4 ms·

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 cri

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.

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.