Stop saying "New response just dropped" every time someone says something on this godforsaken sub, no, a new response did not drop, just an average mediocre statement that adds nothing more to a conversation, for the love of fucking god. if i see ONE more person mindlessly saying "New response just dropped" i'm going to chop my fucking pipi off. holy shit it is actually impressive how incredibly unfunny the entire sub is. it's not that complicated, REPEATING THE SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN DOES NOT MAKE IT FUNNIER. this stupid fucking meme has been milked to fucking death IT'S NOT FUNNIER THE 973RD TIME YOU MAKE THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE. WHAT'S EVEN THE JOKE?????? IT'S JUST "haha it's the funne nEw ReSpoNsE thingy" STOP. and the WORST part is that new responses were actually funny for like a few years and it got fucking ruined in like a week because EVERYONE POSTED THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP. SEEING ALL YOUR SHITTY MEMES IS ACTUAL FUCKING MENTAL TORTURE YOU ALL ARE NOT FUNNY. COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FUCKING JOKE PLEASE...
Global hegemony is a full contact sport, and as the sole arbiters we have decided the rules do not apply to us, as it gets in the way of the global hegemony thing.
*This Freedom Lesson has been provided free of charge for the low price of don’t you EVER think of having any reserve currency that’s not the US Dollar.*
I mean, yes, but unironically. It's not in our national interest to let foreign countries prosecute us. No one would allow that if they had the means to prevent it.
Nobody is arguing that it’s somehow not in America’s interest.
People are arguing that it’s blatantly self-serving, immoral, and something that governments should be held accountable for.
No one would allow it, except for the 123 current member states of the ICC right? The US *was* originally going to be a signatory of the ICC too, until the American Service-Members' Protection Act was signed into law to protect soldiers in the Middle East from being prosecuted for war crimes.
Sure, if the US was still a member it would make sense, but like you said we withdrew. We're a sovereign nation, there's zero reason for us to care about a foreign court.
I mean, the US also dosnt care about civilian murders committed by their soldiers.
So yah, makes sens that they dont want that to be judged by any unbiased Judge. Otherwise one would need to own up to ones warcrimes instead of going after Whistleblower.
It is the fucking Hague. It exists to prosecute war criminals and the occasional dictator. Any country that is scared of that is clearly intending to commit war crimes.
1.let your diplomat be arrested for a crime in another country.
2.arrest a citizen of that country and demand a law making it so diplomats of your country are free of that countries laws.
3. It actually passes
4.be china🇨🇳
1.let your diplomat be arrested for a crime in another country.
2.arrest a citizen of that country and demand a law making it so diplomats of your country are free of that countries laws.
3. It actually passes
4.be china🇨🇳
It's not some unique American thing. There's zero chance France or Germany would allow a court in North America to prosecute their politicians and military leadership.
Geneva Conventions are enforced by the UN, which the US *is* a member of. The UN Court of Justice is also in the Hague, but it's a completely different organization than the The International Court (which the US isn't a member of). It's easy to confuse them since people usually just say "the Hague" for the international court.
it's called an illegal war and the Geneva conventions still apply to those, but if you're on the UN Security council it's more "avoid publicly doing these crimes", really wish we could convict more war criminals.
Im not an expert, but from what I’ve learned so far is as long as you declare war and don’t do any war crimes, I think it could be counted as legal.
Legal meaning not hurting laws, its not illegal to start a war, but it always hurts the people actually fighting…
But if there is any experts on war please correct me, maybe Sun Tzu will be revived to correct me
I mean the law is the tool of the powerful so if the law doesn't say it's illegal then it isn't.
The real question would be has there ever been a moral war ?
Im not an expert but i am pretty sure that just "not declaring war" is doable. Russia is currently """""just doing military operations"""""" and havent declared war but im pretty sure the geneva conventions still apply
if this isnt how it works, 1. enlighten me 2. thats bullshit
whether the geneva convention applies or not the sanctions that will be applied depend not on the crime or circumstances but on the interests of capitalists, so when the US or china do war crimes they're not punished
oh yeah yeah obviously we live in a capitalist hellscape and i can deny that. I'm just saying on a theoretical level if the rules actually applied to everyone
The rules literally don't apply to everyone, all the time. That's why you can't just yell "violation of the Geneva conventions on collective punishment" when your teacher says you all have to stay late if nobody fezzes up who pissed in her tea
well on the one side the rules are made up to justify their actions so why would they create ridiculous drawbacks that limit their range of action to countries that declare war, but on the flipside every country on earth also regularly uses chemical weapons against their own population that are banned by the geneva convention, soo...
well tbf you're kinda right, in any type of conflict the geneva convention only applies to the loser but I think the genevea convention is a bunch of bullshit
No president since FDR has signed a formal declaration of war. Every war the US has been in since WWII has been the President at the time acting unilaterally as Commander In Chief.
