Jump to content

War crime ?


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems we've had more of the usual hand wringing in Parliament about the bombing of civilians in Aleppo, but what exactly do the bleeding hearts propose ?   Set up a no fly zone, shoot down Russian planes, then they shoot down ours, leading to escalation and WW3?   Then we've got the issue of hypocracy, from the RAF area bombing of German cities in WW2; to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the carpet bombing of N/Vietnam to the shock and awe over Bagdad. People in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard it Alg, but I'm afraid such realistic appraisals aren't part of the modern PC mentality; which is why, in the second gulf war, the US fostered the myth of precise munitions, to fool the public into the belief that civilians weren't involved in "shock and awe".  Since then, we've been weaned on the idea that precise targeting of a house by drones can eliminate an individual terrorists, but doesn't mention any women and children present in that house. In an effort to sanitize war, the bleeding hearts have made it more acceptable. It's only after unleashing the beast, that the politicians seek to apportion blame, even to those who were duty bound to carry out their bidding.  As Gen Le May USAF said, after ordering the fire bombings of Tokyo (killing over 80,000 civilians) and other Japanese cities; " if we lose this war, they'll hang me for war crimes". The winner writes the history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I agree with your latter post Obs, however (there is always a "however") in war as the General intimated their has to be a winner and in the heat of the battle I'm afraid the rules of engagement go out of the window, the guy that plays fair will be applauded for his conduct but may very well be the loser, homo sapiens natural instinct is to win and survive by any means, Neanderthals lost out to Homo Sapiens in the battle to survive because they were not clever enough to adapt and we have not changed regarding our attitude to survival in the last 45,000 years or so, and in my opinion nor should we!.


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't dispute that Alg; my point being that the more violent and horrific that war is, maybe the less likely we would wish to engage in it. I think it was Gen Robert E Lee who said " it's good that war is so horrible, otherwise men may grow too fond of it". So the bleeding heart nonsense over Aleppo and the Western hypocracy alleging "war crimes"; is merely an attempt to sanitize war and by so doing, make it more acceptable. With thousands of ICBMs lined up to eliminate mankind from the earth; every Nation with Nuclear Weapons could arguably be charged with intent to commit a war crime. The only time we'll get some resolution in Syria is when one side wins the war, the sooner this happens, the less folk will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War has been part of life on earth since the world was created.  There, apparently, will always be an aggressor, for whatever reason and for civilization to survive, there has to be a responder. 

The problem is, that in the final analysis, there is no real alternative to war that can possibly succeed.   If your house is invaded by cockroaches you have no other option than to kill them, you can't talk to them or reason with them or trust them, so what options do you have if you want to survive - succumb or fight.

All wars are started, for a variety of reasons, by factions of people with the mentality of cockroaches, Viking pillagers, Nazis, Islamic radicals etc. They have to be treated as vermin and destroyed, any other mindset is a fantasy.  So like it or not, want it or not you have a war.   

Once you have a war you have to do everything to win it and if you let fairness, PC or scruples dictate your plans, you will lose.  Once the die has been cast, people are going to die, accept it, so win it and win it fast.    In a match  between a Marquis of Queensberry boxer and an 'ultimate fighter' who do you think would win?  I'll give you a clue, one will play by the rules and one won't.

Progress has made the consequences of war more problematic, but it has still not offered the world a viable alternative, it is still stand and face up or be eradicated.

The action taken against the Japanese ended the war and saved more lives than it took, a 'boots on the ground' invasion alone would have cost more lives than were lost with the bomb and the war would have gone on killing for several more years.

