[CMay]

There's a difference between soldiers stepping out of line in war versus behaving according to policy. War is never good. It's not really a strong argument to say hey, I've got all these disturbing photos that show the US is bad. Well, you could also show disturbing photos that make any country look bad. The point is the context and how it got to be that way.

China is sometimes referred to as a peer power, but in many ways they remain extremely far behind. That is both a good thing and a bad thing. Weak countries go to extremes. Strong countries who think they are stronger than they are, could potentially go to similar extremes to make up for that perception.

Not all crimes are equivalent, and not all crimes are actual crimes even if people call them crimes.

It's easier to dismiss people than to engage, but then you stop challenging yourself and navigating the differences to understand the world better. Sometimes I'm wrong, but I try to be correct and not purely for emotional satisfaction.

[msl]

You don't get to call it "stepping out of line" if there are no consequences for doing so. See for example how the My Lai Massacre was handled[1]. The pattern continues when it comes to shooting down an airliner[2], an airstrike on a hospital[3] and many more cases.

If no-one ever gets more than a stern talking to, then clearly there is no line. These actions are as close to adhering to policy as you can get without saying it outright.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre#Investigation_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 (there is even less to see about the aftermath here: everyone got a medal)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike (this time someone was disciplined)

[CMay]

#1 looks like a case of poor incentives which were a little too flexible as a result of what they were up against from the guerilla fighters. every army has elements that can get out of control if not kept on a tight leash, the US is no different in that regard. the difference is that we will identify and correct it if we see it.

#2 looks like a legitimate accident. technology wasn't as good as it is now. there were apologies and payments to the Iranian families. it sounds like they tried to follow protocol.

you can look at other countries who have shot down commercial airliners to see that this wasn't unique to the US in any way. the difference is that we tried to communicate and verify first, when many other countries didn't.

#3 just looks like a largely human mistake, which was recognized by multiple people involved privately and publicly. it's possible if they picked coordinates and had a database of protected locations, it could've been flagged, but i don't know if something like that exists. the nature of some of these decisions is that they have to happen fast, but that means your process has to be really good to avoid mistakes.

you also didn't mention the case where we drone striked a vehicle with kids in it and we publicly apologized for it. these things do happen, but considering the extremely large number of strikes the US tends to do, these are relatively rare.

because our society does value truth when it matters, it usually makes it out if there is substance to it. in many other societies, the governments can just perpetually deny and anyone who disagrees will be jailed or killed. that doesn't mean we don't have secrets like anyone else.