Why are so few willing to discuss real historical events?

carepov · April 2, 2015

Yes. But as they say about democracy: it is worst system ever designed except for all others. The US only looks good if you compare it to other regimes over time. If you try hold it some absolute (and unachievable) standard of morality the US will come up lacking. Doing such historical reviews can be a useful exercise as long as context and nuance are not forgotten. i.e. we can agree that certain events were wrong and should not have happened but as soon as you start trying to attach the "war crime" label to every mistake you turn a rational discussion of history into an ideological shouting match.

Mostly agree. I am not labelling all mistakes as war crimes, just a few of them. Do you think that the West has committed any war crimes in the last 70 years?

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard used by all who care about justice (a.k.a the benefit of doubt). You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the people you are accusing of crimes.

First: Have you read the Prince by Machiavelli ? Your trust of rulers is naive.

Second: You are making Omar's point. "Changing the rules" is exactly what the army of US-led Western sycophants do all the time. It is OK for us to invade, but not Russia. It is OK for us to torture, trust us. It is OK for us to kill extra-judiciously, we have a system.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

"War crime" is an oxymoron.

carepov · April 2, 2015

Huh ? Seek such wisdom from Justin Trudeau...then break everything. Like Sherman's march to the sea.....

I was following the conversation until this post. Can you explain?

Je suis Omar · April 2, 2015

The Vietnam War was the continuation of policies for all of Indo-China and Southeast Asia after the collapse of the French. Several allies joined in the effort (South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). Not an error...

Iraq was invaded in 2003, not 2013, but this too was the continuation of US/UK policy for the containment and destruction of Saddam's regime. Not an error...Australia concurred.

The US committed a massive series of war crimes not only against the people of Vietnam, but also against the Laotians and the Cambodians.

Same with Iraq. But those war crimes started long before Bush little.

In Afghanistan too, US terrorism then another illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

Obama's Af-Pak War is Illegal

President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize nine days after he announced he would send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. His escalation of that war is not what the Nobel committee envisioned when it sought to encourage him to make peace, not war.

In 1945, in the wake of two wars that claimed millions of lives, the nations of the world created the United Nations system to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. The UN Charter is based on the principles of international peace and security as well as the protection of human rights. But the United States, one of the founding members of the UN, has often flouted the commands of the charter, which is part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans saw it as a justifiable response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. The cover of Time magazine called it "The Right War." Obama campaigned on ending the Iraq war but escalating the war in Afghanistan. But a majority of Americans now oppose that war as well.

The UN Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom was not legitimate self-defense under the charter because the 9/11 attacks were crimes against humanity, not armed attacks by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after 9/11, or President Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the UN General Assembly.

http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2009/12/obamas-af-pak-war-is-illegal.html?m=1

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

I was following the conversation until this post. Can you explain?

It contrasts the present with the past. Pick what you like.

The Americans were born of war and grew in war, displacing previous world empires, including Canada's favorite.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

The US committed a massive series of war crimes not only against the people of Vietnam, but also against the Laotians and the Cambodians.

Same with Iraq. But those war crimes started long before Bush little.

In Afghanistan too, US terrorism then another illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

Don't forget Serbia and Haiti, with little America Junior (Canada).

...and who can forget Canada's great Shame...Somalia !!!

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · April 2, 2015

I was following the conversation until this post. Can you explain?

His trolling is often directed by an obsession with all things Canadian

TimG · April 2, 2015

Mostly agree. I am not labelling all mistakes as war crimes, just a few of them. Do you think that the West has committed any war crimes in the last 70 years?

I am sure you can dredge up a few that would meet my definition. I don't know them off the top of my head (Abu grahab perhaps).

First: Have you read the Prince by Machiavelli ? Your trust of rulers is naive.

Who said I trust them? What I am saying is I am not going to accuse someone of a 'war crime' based on innuendo and supposition. Criminal accusations require evidence.

Second: You are making Omar's point. "Changing the rules" is exactly what the army of US-led Western sycophants do all the time. It is OK for us to invade, but not Russia. It is OK for us to torture, trust us. It is OK for us to kill extra-judiciously, we have a system.

