War crimes and ICC should we punish soldiers on our own side who do war crimes?

[King Arts]

I am willing to concede when I am wrong. And some of the stuff does give me pause. Like 4 which could be used to ban deportation, 5 which could lead to the crazy idea to abolish prisons, and 10 which might prevent banning abortion.
Ok you are right, I thought that the limit was just war crimes, and genocide. In light of this I am against joining up with it.

Though even so most of Europe are able to join it and not be forced to do wokeism. It's the EU that forces migrants on people not the ICC.

Are you saying there was no warrant for Bush, or Obama?


That's how you seem to act, you support wars against China, Russia, the middle east, Africa. Is there any nation you would be against the US invading besides Poland?


So leftists will just win since they will get the power you are too scared to get and use?


You have this American conservative fear of power. It's the same reason many support "small government" you've even defended this idea in the past. You say "Oh we shouldn't do this or create this power because it will be used against us, it's illegitimate!" So then that lets the liberals create it and shape it how they want. We can see this with how federal police agencies and federal central power and strong central standing armies work. Those who have control of them are in charge, and the small government types who decry the DEA, ATF, FBI as illegitimate don't do anything since they can't stop it.


Oh and your ideas about "not giving a fuck about those who are practically dead" is the same type of buffoonery that allows libeals to win and get away with everything. No don't get revenge, no they lost power blah blah blah. It's because of ideas like yours that leftists like Stalin were able to win and die of natural causes.



Because the constitution has left a big fucking hole that protects Bush, Obama, Biden, etc. and all other corrupt politicians so that we no longer are in a democracy or Republic but an oligarchy. It's because of this that an update is needed.


So if they are a threat, then they are either a peer, or near peer power. If you are able to be a threat to someone instead of a minor nuisance then you are a peer. A peer does not mean you are equally strong. It just means you are on the same or similar level.


Fair enough thats why I retracted my statement for the ICC. If we do a deportation we should be able to do it without getting blindsided by foreign rivals.


What is wrong with that? Diden't you say we "took care of our own war crime trials" If so then you should have no problem with that. Fuck any soldier that was involved in civilian deaths they are a dishonorable piece of shit and don't deserve respect or "being thanked for their service" You aren't servicing me by killing civilians, and women and children. I receive no benefit from that flat out, this is ignoring the moral objection but flat out I get no benefit.

@Zachowon There I made a sepeate thead and just copy pasted my last post.

 

[Zachowon]

So if they are a threat, then they are either a peer, or near peer power. If you are able to be a threat to someone instead of a minor nuisance then you are a peer. A peer does not mean you are equally strong. It just means you are on the same or similar level.

They are a threat and a near peer due to economic and nukes.
Thier military can be classified as that but...yeah untested

Fair enough thats why I retracted my statement for the ICC. If we do a deportation we should be able to do it without getting blindsided by foreign rivals.

It is our nation. Other nations should have no control over it.

What is wrong with that? Diden't you say we "took care of our own war crime trials" If so then you should have no problem with that. Fuck any soldier that was involved in civilian deaths they are a dishonorable piece of shit and don't deserve respect or "being thanked for their service" You aren't servicing me by killing civilians, and women and children. I receive no benefit from that flat out, this is ignoring the moral objection but flat out I get no benefit.

Hey, question.
How can you tell a terrorist from a civilian?
Hint, you can't. Because even them having a gun doesn't make a diffrence in some countries. How can you tell the bundle the woman is carrying is a baby or a bomb? What about thier phones? Could they be IED triggers?
Welcome to COIN....it isn't easy to discerne who is who.

You are also basically saying every bomber crew in WW2 should be tried for war crimes? The enola gay crew?
How can I be sure a city is clear of civilians before I arty it? Should I just not and let the adversary bombard me with artillery from impunity?

Civilian deaths happen in war. Welcome to combat, it's Grey as fuck.
Sorry to say we can't have civilians be 100 percent protected in war. You do not understand how war works and it shows

 

[King Arts]

They are a threat and a near peer due to economic and nukes.
Thier military can be classified as that but...yeah untested

Ok so that’s what I said why’d you laugh then you are conceding that China is a near peer and threat.

It is our nation. Other nations should have no control over it.

The ICC is not a nation. If you were German or Japanese would you be pissed off at the Americans for trying your war criminals?

Hey, question.
How can you tell a terrorist from a civilian?
Hint, you can't. Because even them having a gun doesn't make a diffrence in some countries. How can you tell the bundle the woman is carrying is a baby or a bomb? What about thier phones? Could they be IED triggers?
Welcome to COIN....it isn't easy to discerne who is who.

You are also basically saying every bomber crew in WW2 should be tried for war crimes? The enola gay crew?
How can I be sure a city is clear of civilians before I arty it? Should I just not and let the adversary bombard me with artillery from impunity?

