It might sound strange, but the solution to war crimes is arguably total victory over the enemy—something like the situation in Venezuela, which is considered a total victory. The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime have caused the issues referred to in the article as ‘war crimes’ to appear diminished and insignificant in comparison.
It's like, oh, we shouldn't do anything against Hitler because our army might commit war crimes. The reason for the opponents of war is war crimes? Can we have a war without committing crimes? If it's not possible, then the question boils down to whether it's worth it? And you have to throw the moral abacus at whether war, with its possibilities, is morally preferable or the tragedies that happen without it. The Islamic Republic regime is the most evil government the world has ever seen.
Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing.
Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?
This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.
But people in the USA should realise this:
An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.
Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.
At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.
That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.
You were correct, it got flagged. Personally I held the belief that people shat too much on the USA, then the current regime started and I feel a fool.
I guarantee you it isn't the same. Even anti-atlantists here were more 'we should imitate them' than 'we should fight against their culture'. Nowadays even my very Catholic, very right wing, very pro-Bush/Irak war family is quite cross with the US.
There are degrees to these things. A nation's leader repeatedly and explicitly declaring intent to commit genocide is makes that "lift" an extremely light one.
It was total war though, and they were the aggressors who had slaughtered millions of civilians previously. The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.
Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.
"Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."
"The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."
"Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"
I’m not remotely claiming we didn’t do war crimes afterwards. Just that the firebombing, if I recall correctly, was explicitly cited as a reason why we needed rules going forward.
No, the fire bombing of Japan did far more damage than the nuclear bombs. What made early nuclear bombs scary is that instead of needing hundreds of bombers you now only needed one for the same amount of damage
The US certainly has a mixed track record here. But the culture of lawlessness in this administration is hard to overstate. Every crime committed by this regime is followed by a "what about" argument from a pundit, citing an example where someone in time, committed a vaguely similar offense. But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often. This is historically corrupt and criminal; everything else is disingenuous false equivalency.
For anyone who hasn't, I recommend reading up on Watergate and watching the resignation speech.
It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.
Well initially Nixon was following a similar playbook to what you see Trump et al pull off successfully today. He only resigned when it became clear the he had lost too many votes in the Senate and would lose the impeachment vote. That took a few months from when the story initially broke.
> But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often.
Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.
It's called war crime only if you lost
“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald
And it's only called pedophilia if convicted
It might sound strange, but the solution to war crimes is arguably total victory over the enemy—something like the situation in Venezuela, which is considered a total victory. The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime have caused the issues referred to in the article as ‘war crimes’ to appear diminished and insignificant in comparison.
> The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime
What about the human rights abuses by the democratic regime of ISUS? Do we deserve some war crimes too?
It's like, oh, we shouldn't do anything against Hitler because our army might commit war crimes. The reason for the opponents of war is war crimes? Can we have a war without committing crimes? If it's not possible, then the question boils down to whether it's worth it? And you have to throw the moral abacus at whether war, with its possibilities, is morally preferable or the tragedies that happen without it. The Islamic Republic regime is the most evil government the world has ever seen.
Why in the world is this flagged?
Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing.
Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?
Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure
Huh. It is not entirely in Iran's territorial water. It is partially in Oman's water. Iran is attempting to control what does not belong to it.
Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_strait
Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed.
> “better than carpet bombing”
The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.
> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”
Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.
This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.
But people in the USA should realise this:
An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.
Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.
At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.
That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.
Buckle up.
> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.
flags are user-driven
You were correct, it got flagged. Personally I held the belief that people shat too much on the USA, then the current regime started and I feel a fool.
"An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA."
Same as it always was.
I guarantee you it isn't the same. Even anti-atlantists here were more 'we should imitate them' than 'we should fight against their culture'. Nowadays even my very Catholic, very right wing, very pro-Bush/Irak war family is quite cross with the US.
Rome (US) will always have its critics.
It’s our job to make sure they don’t have any power.
"Now" is doing a metric ton of heavy lifting in that headline.
There are degrees to these things. A nation's leader repeatedly and explicitly declaring intent to commit genocide is makes that "lift" an extremely light one.
Remember when America firebombed civilians during World War Two?
That was, sadly, very much an "everybody does this" thing, from Guernica to Chongqing to Coventry.
But yes, there are two possible lessons from those horrors:
- never again must this happen to anyone: the construction of international peace frameworks, the ICC, and human rights law
- what is currently happening, which is very different
Quick question, who were the aggressors in that war? What had they done previously that might have warranted it?
The aggressors not being the targets of the firebombing is central to the concerns here. They weren't military targets (largely).
It was total war though, and they were the aggressors who had slaughtered millions of civilians previously. The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.
Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.
Wasn’t regret for and fear of the scale of that damage partly why we supported the Geneva Convention?
Unfortunately that knowledge seems to have been lost with the passage of time.
Ever heard about Laos?
"Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."
"The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/laos-the-most-heavily-bo...
"Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"
I’m not remotely claiming we didn’t do war crimes afterwards. Just that the firebombing, if I recall correctly, was explicitly cited as a reason why we needed rules going forward.
[flagged]
No, the fire bombing of Japan did far more damage than the nuclear bombs. What made early nuclear bombs scary is that instead of needing hundreds of bombers you now only needed one for the same amount of damage
They did both https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
That was afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
Now? There is reason why United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It's their policy for decades. There is no bigger threat for world peace than US (and maybe Israel).
Not maybe. Israel is the whole reason the USA is losing its mind (and its war) in Iran right now.
The US certainly has a mixed track record here. But the culture of lawlessness in this administration is hard to overstate. Every crime committed by this regime is followed by a "what about" argument from a pundit, citing an example where someone in time, committed a vaguely similar offense. But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often. This is historically corrupt and criminal; everything else is disingenuous false equivalency.
For anyone who hasn't, I recommend reading up on Watergate and watching the resignation speech.
It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.
Well initially Nixon was following a similar playbook to what you see Trump et al pull off successfully today. He only resigned when it became clear the he had lost too many votes in the Senate and would lose the impeachment vote. That took a few months from when the story initially broke.
> But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often.
Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.
[dead]