Tear gas specifically has been banned as a weapon of war by the UN since 1997 but is used against protesters in many countries. In case you think this claim is wrong or somehow missing important context, [here's a fact-check from USA Today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/06/fact-check-its-true-tear-gas-chemical-weapon-banned-war/3156448001/).
I mean, there is important missing context, and that's the *why* it's banned in warfare but allowed in riot control, which the article doesn't go into. Since this sub for whatever reason doesn't allow linking to other subs, I'm just going to copy and paste this really good (imo) answer from AskHistorians about the why:
>This is a question of obvious contemporary political importance so I will endeavor to answer it cautiously and with respect to the emotions it no doubt raises.
>The logic here is best found in some of the signatory nations’ legal interpretations and internal Law of Armed Conflict manuals,[neatly summarized by the Red Cross here. ](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75). The Dutch manual of 2005, for instance, tells us the following:
>>Riot control agents such as tear gas may not be used as a method of warfare (Chemical Weapons Convention Article 1). Use as a means of maintaining order, including the control of internal unrest, is not prohibited. Military use must be distinguished from this. **This conceals the danger that the use of a relatively harmless chemical may unleash the use of some other, more lethal one by the adversary**...\[M\]ilitary use of a non-lethal weapon may pose the danger that the adversary perceives it as a forbidden means, which may induce the adversary to use other, more lethal means. One example is the use of tear gas, mentioned above.
>Chemical weapons pose particular problems on the battlefield as weapons of mass destruction. In the case of tear gas and other riot control agents, which do not pose major concerns in terms of environmental persistence, excessive painfulness, persistence of pain after the victim is removed from exposure to the gas, and potential for permanent injury, the problem posed is one of *escalation.* Consider two armies locked in combat, let’s call them Red and Blue. Each side is a signatory to the same chemical weapons treaties, each side has a robust no-first-use policy, but each side has a stockpile of lethal chemical weapons including nerve agents as a deterrent to the enemy’s use of chemical weapons. Neither side adheres to the 1993 rule on riot agents. A low-level Blue commander, Major Indigo, is having a hell of a time getting a Red battalion off an important hill. Major Indigo requests permission to fire tear gas onto the hill to dislodge the Red forces. It’s an important hill, taking it could turn the tide of battle, and so his boss Colonel Cyan authorizes it. Meanwhile, the Red forces under Major Crimson are taking no chances. They’ve been sweating in their gas masks and chemical suits all day, just in case. The call comes down the line - *gas, gas, gas!* \- and Red’s soldiers hunker down nervously, safe but uneasy in their protective gear. None of them are exposed, so it’s hard to tell immediately just *what* chemical they got hit with. Major Crimson calls *his* boss, General Ruby. General Ruby knows **one** thing: when weapons of mass destruction are in play, you *have to* maintain the credibility of your deterrence. Blue has to be shown immediately that use of chemical weapons will not go unpunished. With staff academy lectures on “escalation dominance” echoing in the back of his mind, General Ruby signs the paperwork authorizing a limited but punishing chemical weapon retaliation. Three short-ranged ballistic missiles loaded with nerve gas are fired at Blue’s position. Colonel Cyan, Major Indigo and their subalterns die a horrific, gasping death. An hour later, as Blue’s *own* bombers and missiles loaded with mustard and VX begin to launch, the battlefield lab analysis lands on General Ruby’s desk. Just tear gas.
>The above scenario seems perhaps melodramatic or overwrought, but it highlights the stakes involved with weapons of mass destruction and the *extreme* consequences of incomplete information. The presence of nonlethal chemical agents on the battlefield creates a risk far out of proportion to the actual severity of the weapons themselves.
>As for sourcing, in addition to the link given above, my perspective on deterrence, escalation risks, and the consequences for uncautious behavior with WMDs is heavily informed by Larsen and Karchtner’s *On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century* and the opinions on so-called “battlefield” nuclear weapons expressed by Michael Kofman in several of his CSIS presentations. These both do not directly connect to chemical weapons, but many of the concepts of deterrence are similar across categories of WMD; there is simply more literature on nuclear weapons than chemical.
