You know what's a "folly"? Not recognizing your war crimes.
Agreed. We dont hear enough for the US to confess to its war crimes, many of which are still going on today.
See, that's the funny part: When the US bombs a hospital, it makes international headlines for at least a week. And the US acknowledges what happened. Same as when they accidentally shoot down a passenger plane.
In contrast, when russia shoots down a passenger plane, they deny that it even happened. And when they bomb a hospital, it's part of systematic hospital bombing campaigns like in syria or ukraine and they bomb one hospital every 2-3 days. And it doesn't make any headlines at all.
That's the difference between war crimes committed by the US and war crimes committed by, say, russia.
Do you mean like when Julian Assange published papers demonstrating that the US soldiers were killing civilians for fun and then they extradited him, imprisoned, also imprisoned Manning and wanted to keep everything a mistery?
Yeah man and now imagine if that shit happened every day in the Iraq war and nobody ever reported on it.
The US can't even fess up and and rectify the sysyemic violence happening domestically to its first nation people, blacks and people of colour. How about they begin there and then atone for what they've done to the rest of the world. Ukraine is a US proxy war with Russia. And war keeps the US rich and powerful. Couple that with a crumbling education system, social support and religion and you have a decent supply of young men and woment to enlist. Nobody outside the US would buy the nonsense you just spewed. Go pick your cherries elsewhere.
The US still hasn't acknowledged almost all of its warcrimes in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and regularly deploys tear gas against its own citizens.
Use of tear gas in domestic riot control is not a violation of the chemical weapons convention.
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria
- “Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
Is it bad when used unnecessarily, especially not with a riot? Yes. But to imply that the US is commiting a war crime by using it is misleading.
That's not what the OP said, though. They mentioned war crimes AND tear gas.
The US would be doing a war crime if they were enemy soldiers. The US doing it on civilians is even worse, despite not being a warcrime.
This is kind of how I think about it. Westerners are as full of shit as anybody but there's an interest in being the good guys, which is unique at the block-level in this century.
Yeah, what I know about Japan makes me think this is self-pity thinly disguised as humanitarianism.
Like, I agree that they shouldn't have been bombed, but I also think Hirohito and friends should have gotten the same treatment as top Nazis. Somehow I don't think these guys would like that position. Without reading this I bet they haven't really proposed an alternative to nuclear deterrence either.
It's something typical of the West.
Not really, we know and often discuss the bad shit we've done. The racists and bigots among us never want to talk about it though, so maybe that's who you're thinking of.
By and large, I would say this is not true. Ask any random folks who Pinochet and the Chicago Boys were, or ask about MKULTRA or COINTELPRO, or Operation Cóndor, and the best you're likely to get is a blank stare.
I think a most of the more terrible things the US has done is known by highly educated folks who were given the opportunities to learn them on specialized education tracks, but not by most folks on average, which really sucks =/
Shit, you can't even get a huge percentage of Americans to acknowledge crimes Republicans straight up admit to, nevermind asking them to acknowledge past crimes.
It's sadly typical of many countries but in some you can at least read about them.
Oh, OK, let's not go bringing up warcrimes on the anniversary that we unmade a city to prove a point.
Ww2 is over, let's try to move past it, we can bring all this shit up when someone tries to start ww3.
I'm pretty sure if we didn't have nuclear weapons at all generally, we'd be in a world war right now or a continent wide war at the very least so in that sense so far they have functioned as a deterrent. Whether that's any consolation for Ukranians is doubtful
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Some have criticised the film for largely ignoring the weapons' destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - bombed three days later, on Aug. 9, 1945.
Also causing controversy in Japan, the distributor of "Barbie", a blockbuster released on the same day as "Oppenheimer", latched on to fan-produced "Barbenheimer" memes that depicted the actors in the title roles alongside images of nuclear blasts.
Hiroshima was in the spotlight in May, where Prime Minister Fumio Kishida hosted a G7 summit in the western city, his home constituency.
G7 leaders issued a statement expressing their commitment to achieving disarmament but said that as long as nuclear weapons existed, they should serve to deter aggression and prevent war.
About 50,000 participants in the outdoor memorial ceremony including ageing survivors observed a moment of silence, with the summer heat hitting 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit)
"World leaders have visited this city, seen its monuments, spoken with its brave survivors, and emerged emboldened to take up the cause of nuclear disarmament," he said in remarks read by a U.N. representative.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I've found the past few years that I haven't been aware of significant dates as they approach and pass by. Hiroshima day, Pearl Harbor day, Kent State day have all surprised me recently. Not sure if it's getting older or a sign of how ridiculous shit has gotten.
