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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises
Lol - actually because at most no one in HN leadership realised the thread even existed.
Here's a tip for improved accuracy on HN speculation: if your speculation implicitly assumes moderator omniscience, it's probably wrong.
We don't moderate HN based on what reflects badly or goodly on $country or $people. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, i.e. remains interesting and hovers semi-stably above internet median.
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.
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.
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?
Customary law is not formal law. Trump flies above the bedrock.
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.
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.
judaeo christian genocide cults like zionisim are behind all of the worst atrocities in this century, there "policy" is unspeakable deranged insanity, and there actions, bit by bit, serve as the rope that hangs them, and it might sound a bit strange to hear them rant,here,with the nonsensical
rationalisations, but they know no shame
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.”
This being evidence of an interesting new phenomenon is literally the entire premise of the blog post though. And it sure as hell didn't look like it was covered on the main news headlines; I know I only heard about it because of HN. The author is pretty clearly claiming this is a new phenomenon literally in the title itself!
It's new, but is it "interesting?" Does it "satisfy intellectual curiosity?"
Many people here will consider this categorically off topic and flag accordingly because politics doesn't satisfy theirs. Even if it's a good article, and even if the discussion is on-topic and civil.
What is "intellectual curiosity" that doesn't include curiosity about whether, when, and how often the world superpower commits a war crime? For reference just the other day we had [1] on the front page. Was knowing the consumer price index for the month really all that much more satisfying of "intellectual curiosity" than this?