Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Altair]

If that were war crimes, Clinton, Bush, Obama would be on the hook.

Examples?

Im not doubting you, i just dont know specific examples.

For the record, if a bridge has military utility, moving troops and the like, it's a valid target. If infrastructure is solely of a civilian nature it's a war crime.

 

[QV]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

 

[Altair]

If that were war crimes, Clinton, Bush, Obama would be on the hook.

• Under Clinton:
  • During the 1999 Kosovo War / NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO struck bridges, electrical grids, broadcasting facilities including Serbia’s state TV headquarters, factories, and transportation infrastructure.
  • NATO argued these supported Serbian military operations.
  • Human rights groups and some legal scholars questioned attacks on civilian broadcasting and power infrastructure.

I would say no

• Under Bush:
  • During the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. targeted communications systems, electrical infrastructure connected to command-and-control, roads, bridges, oil facilities, and government buildings.
  • The “shock and awe” campaign aimed to cripple Iraq’s ability to govern and fight quickly.
  • There were also major controversies over civilian casualties, damage to water/electric systems, and whether some strikes were disproportionate.
  • Bush-era counterterrorism operations also included drone strikes and attacks outside conventional battlefields.

I would tentatively say no.

• Under Obama:
  • U.S. operations against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant included strikes on oil facilities, cash depots, roads, bridges, dams, and economic infrastructure used to finance ISIS operations.
  • The administration explicitly defended targeting “war-sustaining” infrastructure tied to ISIS revenue generation.
  • In Iraq, Obama also authorized strikes around critical infrastructure like the Mosul and Haditha dams to prevent ISIS from controlling them

Ya, that's a war crime.

 

[Altair]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

Dual use is fair play.

 

[QV]

It's not out of options. It's just options.

 

[Kirkhill]

I edited the last as you posted.

I'll take the position with confidence that the US will only intend to take out dual use infra. That's my starting point.

The problem with the "dual use" formulation is that a bridge can transport a truck and a tank. If you take out a bridge because a tank will cross it the tank will cross at another bridge. Therefore all bridges are dual use and legitimate targets.

Likewise with power stations powering homes, hospitals and command centres.

Dual use justifies us spending military dollars on civilian infrastructue. It also justifies our enemies employing military force against civilian infrastructure funded by military dollars.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Anonymous sources are worthless. Journalism passed the point of no ethical return long ago (eg. asking for rebuttal with insufficient time before going to press).

'Deepthroat' enters the chat