 

Sad news, I finally sold my motorcycle (pictured above) yesterday.   I had gotten to the point where it took me longer to unstiffen my joints when I got off, than the time I been on the ride !!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Hi Tex, been a while ! I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument; there is a certain inevitability of conflict in a world of competing interests. My point is however, that we now have a school of thought that promotes the idea, that we are some kind of global family (humanity), with a right to roam in pursuit of a better life, without any recognition of the inevitable indigenous reaction to territorial encroachment. Throw in religious and cultural differences, and you have a recipe for social conflict. As you will know, the immigration into Texas by US immigrants, gave rise to a demand for Independence from Mexico, which was resolved by war; now the immigrants are coming in the other direction ! At the other end of spectrum you have naïve and incompetent Governments fostering ideas of human rights, most often hypocritically, who stumble into conflicts, then try to sanitize the resultant wars with rules of engagement. It's a rather depressing thought that the globalisation genie is now out of the bottle and will ultimately lead to WW3 and the extinction of civilization.   :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we can now see how the West responds to besieging ISIL: The Iraqi Army, supported by Western airpower (incl: the RAF), are in the process of surrounding Mosul. They are leaving an avenue of escape for civilians BUT, the problem is (as with Aleppo) that ISIL are preventing "civilians" from leaving, thus using them as human shields (as in Aleppo). So, we're about to see how the West, unlike the Russians, can target "precision munitions" that will kill ISIL troops, whilst completely avoiding civilian casualties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Obs, forgot that I posted and only just remembered !!!!!    Old age, what can I say.   Glad to see that you are still flying the forum flag high, if all posters were as civilized  as  you and a couple of others, I would still be posting regularly.

It seems that we agree on the principles re; the need for, but not desirability of  war, General Patton and president Theodore Roosevelt understood the situation and how to handle it  - 'speak softly and carry a big stick', but unfortunately that basic logic has been lost, due to the PC maniacs and the bleeding heart, dumbass people like the so called human rights activists and the rest of the do-gooders.  Before you say it, Patton lost a lot of his credibility with his failure to recognize the effects of modern warfare on the regular soldiers, however, it doesn't change the fact that he was a tactical genius.

Most aggressors are supported by their followers, but  when those followers get taken out, they accept no blame and claim collateral damage status and the liberals support that.

Right now Hillary Clinton is openly admitting that she will promote an open borders policy.  How dumb is that in these times?  Almost as dumb as smoking!!!!!

Agree entirely, Obama's rules of engagement have effectively neutered most of the mid-east campaign - if it can be called a campaign.   How dumb are these politicians?   Defended safe zones in Syria would have almost completely nullified the refugee problem in Europe.  Any person not taking advantage of the safe zones, could be then identified as a possible terrorist and dealt with.

Maybe you and I should be running the world !!!!   Hope Kilje doesn't see that !!!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately Tex, our political and media systems have been completely taken over by PC enterists; creating a parallel universe between them and the Plebs.  The latest one over here, is the "rescue" of "children" from the migrant camp in Calais; after lobbying by the bleeding heart HR Brigade led by Church Leaders. Now, suddenly, someone's noticed that many of these "kids" look older than 18, so they're now talking about tests on their teeth to establish their age - you couldn't make it up !  With over 10,000 economic chancers, all refusing to apply for asylum in France because they want to get to the UK, one would have thought any rational Government would get a grip and start deporting them; but no, we have weak PC Governments in the West and the migrants are playing them for all it's worth. As for the shambles in Syria; your right, a rational strategy would have been the creation of "safe zones" to house displaced refugees; whilst all efforts were made against ISIL and any of their fellow travellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last point Obs, Everyone is entitled to an opinion and mine is based on sixty years of observation. Dogooders think with their emotions and not with their heads, that wasn't a problem twenty years ago, but in today's world it,s a receipe for disaster. Also I believe that most of them are involved, not o help the so called oppressed, but simply to make themsfelves feel good and to let them feel suprerior to us mere mortals, regardless of the consequences of their pseudo concern, that's why I label them dumbasses. Finally, can someone give me three examples of when diplomacy worked?.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

,, and now we have the latest fuss over the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad:  what's the difference if your killed by gas or a bullet. bomb or nuke; your still dead.  The US and UK stocklpiles of NBC agents, have enough to wipe us all out three times over, and we have the nerve to criticise their use. First rate hypocracy and more attempts to sanitize war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the strength & integrity of a country is in its choice not to use those weapons .Any tin pot dictator can murder his own people with awful weapons but the major powers in the world know they have a responsibility to lead by example. The real villains of the piece in the Syria crisis are the members of the UN for not insisting that the situation in Syria will not be tolerated......if reason will not be listened to then force must be used to instigate regime change for the greater good of the region.

