Comments by "Evan" (@MrEvanfriend) on "What damage could Iranian military do to the US?" video.
-
12
-
9
-
8
-
Molanda Moseley of the FBI Again, none of this is true. Like, literally none of it.
White phosphorus is used for illumination and marking (our incendiaries are thermite). There is nothing anywhere in any international convention that prohibits this. Cluster bombs are used by every major military on earth, and prohibited by zero conventions. Some idiots made up the claim that WP is a "chemical weapon" - this is blatantly untrue and ignores both what WP is and what a chemical weapon is. Anti-war activists like to complain about cluster bombs because of the relatively high dud rate of submunitions, but whinging about something means nothing. The US did not torture anyone - unless you use a definition of "torture" so broad as to be meaningless. "Torture" does not mean "mildly harsh treatment of unlawful combatants" (though if you want to learn something about actual war crimes, look up who is a lawful combatant and who isn't. Also look up perfidy, a common tactic the Iraqis used). Sanctions are a diplomatic tactic used the world over to attempt to discourage international bad actors. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law of war, and is generally a tactic used in peacetime to prevent wars. That you don't know this goes to your willful ignorance.
The US does not recognize the ICC, because the ICC is farcical - it's a kangaroo court that does not come anywhere close to American judicial standards.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 - this is your only factual statement. He was, however, a major state sponsor of terror. He hosted Abu Nidal for years. He sponsored suicide bombings in Israel. He invited all manner of foreign mujahidin into Iraq, to shelter them and to use them for his own purposes. Claiming that he was anti-terrorist is a blatant lie.
The invasion of Iraq was not a "war of aggression" by any standard. Saddam failed to surrender his chemical weapons, failed to open his country to UN inspectors, and generally failed to live up to any of the agreements imposed on him by an international coalition in 1991. The fact that you claim otherwise shows a lack of even basic research about the nonsense you're so sure about.
You have just demonstrated even further that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just repeating nonsense that stupid people have told you.
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
Molanda Moseley of the FBI None of that is defensible. First, knock it off with the "war for oil" trope. It's false. The US is the world's largest producer of oil, and the majority of our oil is produced domestically. As for imports, most of those come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia - in that order. We didn't need or particularly want Iraqi oil.
Second, the cassus belli in Iraq was painfully obvious to everyone - however much people have conveniently forgotten. Saddam was by no means "innocent", Iraq was by no means a "victim", and even the trope about no WMDs existing is demonstrably false - there were indeed chemical weapons in Iraq, and at least six American troops were injured by them. This is, of course, to say nothing of Saddam's consistent, open, and unrepentant sponsorship of terrorism.
Third, you can't actually name a single "war crime" allegedly committed. You can only point vaguely to things you don't like and call them "war crimes" based on nothing. It isn't even hyperbole, it's pure fabrication.
You are entirely wrong about everything here. When you shout "war criminal", you're saying "I don't understand his foreign policy, but I'm pretty sure I disagree with it". And by doing so, you are destroying any credibility that you may have had.
So just stop. You're making a fool of yourself by being willfully stupid.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1