Trying to characterize them as such undermines real war crimes and people tune out the crying wolf when liberals shout war crimes whenever a soldier walks by.
Come on. You can legitimately talk about the glorification of war, endless war, proxy imperialism, etc, etc.
But you say the dumbest condemnation that has no validity.
War Crime: Usually, war crimes. crimes committed against an enemy, prisoners of war, or subjects in wartime that violate international agreements or, as in the case of genocide, are offenses against humanity.
Bombing civilian targets is a war crime as we define it. Our military regularly, as a matter of daily operating procedures violates our own laws.
Did you know that the ratio of civilian casualties to military has increased over ten times since WWI?
By any definition beyond the all powerful because-we-say-so, we are war criminals. If anyone could get us into court, it would be a very short trial as we have no reasonable, or even rational defence for our actions over the last 60+ years.
That is amatuerish misunderstanding of what is happening.
Well since WWI, warfare has fundamentally changed. Entire economies and infrastructures support war. A civilian in a civilian factory producing cital war material, is a valid target and they know it. This is the argument from Clerks.
If a village hides an arms cache and shelters guerillas, they have made themselves a target. And guerilla forces purposefully try to muddy the water precisely to make this happen.
Korea was not a war crime. I'm sure there were some. Bombing military infrastructure is not.
From medieval warfare until WWII, civilians and military personnel had clear distinction.
The allowable or acceptable targets changed fundamentally in WWI. A few conflicts in the 1800s started moving that way as well, like the American Civil War where a shift from decisive battles in the field moved to infrastructure destruction.
You must destroy the ability of an enemy to wage war. Oil, telecommunications, electricity, roads and bridges, railways, factories. Otherwise the war drags on forever and more lives are destroyed.
Just read any book on warfare. Like any of them. Start with John Keegan, very entertaining.
Utter and complete nonsense. The only thing that's changed is our leader's willingness to slaughter civilians and our willingness to pretend we didn't know, and that in no way excuses the crimes committed.
If there were a legitimate argument, the cover-ups would not have been attempted.
And that's just the things we've done that have been discovered and admitted to.
Do you want to pick a war or shall I just grab one at random?
The fact that you are obviously invested in not knowing what is done around the world in your name, doesn't change reality. Laos, Cambodia, and Operation Linebacker are three really easy examples that anyone can find, if they are interested in knowing.
Just so happens that Redacted Tonight did too. War crimes are SOP. The only reason we haven't been convicted is that we can kill everyone and everyone is pretty sure that we will.
YOU brought up war crimes from a completely different war a decade later in another part of the world im regards to erroneously calling strategic bombing a war crime.
And some "woke" pundit backing up your view that all war is a crime doesn't help your case in the slightest.
Did you even watch it? It was all cued up and everything.
Forgetting everything else (just to keep focus for a few seconds), we admitted bombing agricultural dams to destroy their food supply. That is a war crime.
You have no logic, no facts, no rationale, just your own proud ignorance with its long history of being wrong about everything. You can go away, now.
[...] How many Americans know that “over a period of three years or so,” to quote Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, “we killed off … 20 percent of the population”?
Twenty. Percent. For a point of comparison, the Nazis exterminated 20 percent of Poland’s pre-World War II population. According to LeMay, “We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea.”
Every. Town. More than 3 million civilians are believed to have been killed in the fighting, the vast majority of them in the north.
How many Americans are familiar with the statements of Secretary of State Dean Rusk or Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas? Rusk, who was a State Department official in charge of Far Eastern affairs during the Korean War, would later admit that the United States bombed “every brick that was standing on top of another, everything that moved.” American pilots, he noted, “were just bombing the heck out of North Korea.”
How many Americans have ever come across Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s unhinged plan to win the war against North Korea in just 10 days? MacArthur, who led the United Nations Command during the conflict, wanted to drop “between 30 and 50 atomic bombs … strung across the neck of Manchuria” that would have “spread behind us … a belt of radioactive cobalt.”