Perhaps one of the main stumbling blocks to that train of thought & action within the UN is that many of its member states are not much different from Assad's regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case a draft resolution appears to have been vetoed by Russia because it is claimed it relied on false evidence. It seems odd because they were receiving a report from their own UN peacekeepers and observers. The last attempt at a resolution was blocked by Russia and China. The Security council is a small group with five permanent members but it is they who authorises miltary action by the UN or member states (i.e. all means necessary). The average undeveloped democracy doesn't get to make much impact, it is certainly not OMOV in the UN other than the general assemply which is why it doesn't  have serious matters addressed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obs,

The reason it matters is that WMDs act upon civilians indiscriminately. Such acts of violence against civilians are prohibited in Conflicts internal to a state by  Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on War of 1949. Errors in shooting the wrong person can always be claimed with rifles and bombs but never with WMDs by their very nature. So use of WMDs against civilians in a civil war is a War Crime. I have no idea who has stockpiles but using them is going past the point of no-return for a country like ours or the US it would be have to be armageddon. Because of that distinction, what we do and what countries like Syria do cannot be treated as morally equal. The self-evident truth that for an individual who dies the means may not seem important does not remove the equal truth that international law, and as a result potential conflict, does assume that it matters rather a great deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it seems we really do have a psychopath in the White House after all.  The arrogance and hypocracy of the only Nation to have ever used Nukes in anger, used chemical agents in Viet-Nam, unilaterally launching $60million worth of missiles on the basis of unproven evidence, without any international legal sanction, against a target that could involve the second largest nuclear power; should make us all very afraid.  I've no doubt Confused, that you are perfectly correct in quoting contravention of the Geneva Convention as a "war crime"; my view is that such conventions are merely attempts to legitimise and sanitize war in the first place, and in practical terms are as nonsensical as not being allowed to clean my bayonet with brasso.  It's quite possible imo, that the chemical agents were in rebel storage as the Russians claim, and the whole incident is being played by the rebels to bring the US in on their side; as they are clearly losing the fight.  But this latest US reaction takes events to a new level, and we should all be very afraid, and hope that some sense of sanity prevails before matters escalate out of control.  Dave, if Nations have such weapons, they will eventually be used in desperation; and were used in anger by the US to save an estimated million casualties in the invasion of Japan.  As for the UN, the built in veto by the super-powers, means it is no more than a political play thing and impotent in it's intended task. The idea of "regime change" is to ignore recent attempts by the West in Iraq and Afghanistan, which merely proves the futility of such interventions. The loss of strong Dictators in countries with under developed democracies, has merely unleashed the new phenomenon of backward religious extremism and worldwide terrorism.  Civil wars have always been the most destructive in terms of per capita loss of life; and the idea that Syria could have some kind of E/European style velvet revolution, was simply naïve, given the history of Assad and his father.  So, unless the emotion is extinguished, and sanity returns;  we may all have to put our head between our legs, and kiss our arse good-bye.      :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all super powers are adult enough to shy away from war, brinksmanship is their limit these days,knowing that a proxy war is sufficient ,letting minor countries suffer the consequences in the full knowledge that real power is in their hands in terms of superior weapons that only they control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe in the days of the cold war Dave, with clear spheres of influence in a two sided contest; alas we now have a third factor in the equation ISIL and a multi-factional dimension in Syria itself; which makes calculations much more complicated and unpredictable. We also, as has now been shown, have a US President reacting at an emotional level and totally contrary to his  election pledge to co-operate with the Russians against ISIS. The agreement with the Russians to avoid accidental aircraft encounters has been suspended, AA missile systems deployed and a Russian warship despatched to the area.  With a clearly unstable Commander in Chief, anything could happen in a tit for tat wargame, in a world where events are being dictated by emotional images on twitter.  NB. Five kids were allegedly killed by the US strike, but as that was HE rather than chemical agents, I guess it's OK.  Once the toys are taken out of the box, they will probably get used.    :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I've reached the stage where I don't believe anything that is claimed by anybody :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...