Sure, but there is a difference between not helping and actively interfering with a court punishing international crimes.

>... with a court punishing international crimes.

that's the whole thing, the US doesn't agree with that assessment.

US does agree with that assessment. US however think that international crimes are cool. Especially if they do it, but not only then.

Which is fine, inside the US. But when Americans leave the US, they are no longer under US law, theyre under the law of whatever country they enter. Which means, if the country acknowledges the ICC, any American in that country falls under it. Just like a tourist in America has to follow American laws.

Not exactly. Tourists are one thing, but US military personnel stationed in foreign countries typically operate under a status of forces agreement which limits the ways in which they are subject to the host country's laws.

yes when it comes to allies, but typically war crime stuff happens during conflicts, and usually in a conflict they are there without consent by definition.

People forget, that a war crime is simply a crime that (state) combatants dont have immunity for in war. The geneva convention gives immunity for everything that is not a war crime.

See the "Hague Invasion Act"

The us does actually agree that the crimes in question are crimes. They are crimes domestically in the united states, and the US has supported punishing people for them internationally. The US is arguably the group that came up with the idea of prosecuting people for international crimes in the first place (nuremburg)

they dont like the specific court, and more generally they dont like when the rule of law applies to them and their allies instead of just enemies. But they do recognize all these things as crime