I don't apologize for such things. But even torture has nuance. Stress positions and loud music 24-7 is in a different category than thumbscrews and rape. Lumping all coercive interrogation techniques under the 'torture' umbrella is as bad as calling every error a 'war crime'. Context matters. Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

...Lumping all coercive interrogation techniques under the 'torture' umbrella is as bad as calling every error a 'war crime'. Context matters.

Good point..."torture" has joined the emotional hot button list with "war crime", "genocide", "apartheid", and "human rights".

carepov · April 2, 2015

It contrasts the present with the past. Pick what you like.

The Americans were born of war and grew in war, displacing previous world empires, including Canada's favorite.

It looks like a defection to me.

Your opinions that Vietnam and Iraq 2003 were not mistakes are contrary to conventional wisdom. I was hoping that you could elaborate a little more, given that it seems so obvious to me that both wars greatly diminished US power and to me are obvious mistakes that should not be repeated.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

It looks like a defection to me.

Your opinions that Vietnam and Iraq 2003 were not mistakes are contrary to conventional wisdom. I was hoping that you could elaborate a little more, given that it seems so obvious to me that both wars greatly diminished US power and to me are obvious mistakes that should not be repeated.

That's fine....I am of the opinion that many here think a war is a mistake if it is lost or doesn't always result in the desired outcome.

US power exists because of right and wrong decisions made over centuries past.

Was it a mistake for the U.S. to join Canada in your stupid European wars ?

carepov · April 2, 2015

Who said I trust them? What I am saying is I am not going to accuse someone of a 'war crime' based on innuendo and supposition. Criminal accusations require evidence.

Up until now, in my book, giving someone "the benefit of the doubt", meant "trusting them". I will rephrase and state that giving rulers the benefit of the doubt is naive.

I am sure you can dredge up a few that would meet my definition. I don't know them off the top of my head (Abu grahab perhaps).

Abu Ghraib is a good example to give Omar. What other power is history would ever enable such self-reflection and criticism?

I don't apologize for such things. But even torture has nuance. Stress positions and loud music 24-7 is in a different category than thumbscrews and rape. Lumping all coercive interrogation techniques under the 'torture' umbrella is as bad as calling every error a 'war crime'. Context matters.

If the Germans or Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two Allied cites 3 days apart, would they be war crimes?

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

If the Germans or Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two Allied cites 3 days apart, would they be war crimes?

Not if they won the war.

Argus · April 2, 2015

My guess, and mind you, it's only a guess, Argus, but I'd say no. However, historians do exist, generals too. The ones who chose reality agree with Carepov's assessment.

I used to be something of a voracious reader back in the day when WW2 was more recent than it now is. I can tell you that idea was never even expressed, much less was it popular, back in the day. The Japanese were ferocious in how they resisted, and self-sacrifice was considered the honorable thing to do. Even civilians thew themselves off cliffs to avoid the shame of surrendering. Taking Japan by infantry assault would have cost the allies a tremendous amount of casualties, and there is no moral imperative to accept that on behalf of an enemy who will not surrender.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

I'm sure China felt sorry for Japan at the end of WW2. /sarcasm

Argus · April 2, 2015

Even the official strategic bombing survey concluded shortly after World War II that the atomic bombs were unnecessary: ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.''

A bombing survey concluded the Japanese would have surrendered when they had never surrendered before? And how would a bombing survey know that? The decision to surrender would not have been based on possessing the war material necessary to successfully resist conquest. After all, they had never surrendered to impossible odds before.

And the goal of keeping the Soviet Union from moving troops to the eastern theater and taking over more territory was a worthy one. Given what happened afterward, and their refusal to vacate territory they had conquered, killing a few tens of thousands of people certainly saved a lot of lives in the long term. I doubt Japan divided between Soviet and Western spheres would have prospered the way it did

TimG · April 2, 2015

Up until now, in my book, giving someone "the benefit of the doubt", meant "trusting them". I will rephrase and state that giving rulers the benefit of the doubt is naive.

Again, making accusations of criminal wrong doing requires evidence. Assuming people did criminal things simply because you don't trust them is wrong.

Abu Ghraib is a good example to give Omar. What other power is history would ever enable such self-reflection and criticism?

