Vinny (and all interested in the topic), re. your interest in WWII and your comment/questions about war crimes. I just finished the Dan Carlin Hardcore History "Supernova in the East" series of podcasts. You might have interest as there is an extensive discussion of why both sides (Japan/USA) did what they did. Be sure to listen to the podcasts in order if you choose so to do. https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:38 pmAs usual you provide good counters to any arguments that I make! I don't have anything to come back on this particular discussion regarding comparing today's acts to what Bush did or did not do in the Iraq War.Xan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:29 pmQuite an interesting story about the coworker from Dresden. I'm sure that was fascinating.yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 9:16 pmBush being guilty of the omission of not providing proper governance after removing the one in place resulted in far more deaths to civilians than anything Russia has done so far.Xan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 8:27 pmAt the moment I'm more interested in addressing the "W is as bad as Putin" thought that seems to be circulating here than WWII.yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 21, 2022 7:44 pmIt could be the same, though, in terms of how you can be just as guilty from an act of omission as you can from an act of commission.
You're saying Bush is guilty of an act of "omission" that is the same as directly bombing civilians? Sorry, that just isn't true.
Should not our main concern be how many civilian end up getting killed no matter what the methods?
When the Gulf War (first one) was going on in 1990 I asked a coworker what was so bad with Saddan killing his own citizens by "gas". How was it any worse than killing them with a bullet or any other means? In all cases he kills them.
I was totally shocked by my coworker's response. I knew he was an German immigrant but I had had not idea until that point that he had been in Dresden during our Fire Bombing of it! And, he then went on to describe all the horrors he saw and experienced while we were fire bombing his city.
You ask whether our "main concern" should be how many civilians end up dead. Maybe that should be, but the question at hand is who is a war criminal and who isn't. Take a homicide trial for example (I say "homicide" because all murders are homicides but not all homicides are murders). Let's say the possible outcomes from the jury are murder-1, murder-2, manslaughter, negligent homicide, and just plain accident.
In all those cases the victim is dead. Isn't that what we should care about? String up the guy! The other guy is dead and that's all that matters!
No, that's not how it works. Prosecuting a war of aggression and intentionally killing civilians in order to achieve your aims is murder-1. (Maybe -2?) "Not providing proper governance" is at worst negligent homicide.
However, I will continue to bring World War II in it and both of these conclude that we WERE guilty of war crimes. Pure acts of commission:
Was it a War Crime to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
http://discerninghistory.com/2016/10/wa ... -nagasaki/
Why Aren’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki War Crimes?
https://www.fff.org/2016/05/12/arent-hi ... ar-crimes/
I think the laws you describe above regarding homicide are far move developed and come into play far more than the laws of war crimes and how often they come into play. In the case of war crimes .... whether or not something is a war crime is often in the eyes of the beholder, i.e., whose side you are on and, most importantly, if you won that war.
... Mountaineer