICC has also indicted three Hamas leaders (Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh). Granted all three were withdrawn because their deaths were confirmed, but you're presenting it as if ICC only indicted Israeli leaders, which is not the case.
    MadrasThorn · 1790690458 · focus · HN ↗
    I am happy to know they are at least somewhat consistent however unfortunately it still doesn't change my position on it.
    I am wondering if every war time leader should expect an ICC indictment.
    ParentiSoundSys · 1790691484 · focus · HN ↗
    The ICC hasn't indicted "every war time leader" because they're not all committing an open genocide.
    buellerbueller · 1790691682 · focus · HN ↗
    >I am happy to know they are at least somewhat consistent however unfortunately it still doesn't change my position on it.
    NAZA
    RobotToaster · 1790693475 · focus · HN ↗
    > I am wondering if every war time leader should expect an ICC indictment.
    One can only hope. It may actually reduce the numbers of wars if our "leaders" knew they would have to justify their actions in court.
    deadbunny · 1790693939 · focus · HN ↗
    Which other wartime leaders are overseeing hourly war crimes and an ongoing genocide?
2. rapsey · 1790686721 · focus · HN ↗
  The EU is entirely subjugated to the US. No energy independence, militaries falling apart and out of date, no tech development or investment.
  1. mittensc · 1790687062 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe that's wrong?
    The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
    What is the US going to do when China starts making their own moves?
    rapsey · 1790687333 · focus · HN ↗
    Outside the US, NATO countries have very little power projection capabilities. A bit of france, a bit of UK and then nothing.
    mittensc · 1790687937 · focus · HN ↗
    How's that power projection working in Iran/Yemen?
    Would NATO change the equation?
    bluGill · 1790690855 · focus · HN ↗
    The US has chosen not to project all the power they can. That is send soldiers - likely some to die. However the US has the ability to send them if they want, and could supply them if they did - nobody else has anywhere near that ability ready today.
    RobotToaster · 1790693766 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you really think the USA has enough troops to take and occupy Iran without instituting a draft?
    bluGill · 1790694613 · focus · HN ↗
    What does that have to do with anything? The need for a draft is one of several reasons why it is unlikely the US will escalate more. However that is a card the US could play quickly, and combined with the existing military would be enough. (Vietnam could have been won as well, but the US made political choices to not do what it takes)
    mittensc · 1790695124 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a lot of winning... having to introduce a draft...
    How well do you think a draft is going to go? forced on an armed populace that might not want to die in iran?
    mittensc · 1790693844 · focus · HN ↗
    So power projection isn't working out as planned.
    Could doesn't reopen hormuz.
    bluGill · 1790694510 · focus · HN ↗
    Hormuz is mostly open last I checked. Iran is shouting, but ships are getting through again.
    Though the point remains, the US has made the choice to not escalate farther, but there is plenty of power left behind that could be used.
    mittensc · 1790694953 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    jst1fthsdys · 1790708559 · focus · HN ↗
    >Hormuz is mostly open last I checked. Iran is shouting, but ships are getting through again.
    Hormuz isn't open. Any traffic going through is a small fraction compared to before the war. The US can't even operate close to the Iranian shore for fear of anti ship missiles.
    > the US has made the choice to not escalate farther,
    They can't escalate further or they would. They can't even hold their bases or protect the countries they are supposed to. What power, short of a nuke, are they holding back on?
    bluGill · 1790717542 · focus · HN ↗
    > US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated on September 27 that between 15 and 22 million barrels of oil currently pass through the strait daily, compared to the 20 million barrels of oil that passed through the strait daily before the war.
    > The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy claimed that Iran has targeted 19 vessels that have attempted to transit the strait since September 25, though Iranian media provided no evidence to substantiate these claims.
    From <a href="https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-september-27-2026/" rel="nofollow">https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-updat.... Now I realize that both Scott Bessent and the ISW are biased sources. However they still are painting a picture of the strait mostly reopened.
    jst1fthsdys · 1790718441 · focus · HN ↗
    Bessent is a liar and an idiot. May as well quote Trump tweets. Iran still being able to attack ships at will in the straight should further dispel any illusion it is open.
    There are independent trackers which all show transit levels around 1-5% of what it was prewar. Even with some shadow fleet tankers going, it still isn't getting anywhere close to those levels.
    Danox · 1790694886 · focus · HN ↗
    Half a million soldiers and 57,000 dead in Vietnam did not win the war, when you have an adversary who is willing to fight and has a supply line. The same applied to Afghanistan and Korea.
    Russia is currently learning that lesson again. After Afghanistan, in the Ukraine, for the US to have any chance of winning in Iran the US needs at least half a million people on the ground. With a trillion dollar bankroll?
    The United States is reaching the end. When it comes to the amount of money needed, let alone the human cost, and to top it off, while we’re slogging around in the sand in Iran at every level, we will be getting weaker in relationship to China and the world.
    Zigurd · 1790696425 · focus · HN ↗
    And the George HW Bush administration used that power wisely in the first Gulf War. Every other time not so much.
    The main concern for Europeans is accessible by truck over flat ground. They probably need more boats and submarines than they've got, but they don't need a B2 bomber or aircraft carriers.
    Danox · 1790707178 · focus · HN ↗
    The Gulf War was a lost at every level.
    bluGill · 1790690702 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
    That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.
    The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).
    The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.
    However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.
    mittensc · 1790693786 · focus · HN ↗
    Right now the US looks impotent vs Iran.
    bluGill · 1790717749 · focus · HN ↗
    So? My comment was never about what things look like, it is about reality.
    mittensc · 1790753378 · focus · HN ↗
    Reality: US is impotent against iran closing the straight
    deadbunny · 1790694078 · focus · HN ↗
    "We could win the wars if we wanted to"
    The US has been getting their shit rocked by people in sandals for the better part of 70 years.
    bluGill · 1790695022 · focus · HN ↗
    Again, because the US has chosen not to do anymore.
    mittensc · 1790695193 · focus · HN ↗
    "the US could have won but have chosen to lose"
    deadbunny · 1790696857 · focus · HN ↗
    Why is the US chosing to lose basically every war they've been involved in since WWII?
    bluGill · 1790717716 · focus · HN ↗
    That is an interesting question.
    The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".
    There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.
    After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.
    There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.
    Steve16384 · 1790697711 · focus · HN ↗
    You're probably right. The wars have served their purpose, i.e. distract voters from domestic issues. Who in power cares if they win or lose if they're still in power?
    Danox · 1790694113 · focus · HN ↗
    The US has lost every war after World War II, it is also lost in Central and South America when it comes to long-range infrastructure, having a rail system stuck in the 1950s is not gonna go anywhere, not leading the charge in Central and South America and getting that Pan American highway or Pan American railroad built from one end to the other?, and where is that highway or railway leading all the way to Nome, Alaska? The billions, trillions of dollars wasted, and US Steel which is now, owned by the Japanese.
    By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.
    When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.
    bluGill · 1790694998 · focus · HN ↗
    The US's objectives have rarely including a traditional win, so that isn't a useful think to ask about.
    I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.
    Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.
    jackb4040 · 1790691428 · focus · HN ↗
    The Europeans have some amount of leverage over the Americans, much smaller than the Americans have over them. But they use 100% of it to keep the Americans involved in the Ukraine War rather than to defend their own institutions / economies.
  2. flohofwoe · 1790687882 · focus · HN ↗
    The tricky thing these days is trying to figure out whether messages like this are coming from Russian or MAGA bots ;) In any case, good work comrade! Here's your potato / Trumpcoin. Now back into your troll cave.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.