> In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls
Oops. You went down the wrong route. The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members.
That is as credible as it gets. Elected politicians got together, and signed their promise of it happening into literal law. There is no more credible way for America to signal that they are going to do something besides actually doing it.
Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.
> The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.
You sling a lot of accusations. Try to not guess what I might think. Read my actual words. Thanks.
America did in fact threaten the Netherland with invasion. Credibly. This is a fact. I precisely named my source in my previous comment.
No. They did not do this in context of ASML, nor did I say that they did that.
> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members
The ICC doesn't execute its arrest warrants. Even if it were stupid enough to issue one for an American's arrest, there would be plenty of time for de-escalation between its issuance and execution.
Sorry, but I think it's bullshit. I understand why they would write some paper with threats to put some pressure on Netherlands, but actually acting on it is completely ridiculous if you do a very simple pros and cons balance.
>Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.
So you're intellectually dishonest then. You reply to my comment criticising
the framing of an US invasion in the context of ASML export controls, disputing such framing as propaganda and then now you say it's not at all about ASML exports in a thread about ASML exports and instead some pendantic nitpick about the Hague Act?
> The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service
Declaring war on America and then firing missiles at their cities is also a way for an credible invasion of any country by America to occur. Does that mean then that the invasion of X country by America is a "credible threat" then?
Either you using your own made up definition that is so generalized that it is a pointless statement, or No. Because such a scenario relies upon a series of prior actions (and even the mechanics of the invasion itself) that would be considered highly improbable, which is what makes it non-credible. You'd have to explain how such a realistic chain of events could occur given contemporary context.
Okay. Let's.
> In order to coerce the Netherlands to align with ASML Export Controls
Oops. You went down the wrong route. The credible threat I'm talking about is over the International Criminal Court potentially prosecuting American service members.
That is as credible as it gets. Elected politicians got together, and signed their promise of it happening into literal law. There is no more credible way for America to signal that they are going to do something besides actually doing it.
Please re-read my comment more carefully. I'm not talking about the ASML or export controls.
> The very fact that you label this as "as credible as it gets" should tell anyone that you and OP are either extremely uninformed, or being intellectually dishonest with an agenda to divide.
You sling a lot of accusations. Try to not guess what I might think. Read my actual words. Thanks.
America did in fact threaten the Netherland with invasion. Credibly. This is a fact. I precisely named my source in my previous comment.
No. They did not do this in context of ASML, nor did I say that they did that.