5 ms·

That would very likely end up being a 'own goal'. There are lots of past wars and past war criminals that would end up standing alongside Putin. Guys/gals like

That would very likely end up being a 'own goal'. There are lots of past wars and past war criminals that would end up standing alongside Putin. Guys/gals like 'W' Bush, Cheney, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard, Obama, etc, etc, etc. are war criminals over aggressive wars or attacks against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others. Even Biden himself would end up in the dock, being Vice-President during the Obama administration.

john_the_writer 5y ago
I was thinking the same thing. More succinctly though. "You first."
NoPie 5y ago
No, the things happening in Ukraine are on completely different level. Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes but not targeted to civilians.
- juanani 5y ago
- simonblack 5y ago
  Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes "mistakes". An easy way of glossing over out and out aggression. In both cases, The US attacked those countries that were not an imminent threat. Iraq: the US did not allow the weapons inspectors sufficient time to investigate first. Thousands of US troops' lives were wasted for nothing. Afghanistan: The Taliban asked for evidence of bin Laden's guilt. The US refused, and attacked anyway. So again thousands of US troops' lives were wasted for nothing.
cmurf 5y ago
The crime of aggression is a war of conquest expressly to expand borders and/or subjugate people. And it is the supreme international crime because it is the genesis of all the evils that follow. That is the judgement from Nuremberg. The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions clearly separate between your examples and what's going on in Russia-Ukraine in 2014, Georgia in 2009, and Ukraine today. Not all wars are crimes of aggression. You have to distinguish between them. You have to hold people accountable for the worst crimes, in particular when they are simple, or you've lost the entire system of accountability and prevention. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That is a simple and clear crime of aggression. The UN Security Council did get involved, and voted for intervention, as the Charter requires. Every UN resolution against Iraq since then (around a dozen) stem from this initial event. Regarding the 2003 invasion, either an imaginative person or an informed person could say: well, UN resolution 1441's "very serious consequences" for non-compliance by Iraq could very well mean military intervention, but I personally think that's Yamok Sauce, so I'm not buying it. Nevertheless, I can see that as a possibly viable legal argument. Plus, 31 countries agreed it was compelling enough to proceed with a multilateral intervention, which never sought to make Iraq the 51st state of the U.S., nor subjugate its people. i.e. Bush 2 invading Iraq was stupid and a bad idea, but not at all in the same category as what Russia has done to Ukraine.
- trasz 5y ago
  Unless you look at things that actually matter - dead civilians - instead of laws that are as real as Pokémon rules.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    It was out of the ashes of dead civilians that the Charter and Geneva Conventions were born, even before all the dead had been buried. You are an unserious person to talk of the only product humanity produced, that is intended to prevent world wars and crimes against humanity, as unreal. It is remarkable ignorance. https://twitter.com/W_Kononczuk/status/1510923871641387014 https://twitter.com/W_Kononczuk/status/1510923871641387014 https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1511401538908004353 https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1511401538908004353 The invasion of Iraq was never going to lead to a world war, was never about targeting civilians on purpose with malice and retribution. Russia invading Ukraine to de-nazify it? The idea the U.S. is filling Ukraine with Nazis? If Russia really believes this, and believes it has a moral obligation to stop us, what do they do if Ukraine wins? They are already by all accounts committing, with intent, a genocide. And it will get worse. China and India refuse to agree this is a violation of the Charter, let alone that Russia should immediately withdraw. The lines are being drawn now. There is no predicting how this turns out, but it isn't possible to exclude WW3 as one of the outcomes. You seem to have no comprehension, no awareness of the different order of magnitude the seriousness of these situations. But that would be consistent with being an unserious person.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Sure, it was a nice idea, but it just doesn't work. Case in point: US invasions went unpunished, which in turn enabled Russia to do what it's doing.
      - cmurf 5y ago
        This whataboutism is as nauseating as the ignorance. Are you trying to justify what the Kremlin is doing, by blaming the U.S.? You lament the numeric deaths of civilians, yet you promote the uselessness of the only things designed so far to prevent it. Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by you making excuses for Russia in 2022 while blaming the U.S. for 2003 (and not any of the other 30 member countries part of it), while proposing the latter lead to the former. If you've read the Charter, you know full well why the U.S. and Russia wouldn't ever be punished by the Security Council.
akhmatova 5y ago
Though I agree that some of these people may have been complicit in war crimes (which will most likely never be officially recognized as such, in our lifetimes at least) -- on a more fundamental level, this post is unfortunately an instance of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

john_the_writer 5y ago

I was thinking the same thing. More succinctly though. "You first."

