Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?

[eagle1462010]

Those that apply too many ROEs have crippled themselves from winning a War.

That has been lost since WWII

 

[M14 Shooter]

These International Laws/Accords protect critical infrastructure from indiscriminate targeting and/or destruction:

And so, targeted destruction, as a means to advance the war effort, are perfectly legal,

You, know. like the allied bombings of bridges and rail hubs / marshaling yards all across western France in the months leading up to the invasion in Normandy - perfectly legit.

 

[Churchill]

Get some books?

All I have to do is look at the regimes around the world like North Korea who starve their citizens so badly, that the average North Korean is like 3 feet shorter than South Koreans due to malnutrition, along with the myriad of never ending genocides around the world that the media and UN seem to ignore like the one in the Sudan like I mentioned.

Sorry, the whole facade of the UN treating all the countries with equal skepticism and equality are over as they spend all their waking hours writing resolutions against Israel while ignoring the rest of the world, and when Israel is at war to defend themselves Legacy media and the international community insists that they are also engaged in genocide themselves while fighting that war is over.

The UN doesn't "treat" other countries, other countries collectively and democratically make decisions.

Any reasonable human being who was not an antisemite can see what is going on here.

Yes, 99.999% of the human race want to see Jews killed - I get it, I get your conspiracy fantasy, it's ridiculous and desparate.

I mean really, when have colleges around the US and Europe and gay pride groups protested any genocide around the world, but insist on protesting Israel, while shouting from the river to the sea, which is essentially a call of genocide for the Jews of Israel?

So its wrong now to protest against genocide? You'd have done well in the SS eighty years ago.

Simply asinine

Why not visit the place, you'd fit right in, the place is demomic, anyone who claism to be a Christian yet approves and supports this demonic force is a fool, a completely delusional fool.

This woman visited there in 2016, ten years ago, take a look:

 

[Concerned American]

Indeed, James Michener wrote a novel about the mission to destroy the bridges at Toko-Ri during the Korean War.

 

[Lesh]

As I've said often, there was at least one WMD found in Iraq, out in plan sight.
It was an environmental WMD and it was the Southern Marshlands/Coastal Marshes which had water flow to them blocked, which dried them up. Caused an environmental destruction in harm to the flora and fauna.
Interestingly, most people would rather ignore that, especially the Left who are always hand wringing about the environment.

Any chance of putting that on a missile??

 

[Lesh]

The Muslims didn't have any qualms about flying into skyscrapers

Which has nothing to with this

 

[Stryder50]

The funny part is, they say Iraq had no WMD's, yet the world acknowledges that Iraq used a WND to wipe out an entire city of Kurds.

Funny that.

But no, they were no were close to being a threat like Iran is today in terms of WMD's. Nobody denies that.

Some of us DO DENY that.
OIF was over 20 years ago and at that time Iran wasn't seen as the threat it is today, nor as a larger threat than Iraq.*
Iraq had several violations of the cease-fire terms set after the first war with USA/West over Kuwait.
What appeared to be shipments by trucks and aircrafts of "something" out of Iraq in days prior to Opening of OIF remain suspicious and AFAIK of unknown content.

* Iran's major role in the insurrection in Iraq, April 2004 onward, brought Iran back into focus as a major threat and concern.

 

[Stryder50]

Any chance of putting that on a missile??

That's not the only qualification to be considered a WMD.
Some consider China's "oohps" release of COVID upon the world as a WMD, which didn't require a missile, nor likely could have been spread efficiently that way.

 

[Lesh]

That's not the only qualification to be considered a WMD.
Some consider China's "oohps" release of COVID upon the world as a WMD, which didn't require a missile, nor likely could have been spread efficiently that way.

So some discarded medical equipment were the reason we invaded Iraq?
That sounds worth it huh?

 

[ColonelAngus]

In Iraq War 1, one of the very first images broadcast on the evening news AS SUBMITTED BY THE PENTAGON was one of our missiles taking out a bridge in Iraq.

NOT ONE PERSON CLAIMED THAT WAS A “WAR CRIME”.

 

[Senior]

And so, targeted destruction, as a means to advance the war effort, are perfectly legal,

You, know. like the allied bombings of bridges and rail hubs / marshaling yards all across western France in the months leading up to the invasion in Normandy - perfectly legit.

Just providing the legal realities. Past exemplars do not justify similar violations occurring today.

In addition, there is no Statute of Limitations for War Crimes/Crimes Against Humanity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just providing the legal realities. Past exemplars do not justify similar violations occurring today.

Past examples are precedent. Nothing has changed which makes what the allied sis before the Normandy invasion a crime under the rules of war, because no no nation would agree to any such rules.

The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

 

[jc456]

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms,

based off what?

 

[jc456]

Past examples are precedent. Nothing has changed which makes what the allied sis before the Normandy invasion a crime under the rules of war, because no no nation would agree to any such rules.

The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

so no one.

 

[jc456]

Didn't we already take out a bridge in Iran? Take em all out. That doesn't impact the citizens. What impacts the citizens is Iran themselves shutting off power and internet services. mean mthr fkers. they hate their people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so no one.

The US could.
It is highly unlikely the US will allow any of its troops, or political leaders, to be prosecuted.

 

[jc456]

I was supposed to "hang on" while Blondi failed to do her job and wasn't shitcanned.

I researched that 90% of the employees of the DOJ gave to democrat campaigns. What fking chance in hell did she really have. I truly wish you'd at least understand what limited her ability.

I'm done "hanging on" for this shit show...Trump is clean off the rails.

so now you are what, a democrat and ready to comply? LMMFAO. You all are weak, fk.

It is true, conservatives really are fking weak assholes. No conviction for your beliefs. shame.

 

[Senior]

Past examples are precedent. Nothing has changed which makes what the allied sis before the Normandy invasion a crime under the rules of war, because no no nation would agree to any such rules.

The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

Past examples are the predicate for today's international accords relating to modern warfare and war crimes.

Legal-oversight and violation-enforcement are two different aspects of this international system.

The Rome Statute is the (oversight/prosecution) treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was adopted on July 17, 1998, and entered into force on July 1, 2002. 125 nations have signed and ratified this treaty, and an additional 29 states have signed the statute but have not yet ratified it.

 

[Senior]

The US could.
It is highly unlikely the US will allow any of its troops, or political leaders, to be prosecuted.

The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.

The US relies on internal oversight according to the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

 

[M14 Shooter]

Past examples are the predicate for today's international accords relating to modern warfare and war crimes.

And it was not a war crime for the allies to attack bridges and rail hubs / marshaling yards all across western France in the months leading up to the invasion in Normandy; these attacks were perfectly legit.
Thus, doing so today is not a war crime.

Legal-oversight and violation-enforcement are two different aspects of this international system.

if all you can do is scream "war crime!!" and have no capacity to enforce it, your screams don't mean anything.
The legal reality is international law in enforced by those with the physical power to enforce them.

The Rome Statute is the (oversight/prosecution) treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was adopted on July 17, 1998...

The US is not party to the treaties which created the ICC and thus is not under its jurisdiction.