5 ms·

Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The a

by culi 2y ago

Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world because of this act

monocasa 2y ago
There's jurisdiction questions there since neither Iraq nor the US are Rome Statute signatories, however Palestine is a signatory.
0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement. Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so? The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here: Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs. Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average. What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  >But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. Never forget the CIA employee who killed a random guy in a car crash in the UK by driving on the wrong side of the road (who the fuck does this accidentally?), then got promptly evacuated back to the US, so that the family seeking justice could be told "get fucked, she's important, you are not". Anne Sacoolas. I really think this says a lot about how the US treats the idea of justice.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    That is, unfortunately, a norm in diplomatic persons. Erdogan's bodyguards savagely beat up protestors on American soil and nothing will ever come of it. That's not some meaningful example of the US being especially bad in international relations, and certainly not evidence of the US being especially bad at committing war crimes.
    - anal_reactor 2y ago
      >but Erdogan Is this the golden standard you're aspiring for?
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    The US drives on the right, the UK drives on the left. I understand it's common for travelers to get mixed up. I agree it would've been better for the perpetrator to face justice in the UK.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes Did they now? How many of the guilty went to prison for Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Bagram torture? The kidnapping of random civilians to get tortured is some heinous shit, yet very few people were convicted of it, let alone served any time even remotely worth of the crime. The worst I can find for Abu Ghraib in particular is 6 years, which is laughable; and all of the convicted were the service members perpetrating their crimes, none of their commanders were also convicted. Let alone the people who allowed torture as an "interrogation technique".
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >The kidnapping of random civilians Can you provide a citation for the claim that these were literally random civilians (as opposed to people suspected of committing a crime or plotting to commit a crime)? >very few people were convicted of it The obvious possibility is that few were convicted because it wasn't widespread. --- As an American, I think you are correct that these incidents may constitute evidence of institutional rot in our armed forces. I'm thinking maybe I should vote for politicians who will withdraw the US from NATO, so that the US will be involved in fewer wars in the future, and there will be fewer opportunities for American soldiers to commit war crimes. Do you support this?
    - sofixa 2y ago
      Random taxi driver who happened to pass by Bagram, tortured to death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28torture_victim%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28torture_victim%29 Another one was kidnapped because of his watch type, a Casio: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-casio-wristwatch-alqaida https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-fil... There was also another one who had the misfortune of sharing his name with a man accused of terrorism. > The obvious possibility is that few were convicted because it wasn't widespread Considering the well known and documented facts around Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, that's obvious not possible and not true. NATO being a defensive alliance, your last point has no merit.
      - 2y ago

by culi 2y ago

monocasa 2y ago

There's jurisdiction questions there since neither Iraq nor the US are Rome Statute signatories, however Palestine is a signatory.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago

I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement. Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so? The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here: Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs. Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average. What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?

anal_reactor 2y ago
>But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. Never forget the CIA employee who killed a random guy in a car crash in the UK by driving on the wrong side of the road (who the fuck does this accidentally?), then got promptly evacuated back to the US, so that the family seeking justice could be told "get fucked, she's important, you are not". Anne Sacoolas. I really think this says a lot about how the US treats the idea of justice.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  That is, unfortunately, a norm in diplomatic persons. Erdogan's bodyguards savagely beat up protestors on American soil and nothing will ever come of it. That's not some meaningful example of the US being especially bad in international relations, and certainly not evidence of the US being especially bad at committing war crimes.
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    >but Erdogan Is this the golden standard you're aspiring for?
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  The US drives on the right, the UK drives on the left. I understand it's common for travelers to get mixed up. I agree it would've been better for the perpetrator to face justice in the UK.
sofixa 2y ago
> But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes Did they now? How many of the guilty went to prison for Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Bagram torture? The kidnapping of random civilians to get tortured is some heinous shit, yet very few people were convicted of it, let alone served any time even remotely worth of the crime. The worst I can find for Abu Ghraib in particular is 6 years, which is laughable; and all of the convicted were the service members perpetrating their crimes, none of their commanders were also convicted. Let alone the people who allowed torture as an "interrogation technique".
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  >The kidnapping of random civilians Can you provide a citation for the claim that these were literally random civilians (as opposed to people suspected of committing a crime or plotting to commit a crime)? >very few people were convicted of it The obvious possibility is that few were convicted because it wasn't widespread. --- As an American, I think you are correct that these incidents may constitute evidence of institutional rot in our armed forces. I'm thinking maybe I should vote for politicians who will withdraw the US from NATO, so that the US will be involved in fewer wars in the future, and there will be fewer opportunities for American soldiers to commit war crimes. Do you support this?
  - sofixa 2y ago
    Random taxi driver who happened to pass by Bagram, tortured to death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28torture_victim%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28torture_victim%29 Another one was kidnapped because of his watch type, a Casio: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-casio-wristwatch-alqaida https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-fil... There was also another one who had the misfortune of sharing his name with a man accused of terrorism. > The obvious possibility is that few were convicted because it wasn't widespread Considering the well known and documented facts around Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, that's obvious not possible and not true. NATO being a defensive alliance, your last point has no merit.
    - 2y ago