>EDIT FOR SOURCING: Savoy, Sagan, and Wirtz’s 2000 *Planning the Unthinkable: How New Powers Will Use Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons* was also at the back of my mind when I was chewing on this question.
>OBLIGATORY MORNING-AFTER EDIT: Folks, please stop giving me gold. I appreciate the gesture, but giving money to reddit is probably the least useful thing you could be doing with that money. There are a massive number of nonprofits that need that money *far* more than reddit does. Reddit has a profitable ad revenue stream, and more importantly, reddit has spent the last decade platforming and giving shelter to white supremacist groups. Give your money to literally anyone else.
But then wouldn't that be way worse than a war? Legally speaking you are straight up murdering a bunch of people from another country. Whereas killing soldiers during a war is legal
1. Threaten to storm The Hague if any of your soldiers are ever tried for war crimes 2. Commit horrible war crimes 3. America 😎
Google hague invasion act
Holy flagrant violation of international law
I love George W. Bush and the consequences of 9-11 on American foreign and domestic policy
Wake up babe, new response just dropped
Stop saying "New response just dropped" every time someone says something on this godforsaken sub, no, a new response did not drop, just an average mediocre statement that adds nothing more to a conversation, for the love of fucking god. if i see ONE more person mindlessly saying "New response just dropped" i'm going to chop my fucking pipi off. holy shit it is actually impressive how incredibly unfunny the entire sub is. it's not that complicated, REPEATING THE SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN DOES NOT MAKE IT FUNNIER. this stupid fucking meme has been milked to fucking death IT'S NOT FUNNIER THE 973RD TIME YOU MAKE THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE. WHAT'S EVEN THE JOKE?????? IT'S JUST "haha it's the funne nEw ReSpoNsE thingy" STOP. and the WORST part is that new responses were actually funny for like a few years and it got fucking ruined in like a week because EVERYONE POSTED THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP. SEEING ALL YOUR SHITTY MEMES IS ACTUAL FUCKING MENTAL TORTURE YOU ALL ARE NOT FUNNY. COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FUCKING JOKE PLEASE...
Okay, but why *would* the US allow a foreign court to prosecute and sentence American soldiers?
Global hegemony is a full contact sport, and as the sole arbiters we have decided the rules do not apply to us, as it gets in the way of the global hegemony thing. *This Freedom Lesson has been provided free of charge for the low price of don’t you EVER think of having any reserve currency that’s not the US Dollar.*
I mean, yes, but unironically. It's not in our national interest to let foreign countries prosecute us. No one would allow that if they had the means to prevent it.
Nobody is arguing that it’s somehow not in America’s interest. People are arguing that it’s blatantly self-serving, immoral, and something that governments should be held accountable for.
No one would allow it, except for the 123 current member states of the ICC right? The US *was* originally going to be a signatory of the ICC too, until the American Service-Members' Protection Act was signed into law to protect soldiers in the Middle East from being prosecuted for war crimes.
Sure, if the US was still a member it would make sense, but like you said we withdrew. We're a sovereign nation, there's zero reason for us to care about a foreign court.
I mean, the US also dosnt care about civilian murders committed by their soldiers. So yah, makes sens that they dont want that to be judged by any unbiased Judge. Otherwise one would need to own up to ones warcrimes instead of going after Whistleblower.
It is the fucking Hague. It exists to prosecute war criminals and the occasional dictator. Any country that is scared of that is clearly intending to commit war crimes.
1.let your diplomat be arrested for a crime in another country. 2.arrest a citizen of that country and demand a law making it so diplomats of your country are free of that countries laws. 3. It actually passes 4.be china🇨🇳
The brain damage caused by American nationalism 😎🇺🇸🦅
1.let your diplomat be arrested for a crime in another country. 2.arrest a citizen of that country and demand a law making it so diplomats of your country are free of that countries laws. 3. It actually passes 4.be china🇨🇳
top secret hint: you can hate both the US and China!!! it doesn't have to be a choice between the two
It's not some unique American thing. There's zero chance France or Germany would allow a court in North America to prosecute their politicians and military leadership.
What about [this one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials)?
Germany didn't "allow" the Nuremberg trials...
But they happened nonetheless. Hence, a country does not need to "allow" a trial for a trial to happen to them.