It's the last one. If you remembered every sad day, it would be every day.
Isn't nuclear deterrence preventing the use of nukes, tho? 🤔 I mean, it does this by having nukes around to launch because the threat is "you launch yours, we launch ours and everybody dies. Do you wanna die? No? Then don't launch a nuke." But it seems to be effective. No one outside of Japan when nukes first came out has ever been nuked by another country.
The only way we will ever remove nuclear weapons will be when we remove the threat from invasive and terrorist actions of other countries. We need an international force that is set up just to protect the status quo of borders around the world. With that we also need an answer to terrorism from foreign states. As soon as you make it impossible for an invasion to take place then you can guarantee that some states will head straight to terrorist acts for intimidation. Until all countries sign up to this, we must keep the deterrent.
Imagine how could be saved if we removed the need to spend on defence. Currently we spend $2.2t across the world on killing each other. It is a shocking waste.
Sure... as if there will be anyone who escalates with nuclear weapons against teerorists ever.
Or in other words: never.
I don't know. I am confident that money will find a way. Look at the cost of the Ukraine war on China as well as Russia. It is in no one's financial interests to commit to a war these days. Putin is indicative of the world's weak spot. When individuals use their state for personal gain, everyone looses. If the world used a combined effort to prevent invasions by forcefully pushing invaders back into their countries, then even these types of actors can be neutered.
How would you prevent the US from doing such things? That would mean turning Europe against its biggest ally and it's not something I see feasible, giving they are the country that most wars and invasions has caused, and the fact that throughout history Europe hasn't done anything to prevent such things tells me it's not something that's going to change. Your example only works because it's a common enemy for both the US and Europe.
Well unless all sign up to it then it would not happen. In other words, you won't.
How have nuclear weapons helped us against invasive and terrorist actions?
Has it somehow stopped conflicts between major powers (NATO, Russia, China)? No more than would be expected from countries that don't really order each other and aren't pursuing aggressive territorial expansion that threaten each other.
Has it ended all wars? Obviously not, given that Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all happened.
Has a nuclear deterrent made nations more peaceful? No, but globalization has.
A nuclear deterrent exists solely to discourage other nuclear-bearing countries from trying to cripple you. The only steady-state for this is that everyone who is under threat by a nuclear-bearing country will eventually develop nuclear weapons.
In recent history: the Americans because of the Nazis, the Soviets because of the Americans, the British because of the Soviets, the French because of the Soviets (and, to some degree, the British), the Chinese because of the Americans AND the Soviets (they really got unlucky here), the Israelis because of literally everyone (extra unlucky), the Indians because of the Chinese, the Pakistanis is because of the Indians, and the North Koreans because of the Americans. And of course, today Iran is trying to build up a nuclear arsenal to combat Israel's nuclear arsenal.
All your policy will do is incentivize everyone to develop nuclear weapons.
I really do not understand your comments? I am in favour of removing nuclear weapons. I also understand why we cannot without a unilateral understanding among all nations.
What is very obvious is that if we do not move in that direction, then some clown will learn how to make them, and then we will have a nuclear war.
Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they're afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you're North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).
Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.
Or you know they could just stop trying to grab more land. At the end of the day that is the solution we all want.
Protecting the territorial sovereignty of countries internationally would have prevented Iraq and Afghanistan. It would stop Israeli efforts in the West Bank. It would block the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. It would block the skirmishes between India and China as well as India and Pakistan. It would have blocked NATO intervention into the Yugoslav crisises until international consensus could be reached. Borders are constantly in a state of flux and the international community almost never reaches full consensus.
Borders are not immutable objects, particularly for ethnically-unified countries. For Yugoslavia, the borders were carved into ethnic groups. For Ukraine, the borders are being carved into Russian and Ukrainian areas. For Israel, the borders are constantly being expanded for one particular ethnic group. As long as there are ethnic boundaries, there will be conflict between them. That's what makes us human. We are not a single entity; we have hundreds of distinct and unique cultures and languages and foods.
NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian conflict was humanitarian only. They were criticised for not participating to stop massacres that they witnessed.
Civil wars would be a difficult one. They would probably have to enforce the right to self determination, but even then cases like Israel complicates even this.
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc