War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now
phillipspobrien.substack.com
phillipspobrien.substack.com
But people in the USA should realise this:
An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.
Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.
At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.
That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.
Buckle up.
Same as it always was.
It’s our job to make sure they don’t have any power.
flags are user-driven
Lol - actually because at most no one in HN leadership realised the thread even existed.
Here's a tip for improved accuracy on HN speculation: if your speculation implicitly assumes moderator omniscience, it's probably wrong.
We don't moderate HN based on what reflects badly or goodly on $country or $people. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, i.e. remains interesting and hovers semi-stably above internet median.
Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?
Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]
> “better than carpet bombing”
The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.
> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”
Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.
Why is it "legal" for the US to shoot oil tankers of other nations ? And murder sailors of neutral nations in PROPER international waters such as the Indian ocean ?
It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.
Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.
It's their policy for decades. There is no bigger threat for world peace than US (and maybe Israel).
"Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."
"The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/laos-the-most-heavily-bo...
"Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"
But yes, there are two possible lessons from those horrors:
- never again must this happen to anyone: the construction of international peace frameworks, the ICC, and human rights law
- what is currently happening, which is very different
Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.
Sorry but we've been committing war crimes as a matter of policy for decades at least.
All the hatred is flowing in one direction, and that tells you all you need to know about the difference between the two sides.
Look at Christian populations in Islamic countries and their numbers dramatically decreasing this century. Christians in Iraq 1.2 million in 2011, 120,000 in 2024, over a million displaced peoples. Syria 1.5 million to 300,000, 1.2 million displaced peoples. Hamas conducts violence against the 2% Christian population in Gaza. There are some 18 million displaced Christians world wide.
Reality seems to disprove the premise unless you meant to include all Abrahamic faiths and include Islam in your violent religions list.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
Many people here will consider this categorically off topic and flag accordingly because politics doesn't satisfy theirs. Even if it's a good article, and even if the discussion is on-topic and civil.
It means "anything good hackers find interesting" and anything that "sparks curious conversation."
What does that mean? I don't exactly know. Certainly nothing objective. In practice it means whatever the people flagging the thread decide it does.