On the other hand, it can be argued that there are very few human rights violations and war crimes committed by these allied democracies, and every single time One is committed allies call them out on it.
This is patently not the case on both fronts. Human rights violations are outrageously common among Western-style democracies, and these receive very little attention unless people take to the streets and start setting shit on fire over the issue.
Australia's treatment of surrounding nations and refugees comes to mind as an obvious one, and one that's regularly swept under the rug. How many governments have condemned Australia over its handling of Timor-Leste? Have you heard of the issue before I mentioned it just now?
Well, yes, I don't think I disagree with you so much. Let me break it down:
The discussion turned to a question from Tom about NATO allies calling each other out for rights violations in a war, specifically. And that's the context I was writing under (just look at my posts in the thread about cop brutality in the US - I've stated like four times that all such cops should be condemned and stand trial). And in that context of warcrimes, this was going to mostly be about unjust killings, which actually are fairly rare, and when they happen, those in charge ARE called out on it, generally speaking.
Now, you rightly say that human rights violations are outrageously common in Western democracies. Yes, sadly. And we know this due to many reasons - from social media, to lawyers who witness them in court cases (I subscribe to this podcast, which routinely has stories of government malpractice:
https://ij.org/center-for-judicial-engagement/sc/weekly-podcast/
, to organizations like Amnesty International, and others.
In countries of millions upon millions of people, of course there will be plenty of instances of criminals who also happen to be government agents, because there are, well, a ton of government agents. This doesn't excuse any of it. But it explains why it feels so commonplace. But that's sort of an artifact of the size of our samples and societies. If you're going to go down a road that Western democracies are worse, when it comes to human rights violations as non-democracies and authoritarian places like modern day China and Russia, or Kazakhstan or Saudi Arabia, etc. Good luck. It's just a banal way of saying that all human societies contain bad actors, including among their leaders and police.
Seeing this in the context of the whole population, this also leads to the obvious conclusion that the government agents and leaders who ARE honest and good cannot be expected to call out every single instance of human rights violations - no one can do that. Which is why we deal with data and databases for such things.
But when a
particularly famous event is news around the world, you find other governments calling each other out routinely.
In this thread are links that cumulatively contain dozens and dozens of government officials from US allies condemning the police brutality, because this is big news. But some random violation of rights that happened in West Virginia, unknown to most except in the local area it happened? Why would you expect a European leader to even know about that?
And as far as warzones, I also posted several links to condemnation of US military actions that were deemed bad. This is the norm - if a military event is publicized, and it is shown that the US acted poorly, other countries will absolutely call the US out on it. I read widely about international relations, this is very much the norm.