Sure, going back to the main point North Korea has guns and this helps to hem get their way. And if we restrict ourselves to those countries which are relevant to the main point (ICC member states), they don’t, and don’t. What’s your point? To date all you’ve done is list rule proving exceptions.

That’s no true Scotsman… but anyway as long as you’re giving up the idea that this different recently.

Compare France or the UK as ICC member states with NK and your argument is obviously false. They have plenty of nukes to be a major issue.

I’ll flip this around, try and find examples that fit your narrative outside of fiction or active wars. IE, situations where civilians are in charge of deciding what our military is doing.

I still don’t know what your point is. I’ve been consistent since the beginning. UK and France are quite weak indeed, nuclear is a separate plane that is irrelevant in this thread.

You asked:

> Do we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?

And clear answer to that such a year yes, with dozens of examples off the top of my head that I was unsure in what context you might assume it was true.

> UK and France are quite weak indeed

Not in comparison to NK and especially not historic NK they aren’t. Have you ever actually studied foreign events, history, or looked into foreign militaries etc? You have such a distorted viewpoint I just find it baffling. In terms of traditional military NK has 1/3 the UK’s population, vastly worse industry, outdated equipment, minimal ability to move beyond their borders, etc. In a head to head fight they would lose badly.

> Have you ever actually

Every day of my life, actually. It’s clear you don’t, and I don’t particularly care. Good day.

> It’s clear you don’t

Its been years, but I worked on strategic planning for the DoD. As in the group that actually plans how to preform an invasion, though I was developing the software not doing the actual planning. They still wanted us to have an understanding of what’s involved.

All I can suggest is your methods are inherently flawed. Ask yourself why you were unaware of all these incidents and how you might change that deficiency.

Yes, I see that it’s been years. That’s why all your examples are ancient news. Consider other people might be active, and that you never actually refuted my point.

> That’s why all your examples are ancient news.

Not in the ways you might think. I used examples from well outside the periods and events I have classified knowledge of, for legal and ethical reasons.

However, reading your responses I can understand why you ended up with such a wildly inaccurate understanding of the world. It’s been interesting talking with you.