Civilian deaths happen in war. Welcome to combat, it's Grey as fuck.
Sorry to say we can't have civilians be 100 percent protected in war. You do not understand how war works and it shows

Well that’s a false equivalence. There is a difference gunning down unarmed civilians that you have already vetted, and raping women children or prisoners,. That’s pretty fucking obvious, and accidentally killing someone.

Also France and the UK have active militaries that go out and fight and they aren’t hamstrung by the ICC.

 

[Zachowon]

Ok so that’s what I said why’d you laugh then you are conceding that China is a near peer and threat.

It isn't in the reason I laugh at it.
Military wise they are not.
We treat them that way to be the best at what we do.

The ICC is not a nation. If you were German or Japanese would you be pissed off at the Americans for trying your war criminals?

Yes.
The ICC is a conglomeration of nations working together

Well that’s a false equivalence. There is a difference gunning down unarmed civilians that you have already vetted, and raping women children or prisoners,. That’s pretty fucking obvious, and accidentally killing someone.

And how many times have the US military nit punished those who committed such atrocities that arnt casualties of war?

Also France and the UK have active militaries that go out and fight and they aren’t hamstrung by the ICC.

Because they are also tiny and in Europe? And France has basically been going around it and the UK are goody two shoes

 

[King Arts]

It isn't in the reason I laugh at it.
Military wise they are not.
We treat them that way to be the best at what we do.

Yes their military is untested so it has no experience and their quality is probably not good. But they do have numbers so a war with them won’t be an easy walk in the park.

Yes

Yes lol? So you think it would be reasonable for Germans or Japs to tell you to fuck off out of their country and hold a grudge?

And how many times have the US military nit punished those who committed such atrocities that arnt casualties of war?

My Lai massacre - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That’s a pretty big one one guy can’t kill 500 people. He also did not even get the death penalty.

Also even in the Iraq and Afghan war there were crimes. Don’t lie and pretend the army doesn’t look the other way to protect itself.

Because they are also tiny and in Europe? And France has basically been going around it and the UK are goody two shoes

They aren’t tiny they are average sized nations and they are involved in wars quite often.

 

[Zachowon]

Yes their military is untested so it has no experience and their quality is probably not good. But they do have numbers so a war with them won’t be an easy walk in the park.

We arnt going to invade China.
Thier numbers mean jack shit then.

Yes lol? So you think it would be reasonable for Germans or Japs to tell you to fuck off out of their country and hold a grudge?

Yes. They won't though. Japan is VERY close partner and Germany uses us to help bolster thie defenses.

My Lai massacre - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That’s a pretty big one one guy can’t kill 500 people. He also did not even get the death penalty.

He told the soldiers too, and though "following orders" is not a viable defense, you can blame Nixon for that.

but then again, plentybof POW killings haopend in WW2 but they arnt talked about because revenge killings and its war.
this definitely didnt help the destruction of VC though

Also even in the Iraq and Afghan war there were crimes. Don’t lie and pretend the army doesn’t look the other way to protect itself.

Okay...every crime I know committed in ME by the US had someone or someones, punished.

They aren’t tiny they are average sized nations and they are involved in wars quite often.

France isn't tiny but they also are not the size of the US with the same stigma. They can get away with more as they are still technically a colonial empire....
UK jist stopped doing much with thier military

 

[Doomsought]

The biggest misconception about war crimes is that they are crimes. They cannot be crimes, because crime is a matter of law and war is above the law. The law is written by the victor.

War crimes are actually a framework do describe the intersection of three things:
Military discipline, Politics, and Revenge

A soldiery that are not disciplined will not follow orders, and instead look after their own profit in war, taking spoils and what not.

To win a war does not mean to destroy an enemy, but to bring them to surrender, this is where the politics come in. You must sail between scylla and charybdis by being brutal enough in war that the enemy fears to prolong the war, while not being so brutal that the enemy will prolong the war out of spite and the need to take revenge at the cost of their own lives.

Finally revenge, after a war is complete, the victor will want to take revenge on members of the enemy soldiery that were especially brutal- this is where the war crimes tribunal come in. However there is a caveat to this, if the soldiers know you will kill them in revenge they will not surrender. Thus you need to set some standards so they know you won't arbitrarily kill all captured soldiers, only those that were especially brutal. This is where the defense of Et Tu comes in, because a large part of establishing these standards is by acting them out.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

As far as the ICC, hell no, not just hell no but fuck the ICC, their political masters and anyone who supports them.

“Votes do not matter, the people who count the votes matter”.
Well the ICC created themselves, elected themselves, and empowered themselves. The ICC is a joke, and all the propaganda in the world will not give them the power to judge me or mine.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Honestly, they should not only abolish the ICC, but the ICJ as well. War crimes often happen, and war is a good excuse to actually destroy one's enemies entirely.