Conflict or War?
It seems to us that in the U.S., the president and the secretary of state share a similar level of understanding and intellectual strength. “In every negotiation, both sides have to make concessions,” says Rubio. Well, Rubio, we are compelled to explain a few things to you.
We are not “sides” in some sort of dispute. We have no contentious issues, topics, or problems to discuss (choose whichever word appeals to you).
The poison in your logic is that, much like the androphagi of the swamps, you are trying to equate the aggressor with the victim something that is explicitly prohibited under international law.
Thus, the only path forward is to act in accordance with that law. The moment a victim starts “conceding something” to an aggressor, an automatic mechanism is triggered, rendering such ill-conceived agreements invalid, or as lawyers put it: null and void.
Could this, perhaps, be your and Trump’s real intention?
How does one act in compliance with international law? Simple: by following its letter. Step by step. Start with the United Nations Charter the very institution that serves as the depository of all international law and proceed in accordance with conventions that regulate specific areas, including those pertaining to aggressive, expansionist wars and war crimes. You’ll like it. It’s like a lazy person’s instruction manual.
By the way, you might not want to bother searching for the term “conflict” in international law. It’s unlikely to be there. Most likely, that’s a term from family law the kind of conflicts you’d expect in the kitchen, the living room, the garage, or on the front lawn.
