Extremely rare mythical America W

Common America L*

Your country only withdrew so as to avoid being held responsible for the unbelievable number of war crimes they're responsible for. I guess you can't really be part of a so-called humanitarian org when you install Fascist dictators in South America, prop up drug lords, allow bribes for your politicians, drone strike children, prop up multiple genocidal regimes in the Middle East and commit acts of torture on your own prisoners and POWs on a regular basis.

But I guess there's some virtue to be had in putting your own national interest before any so-called human rights if your government deems it is necessary. Depends.

No, failing to join the ICC was a mistake, and still is.

If other Americans are out there in the world committing war crimes, I want them held accountable. If you’re an enemy of humanity, then you’re no countryman of mine.

If American soldiers get their hands dirty and fight the enemy so that you can sleep soundly at night and walk the streets safely, then I'm sure you're no countrymen of their either.

How exactly do you think your empire is the strongest in the world? If it weren't for those war criminals you despise so much America would be nothing more than a backwater relegated to nothing more than a mid regional power. If what you're saying is that you want American supremacy to end an your nation to cease to be a superpower then you and I have something to agree with.

False choice: Committing war crimes isn’t necessary for having a country or a military, or for winning a war.

Troops who “get their hands dirty” should face a military tribunal or an international court. War is not or should not be completely lawless, it ought to proceed according to minimal rules of civilized engagement such as “don’t rape,” “don’t kidnap,” “don’t bomb the church shelter full of children.”

You side with the Russian school of thought that seems to think that strength derives from brutality.

I’m of the school of thought that says soldiers who are undisciplined, allowed to rape locals at will, pillage and plunder with abandon, and stick babies on bayonets aren’t likely to remain cohesive fighting forces in the long run (or achieve strategic objectives) (and certainly not diplomatic ones).

You really went off the deep end there to make that point. But I'll clear up some confusion you have.

>Troops who “get their hands dirty” should face a military tribunal or an international court. War is not or should not be completely lawless, it ought to proceed according to minimal rules of civilized engagement such as “don’t rape,” “don’t kidnap,” “don’t bomb the church shelter full of children.”

I never said it should nor implied that I agree with lawless brutality.

>You side with the Russian school of thought that seems to think that strength derives from brutality.

Strength derives from might, not just brutality alone.

>I’m of the school of thought that says soldiers who are undisciplined, allowed to rape locals at will, pillage and plunder with abandon, and stick babies on bayonets aren’t likely to remain cohesive fighting forces in the long run (or achieve strategic objectives) (and certainly not diplomatic ones).

This is where you went to an extreme that undermines your argument. Nothing you just mentioned has any relevance to combat, those crimes you describe are not tactics but barbarism. If you are trying to imply that I agree that the above mentioned crimes should be acceptable then you have seriously misjudged my outlook. I stand firmly against such barbarism and find such conduct a betrayal of a soldiers sacred duty to protect civilians from harm.
The 'war crimes' I think should be acceptable are related to combat and anyone engaged in active fighting so long as they haven't already surrendered or are in the process of surrendering. If you think I belie that brutality is a way to run a war then you have proven that you fundamentally do not understand my worldview and fill any gaps in your understanding of me with pure conjecture, portraying me a a barbarian and a thug in order to dehumanise me which is something you have a history of doing with your rivals. Weather you realise it or not you have years of patterns of behavior that suggest your vicious underlying hatred of those you deem your rivals and invent worst-case scenarios of the people in which you dehumanise. You can deny it but it's clear that you are a more brutal and vicious individual than me and subconsciously or not you are projecting this internal brutality onto an invented image of me.

Okay. You say I mischaracterize your views: you can speak for yourself, of course. But what other conclusion am I supposed to draw regarding someone who cheerleads the Russian invasion of Ukraine every single day?

Let’s review just some of the lowlights that have made this Russo-Ukrainian war especially brutal:

—Bucha and other civilian mass-grave sites in Ukraine left behind by retreating Russians;
—Russian missiles and artillery shells fired, with apparent deliberate intent, at maternity wards, playgrounds, etc.;
—Russian targeting of Ukrainian infrastructure deep behind the war’s front lines, inflicting cruelty on civilians with little strategic point;
—Disrupting and shutting down Red Cross-organized humanitarian corridors out of occupied or soon-to-be occupied areas (like Mariupol);
—The abductions and forcible relocations of Ukrainians, including Ukrainian children;
—The overarching fact that this Russian invasion is an unauthorized war of aggression, which is the ultimate war crime, as it’s the war crime from which all other war crimes flow.

All of this is to say nothing about the human rights violations Putin’s regime is committing against Russians themselves: like the assassinations of insufficiently “pro-war” Russians (including Russians hunted down within other countries’ borders); the draft; the jailing of protestors; the new Russian speech codes that restrict internet access to dissenting views and criminalize citizens from talking plainly about this war as a war; the crackdown on the last remnants of free press and NGOs.

The main defense of Russia’s conduct seems to boil down to “but Ukrainian Nazis!”

—Like all good propaganda, this has a shred of truth, though they’re not a large or powerful group. The biggest, the Azov Battalion, wasn’t formed until *after* Russia invaded Ukraine the first time in 2014. Azov isn’t invading other countries, or launching terrorist strikes around the world, but instead is a territorial self-defense unit.

—Furthermore, “Nazis” can be found in every European country, including Russia itself, where many have been recruited into Wagner Group. Does that justify Russia using its own Nazis in a campaign to “denazify” Europe, perhaps all the way to Lisbon? Sorry, it’s absurd. The fact Russia’s neighbor has a “Nazi problem” that Russia created, while Russia also has a Nazi problem and indeed hires and promotes Nazis, isn’t a pretext for war.