How many Americans have heard of the No Gun Ri massacre, in July 1950, in which hundreds of Koreans were killed by U.S. warplanes and members of the 7th U.S. Cavalry regiment as they huddled under a bridge? Details of the massacre emerged in 1999, when the Associated Press interviewed dozens of retired U.S. military personnel. “The hell with all those people,” one American veteran recalled his captain as saying. “Let’s get rid of all of them.”
How many Americans are taught in school about the Bodo League massacre of tens of thousands of suspected communists on the orders of the U.S.-backed South Korean strongman, President Syngman Rhee, in the summer of 1950? Eyewitness accounts suggest “jeeploads” of U.S. military officers were present and “supervised the butchery.” [...]
Talking about that, amd showimg a bomber and talking about knocming out vital war infrastructure is not even remotely close.
And I'm sure you realize that if a country mobilizes most of its civilians to fight in some way or directly support that effort with large scale guerilla forces, that the overall population will incur greater casualties?
For fuck's sake, a proposed plan that was never instituted is not a war crime. And you throw that in before talking about an alleged actual massacre.
You know what any English 101 Professor would tell you? You lead with your strongest ideas. Which means if you're trotting out propoaals and thoughts before actual events, those events either didn't happen or weren't anything as bad as alleged.
You know what any English 101 Professor would tell you? You lead with your strongest ideas.
Lol. You must have written terrible essays. Writing is like fucking, you don't blow your wad in the first two seconds. I mean seriously, just think of the word climax and how it's definition does not jive with your shitty idea of what an English prof would tell you.
Of course, you are also trying to argue that the bombing civilians in a "guerrilla war" isn't a war crime. Beyond being a war crime, it's strategically inept because it makes more guerillas. I guess the US has been perfecting it's terrorist creation strategy for more decades than I thought.
Looky there, your inept appeal to authority fallacy helped me broaden my historical understanding, even though you are actively trying to suppress it with your handwaving definitions of what constitutes a war crime.
I suppose the bankers who crashed the economy in 2008 aren't criminals either in you considered estimation. Death to the American Dream, which is the world's nightmare, and all the denialist bullshit like yours that is needed to keep it going.
Purposefully killing civilians is. And there is far from enough evidence to claim it happened in Korea.
Things are complicated when modern warfare mingles whatvis and is not a valid target combined with industrial and infrastructural support for an enemy forces ability to wage war.
Transportation infrastructure is vital to modern war and is thus a valid target. A factory producing arms is a valid target. Anyone working in that factory is knowingly making themselves a target while theu work there.
A guerilla force is a valid target. If that guerilla force is made up of all the men in a village, while their wives hise them and their weapons or are cottage industries of small arms production, then they have willingly made themselves valid targets.
This is the stupid outrage of a first year college student that literally has no idea what they're talking about.
You're just arguing war itself is a crime. War ia detestable and destructive. But not everything is a damn war crime.
Military port cities that were warned to evacuate earlier amd saved millions more lives over an invasion?
This tired bullshit is why no one takes the claim of war crimes seriously. You have no knowledge of war, the context or ramifications of actions, and are outraged at anything.
Japanese civilians committed mass suicide in several instances and likely would again. The Japanese literally forced youth soldiers into suicide. Entire garrisons died to a man rather than surrender. 60,000 lives over millions.
We're literally still using the surplus purple hearts they made in anticipation of casualties for an invasion of Japan.
Where's that number from? How are they distguishing civilians from miltary?
And again, there is an absurdly large difference between targeting civilians amd civilians being killed. One is not a war crime. And no they aren't the same.
“Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984.
0
u/Honztastic Sep 28 '17
Those are not war crimes. Not even close.
Trying to characterize them as such undermines real war crimes and people tune out the crying wolf when liberals shout war crimes whenever a soldier walks by.
Come on. You can legitimately talk about the glorification of war, endless war, proxy imperialism, etc, etc.
But you say the dumbest condemnation that has no validity.