I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.
However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.
Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.
In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.
This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.
However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.
Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.
In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.
This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.
However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.
Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.
In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.
This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
Yes. Right up there with Slobodan Milosevic.
Beat me to it, justOnly if GWB and Tony Blair would be considered war criminals for invading Iraq
Should Putin be Considered a War Criminal?
Yes!
Different topic and thread.I agree, what do you think about Bush and Blair?
Yes. Right up there with Slobodan Milosevic.
Trump on Putin: He's savvy. He's a genius.
Tucker Carlson #1 with conservative viewers: Why does anyone have a reason to hate Putin?
They seem to disagree that's a criminal, hell, they praise him.
The right wing is lost and is suddenly finding that they are stranded without a compass. It's such a hard choice...continue to bash Biden for Putin's actions, or condemn Putin...the one doing it, despite their party leader. Such a dilemma!
Different topic and thread.
I'd rather him live in Navalny's spot so pooty can watch while Navalny get sworn into his.Screw all the war criminal trial bullshit.
One of his countrymen needs to kill him right ****ing now.
He should be.Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
Here is the thread:How convenient for you, you know, after you liking a post mentioning Slobodan Milosevic.
Funny how nobody picked that up and nobody objected to the tangent ? Maybe you too are just happy to like posts mentioning other none related persons who just so happen to be other official state enemies. You aren't on your own in this btw and the companions are interesting too.
Here is the thread:
Should Putin be Considered a War Criminal?
Why all the silly babble that does not belong here?
FYI Slobodan Milosevic
Obituary: Slobodan Milosevic
Obituary: Ruthless manipulator of Serbian nationalism who became the most dangerous man in Europe.www.theguardian.com
I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.
However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.
Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.
In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.
This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
This is an interesting question. While what he is doing is clearly wrong, it opens the question of what the standard is to be classified as a war criminal.I know that in the past, while war is war and war is Hell, it is apparently generally considered to be only a very violent form of diplomacy. Simply starting a war is not usually considered to be a war crime.
However, in this case, Putin has started, and is waging, a war against a country that has not done anything to provoke warfare. As such, the war itself seems to be criminal in the same way that trespass or murder would be in civilian terms.
Isn't it time that we considered Putin and others who capriciously and unilaterally initiate war to be War Criminals? There are real life people dying as the direct result of Putin's aggressor actions. These deaths are obviously Putins fault and Putin's fault alone.
In civil society, crime bosses who send thugs to kill, destroy and create mayhem are considered to be civil criminals. In the international community, it seems appropriate to extend the same condemnation.
This Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to be war and also seems to be criminal as it violates international law. Why should Putin, the prime mover in this, NOT be cited as a war criminal?
I'm no fan of G W Bush or Tony Blair or Dick Cheney's lying ....but Saddam Hussein WAS a war criminal. That is not the current situation.You can add G W Bush and Tony Blair. Can't just be the criminals of official state enemies otherwise the laws lose any validity
I'm no fan of G W Bush or Tony Blair or Dick Cheney's lying ....but Saddam Hussein WAS a war criminal. That is not the current situation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?