NoPie 5y ago

No, the things happening in Ukraine are on completely different level. Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes but not targeted to civilians.

juanani 5y ago
simonblack 5y ago
Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes "mistakes". An easy way of glossing over out and out aggression. In both cases, The US attacked those countries that were not an imminent threat. Iraq: the US did not allow the weapons inspectors sufficient time to investigate first. Thousands of US troops' lives were wasted for nothing. Afghanistan: The Taliban asked for evidence of bin Laden's guilt. The US refused, and attacked anyway. So again thousands of US troops' lives were wasted for nothing.

cmurf 5y ago

The crime of aggression is a war of conquest expressly to expand borders and/or subjugate people. And it is the supreme international crime because it is the genesis of all the evils that follow. That is the judgement from Nuremberg. The UN Charter and Geneva Conventions clearly separate between your examples and what's going on in Russia-Ukraine in 2014, Georgia in 2009, and Ukraine today. Not all wars are crimes of aggression. You have to distinguish between them. You have to hold people accountable for the worst crimes, in particular when they are simple, or you've lost the entire system of accountability and prevention. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That is a simple and clear crime of aggression. The UN Security Council did get involved, and voted for intervention, as the Charter requires. Every UN resolution against Iraq since then (around a dozen) stem from this initial event. Regarding the 2003 invasion, either an imaginative person or an informed person could say: well, UN resolution 1441's "very serious consequences" for non-compliance by Iraq could very well mean military intervention, but I personally think that's Yamok Sauce, so I'm not buying it. Nevertheless, I can see that as a possibly viable legal argument. Plus, 31 countries agreed it was compelling enough to proceed with a multilateral intervention, which never sought to make Iraq the 51st state of the U.S., nor subjugate its people. i.e. Bush 2 invading Iraq was stupid and a bad idea, but not at all in the same category as what Russia has done to Ukraine.

trasz 5y ago
Unless you look at things that actually matter - dead civilians - instead of laws that are as real as Pokémon rules.
- cmurf 5y ago
  It was out of the ashes of dead civilians that the Charter and Geneva Conventions were born, even before all the dead had been buried. You are an unserious person to talk of the only product humanity produced, that is intended to prevent world wars and crimes against humanity, as unreal. It is remarkable ignorance. https://twitter.com/W_Kononczuk/status/1510923871641387014 https://twitter.com/W_Kononczuk/status/1510923871641387014 https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1511401538908004353 https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1511401538908004353 The invasion of Iraq was never going to lead to a world war, was never about targeting civilians on purpose with malice and retribution. Russia invading Ukraine to de-nazify it? The idea the U.S. is filling Ukraine with Nazis? If Russia really believes this, and believes it has a moral obligation to stop us, what do they do if Ukraine wins? They are already by all accounts committing, with intent, a genocide. And it will get worse. China and India refuse to agree this is a violation of the Charter, let alone that Russia should immediately withdraw. The lines are being drawn now. There is no predicting how this turns out, but it isn't possible to exclude WW3 as one of the outcomes. You seem to have no comprehension, no awareness of the different order of magnitude the seriousness of these situations. But that would be consistent with being an unserious person.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Sure, it was a nice idea, but it just doesn't work. Case in point: US invasions went unpunished, which in turn enabled Russia to do what it's doing.
    - cmurf 5y ago
      This whataboutism is as nauseating as the ignorance. Are you trying to justify what the Kremlin is doing, by blaming the U.S.? You lament the numeric deaths of civilians, yet you promote the uselessness of the only things designed so far to prevent it. Whatever point you are trying to make is lost by you making excuses for Russia in 2022 while blaming the U.S. for 2003 (and not any of the other 30 member countries part of it), while proposing the latter lead to the former. If you've read the Charter, you know full well why the U.S. and Russia wouldn't ever be punished by the Security Council.

akhmatova 5y ago

Though I agree that some of these people may have been complicit in war crimes (which will most likely never be officially recognized as such, in our lifetimes at least) -- on a more fundamental level, this post is unfortunately an instance of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism