That is one of the longest sentences I’ve ever read and I can’t say that I understand your meaning. I also don’t understand what you mean by ‘’the war crimes were committed before the act’’.

For as far as I can read and understand your comment it seems that you’re partly or wholly defending war crimes that were committed by the US or making excuses for it, and I won’t partake in that. There are clear definitions in several treaties of concepts such as ‘’civilians’’, ‘’soldiers’’ and ‘’war crimes’’. International law is very clear about the fact that there are no possible justifications for war crimes, so your opinion on the legitimacy of war crimes committed by the US doesn’t carry any legal weight.

There’s a whole Wikipedia page that lists war crimes committed by the US.

Yes, I know what a war crime is. You bring forward the fact that the US hasn’t been trialed for any war crimes recently, but you do know that the US doesn’t recognize the jurisdiction of international courts like the ICJ and the ICC, right? The US has been convicted several times in the past, but as long as it doesn’t accept jurisdiction there’s not much that can be done.

To be clear: I never said that all US soldiers are war criminals and I also do not think that they are. I also don’t mean to say that all soldiers are personally to be held responsible for every war crime committed ever, but being part of a system does bring along responsibility and accountability to some degree. Paying taxes is not voluntary; joining the military is voluntary in most cases in the US (I am not talking about conscripts). If you go on a trip to North Korea and contribute to the economy there, that doesn’t make you personally responsible for everything bad that’s ever happened there, but you are helping and facilitating the party that did those things. It’s very dangerous to wash your hands in innocence under the guise of ‘’it wasn’t me, I just do the desk work’’.

It does not work that way. Even though ‘’people who work to defend the US’’ are convinced that their actions are legitimized because they are the good guys and their cause is a good cause, every party in an armed conflict thinks that they’re the good guys fighting for the good cause and the other party is wrong. Murdering people = murdering people, regardless of whatever reason you think gives you the right to, and everything else is just cognitive dissonance.

Edit to add: the discussion was about war crimes such as bombing hospitals and attacking innocent children. The genocide I referred to is also a war crime. There is no straw man argument in that. A war crime is a war crime, regardless of the ‘’cause’’ that you think justifies your country’s war crimes. International law is very clear on this subject.

I wouldn’t say this qualifies as a straw man argument since the discussion was already about war crimes such as bombing hospitals and killing innocent children/civilians in a drone strike.

The fact that you’ve never personally done such things with your own hands doesn’t change the fact that you’re working for and helping the organization that does. Trying to resolve your responsibility by saying ‘’it wasn’t me’’ is just hypocritical. Or would you say the nazis that just did the admin work for extermination camps were in the clear?