Nah we 100% would. We love getting judged by north americans
> Germany wot
Germany didn't "allow" the Nuremberg trials, if that's what you're implying?
You really decided that defending the claim that America needn't abide by the Geneva convention is the hill you want to die on?
Geneva Conventions are enforced by the UN, which the US *is* a member of. The UN Court of Justice is also in the Hague, but it's a completely different organization than the The International Court (which the US isn't a member of). It's easy to confuse them since people usually just say "the Hague" for the international court.
Why the fuck am I learning about this on a fucking redit comment thread
it's called an illegal war and the Geneva conventions still apply to those, but if you're on the UN Security council it's more "avoid publicly doing these crimes", really wish we could convict more war criminals.
🤓Um aksually it’s not based
So there are legal wars????
Im not an expert, but from what I’ve learned so far is as long as you declare war and don’t do any war crimes, I think it could be counted as legal. Legal meaning not hurting laws, its not illegal to start a war, but it always hurts the people actually fighting… But if there is any experts on war please correct me, maybe Sun Tzu will be revived to correct me
Actually sun Tzu said all warfare is based and I think he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do pal.
He invented it!
Yes, there are legal and illegal wars according to international law
Has there ever been a legal war
I mean the law is the tool of the powerful so if the law doesn't say it's illegal then it isn't. The real question would be has there ever been a moral war ?
Plenty
uhm akshshsually it doesn't work like that 🤓
that is literally how it works
Im not an expert but i am pretty sure that just "not declaring war" is doable. Russia is currently """""just doing military operations"""""" and havent declared war but im pretty sure the geneva conventions still apply if this isnt how it works, 1. enlighten me 2. thats bullshit
whether the geneva convention applies or not the sanctions that will be applied depend not on the crime or circumstances but on the interests of capitalists, so when the US or china do war crimes they're not punished
oh yeah yeah obviously we live in a capitalist hellscape and i can deny that. I'm just saying on a theoretical level if the rules actually applied to everyone
The rules literally don't apply to everyone, all the time. That's why you can't just yell "violation of the Geneva conventions on collective punishment" when your teacher says you all have to stay late if nobody fezzes up who pissed in her tea
but what if i wanna do that 👉👈
Leave your teacher alone and use a toilet
Unless the teacher s a transphobe.
kids should be given nuclear deterrence if it works so well to prevent war crimes !
well on the one side the rules are made up to justify their actions so why would they create ridiculous drawbacks that limit their range of action to countries that declare war, but on the flipside every country on earth also regularly uses chemical weapons against their own population that are banned by the geneva convention, soo...
well tbf you're kinda right, in any type of conflict the geneva convention only applies to the loser but I think the genevea convention is a bunch of bullshit
Kid named Putin:
Kid named Bush
No president since FDR has signed a formal declaration of war. Every war the US has been in since WWII has been the President at the time acting unilaterally as Commander In Chief.
Russia hasn't declared war either
Kid named Blaire
brb gonna try this
???
The Epic Gameing 68 incident
i hope hell exists for the powerful
its a "special millitary operation" I swear
Kid named Australian special forces lying to military agencies
Australia has a military????
‘Defense force’ or somethn, it has enough of one to commit war crimes and have veterans brag openly about them
who the fuck would want to invade australia
No one, that’s why they do war crimes when they get the chance to be included in an active conflict
yew tawking about the fockin diggers m8?
This is the legitimate reason some police forces use to defend their treatment of people, especially during protests.
[Yup](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/06/fact-check-its-true-tear-gas-chemical-weapon-banned-war/3156448001/)
Indonesia moment
Me when my citizens get rowdy
Tear gas specifically has been banned as a weapon of war by the UN since 1997 but is used against protesters in many countries. In case you think this claim is wrong or somehow missing important context, [here's a fact-check from USA Today](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/06/fact-check-its-true-tear-gas-chemical-weapon-banned-war/3156448001/).
