4 ms·

"Further, where DoD and the US government have to compete in the human domain without sacrificing key values or crossing ethical lines, our adversaries often sh

• senectus1 5y ago
  has there ever been a leader that has prosecuted a war that isn't named as a "war criminal" ? Not trying to diminish your statement, but what defines a war criminal? If anything can then the term has no meaning, it turns any act of war into a criminal act. How do we make that term actually MEAN something again? Do they all have to be "Hitlers" or "Pol Pot's" ? surely not...
  • yesenadam 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
    • senectus1 5y ago
      yup, and can you name or give examples of a single act of war since those were defined and outlined that hasn't breached them?
  • neltnerb 5y ago
    It's actually pretty well defined, the issue is that the winners rarely see a reason to hold themselves accountable. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml The US agreed to this definition, it's pretty broad. Perhaps too broad, but I mean, look at the examples...
  • roenxi 5y ago
    On the face of it, making all people who wage offensive war criminal seems like a good idea. Do you have an objection to the idea? There is only shaky moral ground for the US to stand on here, they've been the major force of war and destruction in the world for the last 50 years. No question in my mind that the individuals involved are monsters, but there is a good argument that maybe all the alternative systems are worse.
    • senectus1 5y ago
      only that it takes a term that once meant "Hitler/Pol Pot" etc. Monsters on truly large and horrifying scales... into something that is watered down to, well, the politics of war. Much like the word Terrorism. Its an almost worthless term.
• DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  This applies to all leaders of all countries. As they say don't hate the player, hate the game. The player is the politician, or the party. The game is Capitalism and international tax law: Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_Islands ^^ hardly any developed country comes off as good in this book and what brought us here is how we've been distributing wealth since the industrialization. Everyone's a hypocrite because it's the number #1 rule of "human-club". The more power one has, the more they'll be forced to square that circle. I still agree that anyone who has power should be put under more pressure than the rest, so punching the US (as a country not its people) is justified, but don't forget about countries like Germany, France, Russia, China, UK when dishing out accusations about hypocriticism. "The real problem of humanity is the following: we have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology." -- Edward O. Wilson, 1929
  • TheGigaChad 5y ago
    [dead]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• tablespoon 5y ago
  >> "Further, where DoD and the US government have to compete in the human domain without sacrificing key values or crossing ethical lines, our adversaries often show no such constraint, as evidenced by the growing number of examples of their efforts to destabilize and paralyze free societies" > Right there, hypocrite. If you want to prevail in the human domain, prosecute your war criminals, beginning with Dubya, Clinton, Obama, Trump and Biden. > You've already lost. This is a really interesting comment, because it basically sets up a system where only nasty authoritarians can win. Maybe it's a memetic weapon, or the result of one.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]