None (well maybe the UK). The fact that it is possible to have a discussion in the US about whether such acts are justified is why we don' need to get too worried when they do.

If the Germans or Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on two Allied cites 3 days apart, would they be war crimes?

Nope. A bomb is a bomb. I don't think the type of bomb makes any difference and the German bombing of London is not called a 'war crime'. Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

carepov · April 2, 2015

That's fine....I am of the opinion that many here think a war is a mistake if it is lost or doesn't always result in the desired outcome.

I don't get it. How could one loose a war, and yet call it "not a mistake"?

US power exists because of right and wrong decisions made over centuries past.

OK, but imagine how much more power the US would have had if they had not blundered. Your taxes would prbably be lower too.

Was it a mistake for the U.S. to join Canada in your stupid European wars ?

No.

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

I don't get it. How could one loose a war, and yet call it "not a mistake"?

Because some things are worth fighting for regardless....started with the American Revolution.

OK, but imagine how much more power the US would have had if they had not blundered. Your taxes would prbably be lower too.

Probably, but the U.S. still wields a lot of influence. More balance is stabilizing.

No.

This seems to be inconsistent. Many Americans believed WW1/WW2 were huge mistakes for the U.S. at the time.

Hindsight seems to cast more favourable light because of the outcome and bias for Europe.

Edited April 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

carepov · April 2, 2015

Again, making accusations of criminal wrong doing requires evidence. Assuming people did criminal things simply because you don't trust them is wrong.

I am not a court (nor a general nor a historian) just an online poster and I judge that the dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden were not warranted by military necessity, and therefore war crimes. Some sitauations are depatable, to to me it is obvious, based on how the was was going

Nope. A bomb is a bomb. I don't think the type of bomb makes any difference and the German bombing of London is not called a 'war crime'.

Again, your naivite shines brightly. Even bc2004 agrees. You seriously don't think the hypothetical German or Japanese general that ordered the A-bomb would have been charged and convicted with war crimes?

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

...Again, your naivite shines brightly. Even bc2004 agrees. You seriously don't think the hypothetical German or Japanese general that ordered the A-bomb would have been charged and convicted with war crimes?

No, I did not agree, but simply pointed out the fickle and political nature of any "war crimes" protocol.

TimG · April 2, 2015

I am not a court (nor a general nor a historian) just an online poster and I judge that the dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and the bombing of Dresden were not warranted by military necessity, and therefore war crimes.

Not a helpful definition. All the label does is polarize debate and preclude a rational discussion of pros/cons of actions during war time.

Again, your naivite shines brightly. Even bc2004 agrees. You seriously don't think the hypothetical German or Japanese general that ordered the A-bomb would have been charged and convicted with war crimes?

That is not the question you asked. You asked if they were 'war crimes' (presumably based on my definition). The question you wanted to ask is would they have been called 'war crimes' if Germans/Japanese subsequently lost the war and the answer is probably. I agree that 'victors hypocrisy' exists but my response is to tone down the criticism of the losers and restrict definition of 'war crime' to those things where there is no reasonable doubt. Edited April 2, 2015 by TimG

carepov · April 2, 2015

No, I did not agree, but simply pointed out the fickle and political nature of any "war crimes" protocol.

I'm sure that you would agree that those convicted of war crimes are almost certainly on the loosing side, no?

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2015

I'm sure that you would agree that those convicted of war crimes are almost certainly on the loosing side, no?

Certainly, but it does not change the nature of "war crime" actions committed by many on all sides. That's why it is called "war".

carepov · April 2, 2015

Not a helpful definition. All the label does is polarize debate and preclude a rational discussion of pros/cons of actions during war time.

That is not the question you asked. You asked if they were 'war crimes' (presumably based on my definition). The question you wanted to ask is would they have been called 'war crimes' if Germans/Japanese subsequently lost the war and the answer is probably. I agree that 'victors hypocrisy' exists but my response is to tone down the criticism of the losers and restrict definition of 'war crime' to those things where there is no reasonable doubt.

I'm glad that you see the "victors hypocrisy".

If not "war crime", what term do you propose for the unnecessary killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians?

Edited April 2, 2015 by carepov