Operationally speaking there’s no such thing as war crimes. The victor writes the rules and the loser, well vae victis.
The “rules based international order” is a sham and always has been. This is made obvious by the US based empire’s total disregard for other states’ sovereignty when it doesn’t suit them.
For what it’s worth I oppose this war as I oppose virtually all wars. It’s tragic and I wish it were unnecessary.
>Operationally speaking there’s no such thing as war crimes. The victor writes the rules and the loser, well vae victis.
Yawn.
Of course the victor writes the rules, but the International Criminal Court has the support of most of the UN. If you believe democratic society is fundamentally a good thing then it follows that the Pax Americana has been, in aggregate, a tremendous success in normalizing and codifying international law.
Is the current state of affairs imperfect? Of course.
"Winners write history" is such a boring, undergraduate take on geopolitics.
The period of relative peace in which we live is called the Pax Americana because it's primarily driven by US military hegemony and there's no escaping that fact.
I don’t think your rudeness is appropriate or helps satisfy intellectual curiosity. It sounds like you have some formal training in IR, how about you contribute at a level befitting your education? So much for that.
The ICC is a great example of why “international law” is a dead letter if not a total fraud. I’m sure you’re aware that the US based empire doesn’t acknowledge its authority. The US based empire permits the ICC to act only when it serves the empire’s interests. So much for normalization and codification.
Finally, I never said “winners write history.” I said they write the rules. Conflating the two is intellectually sloppy or a straw man. So much for reading comprehension.
As soon as American politicians get the same treatment... The west doesn't hold the moral high ground on anything. Wherever the US meddles, misery follows.
Some justice is better than no justice. Criticism of hypocrisy between A and B is fine in its own context, but in the context of A or B alone, it's called whataboutism, which has the appearance of justifying the unjust, and is therefore extremely detrimental to conversation.