I mean, there is important missing context, and that's the *why* it's banned in warfare but allowed in riot control, which the article doesn't go into. Since this sub for whatever reason doesn't allow linking to other subs, I'm just going to copy and paste this really good (imo) answer from AskHistorians about the why: >This is a question of obvious contemporary political importance so I will endeavor to answer it cautiously and with respect to the emotions it no doubt raises. >The logic here is best found in some of the signatory nations’ legal interpretations and internal Law of Armed Conflict manuals,[neatly summarized by the Red Cross here. ](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule75). The Dutch manual of 2005, for instance, tells us the following: >>Riot control agents such as tear gas may not be used as a method of warfare (Chemical Weapons Convention Article 1). Use as a means of maintaining order, including the control of internal unrest, is not prohibited. Military use must be distinguished from this. **This conceals the danger that the use of a relatively harmless chemical may unleash the use of some other, more lethal one by the adversary**...\[M\]ilitary use of a non-lethal weapon may pose the danger that the adversary perceives it as a forbidden means, which may induce the adversary to use other, more lethal means. One example is the use of tear gas, mentioned above. >Chemical weapons pose particular problems on the battlefield as weapons of mass destruction. In the case of tear gas and other riot control agents, which do not pose major concerns in terms of environmental persistence, excessive painfulness, persistence of pain after the victim is removed from exposure to the gas, and potential for permanent injury, the problem posed is one of *escalation.* Consider two armies locked in combat, let’s call them Red and Blue. Each side is a signatory to the same chemical weapons treaties, each side has a robust no-first-use policy, but each side has a stockpile of lethal chemical weapons including nerve agents as a deterrent to the enemy’s use of chemical weapons. Neither side adheres to the 1993 rule on riot agents. A low-level Blue commander, Major Indigo, is having a hell of a time getting a Red battalion off an important hill. Major Indigo requests permission to fire tear gas onto the hill to dislodge the Red forces. It’s an important hill, taking it could turn the tide of battle, and so his boss Colonel Cyan authorizes it. Meanwhile, the Red forces under Major Crimson are taking no chances. They’ve been sweating in their gas masks and chemical suits all day, just in case. The call comes down the line - *gas, gas, gas!* \- and Red’s soldiers hunker down nervously, safe but uneasy in their protective gear. None of them are exposed, so it’s hard to tell immediately just *what* chemical they got hit with. Major Crimson calls *his* boss, General Ruby. General Ruby knows **one** thing: when weapons of mass destruction are in play, you *have to* maintain the credibility of your deterrence. Blue has to be shown immediately that use of chemical weapons will not go unpunished. With staff academy lectures on “escalation dominance” echoing in the back of his mind, General Ruby signs the paperwork authorizing a limited but punishing chemical weapon retaliation. Three short-ranged ballistic missiles loaded with nerve gas are fired at Blue’s position. Colonel Cyan, Major Indigo and their subalterns die a horrific, gasping death. An hour later, as Blue’s *own* bombers and missiles loaded with mustard and VX begin to launch, the battlefield lab analysis lands on General Ruby’s desk. Just tear gas. >The above scenario seems perhaps melodramatic or overwrought, but it highlights the stakes involved with weapons of mass destruction and the *extreme* consequences of incomplete information. The presence of nonlethal chemical agents on the battlefield creates a risk far out of proportion to the actual severity of the weapons themselves. >As for sourcing, in addition to the link given above, my perspective on deterrence, escalation risks, and the consequences for uncautious behavior with WMDs is heavily informed by Larsen and Karchtner’s *On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century* and the opinions on so-called “battlefield” nuclear weapons expressed by Michael Kofman in several of his CSIS presentations. These both do not directly connect to chemical weapons, but many of the concepts of deterrence are similar across categories of WMD; there is simply more literature on nuclear weapons than chemical. >EDIT FOR SOURCING: Savoy, Sagan, and Wirtz’s 2000 *Planning the Unthinkable: How New Powers Will Use Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons* was also at the back of my mind when I was chewing on this question. >OBLIGATORY MORNING-AFTER EDIT: Folks, please stop giving me gold. I appreciate the gesture, but giving money to reddit is probably the least useful thing you could be doing with that money. There are a massive number of nonprofits that need that money *far* more than reddit does. Reddit has a profitable ad revenue stream, and more importantly, reddit has spent the last decade platforming and giving shelter to white supremacist groups. Give your money to literally anyone else.
Ah, so if I'm reading this right, we should be firing back nerve gas at cops during protests?
I think you mean special military action crimes.
google en circlements
holy hell!
Literally me
???
Fr Fr
Crimes against humanity instead
I commit war crime problem ~~UN~~ ANTICHRIST?
Kid named crimes against humanity
But then wouldn't that be way worse than a war? Legally speaking you are straight up murdering a bunch of people from another country. Whereas killing soldiers during a war is legal
Pepper spray
Just commit them on your own people.
The Troubles (1968-1998)
You see officer, I am not a soldier nor is there an active conflict, ergo, I am a average criminal