FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > war crimes
war crimes
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"I think it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said history is wrote by the victors "It doesn't make it right OP but this is pretty much the answer. | |||
"I think it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said history is wrote by the victors "this.. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. " So as you see it the chemical weapons Hitler used was in no way an act of war Or If one country used chemical weapons on another country this is not an act of war If used to kill civilians idealogically speaking | |||
"I think it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said history is wrote by the victors "yup love that quote. | |||
| |||
"Why is it considered a war crime when the Nazis blew up the flood dykes and irrigation dams of Holland. Yet Something celebrated by both america and great Britain in the late 50's. When america bombed all the dams in north Korea, causing mass deaths and entire villages wiped out and countries crop support destroyed. Why was it praised in the press? Why when Germany used chemical weapons to kill people was it considered a war crime. Yet Winston Churchill used mass gas bombings of chemical weapons killing tens of thousands of Kurds. India and few other countries objected at time, but Britain went ahead and used chemical weapons with out it being a war crime? Was same when america used chemical weapons in south Vietnam. Killing around 750,000 just from chemical weapon use alone. Why is that not a war crime? Looking through history it appears as though are many hundreds of examples of the same, the west is guilty of many war crimes, just it seems accepted and ok for some strange reason. Can anyone explain how this is right? " I can partly explain some of this to you... Firstly you have to understand that those put on trial after WW2 were not just charged with 'war crimes', but also with 'crimes against humanity'. War crimes are very specific, they are illegal acts as defined by the Geneva Convention and relate to the conduct of war, the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian populations and property in captured territory. When Germany rounded up and gassed German Jews that was not a war crime, it was a crime against humanity, when they rounded up Jews in occupied lands and sent them to the gas chambers that was both a war crime and a crime against humanity. Similarly when the Germans deliberately destroyed infrastructure prior to withdrawing from captured territory that was a was crime because under the Geneva Convention it was their duty as the occupying power to protect that infrastructure. When the US killed Vietnamese in the vietnam war it was an act of war not a war crime because those killed were not in captured territory and therefore had no protection under the Geneva Convention. The same is true of the infrastructure they destroyed. The same holds true for N. Korea. I know the above sounds like splitting hairs. But that is the way with all laws. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. " Eh it was civilians Churchill killed..innocents.. well after Hitler | |||
"Why is it considered a war crime when the Nazis blew up the flood dykes and irrigation dams of Holland. Yet Something celebrated by both america and great Britain in the late 50's. When america bombed all the dams in north Korea, causing mass deaths and entire villages wiped out and countries crop support destroyed. Why was it praised in the press? Why when Germany used chemical weapons to kill people was it considered a war crime. Yet Winston Churchill used mass gas bombings of chemical weapons killing tens of thousands of Kurds. India and few other countries objected at time, but Britain went ahead and used chemical weapons with out it being a war crime? Was same when america used chemical weapons in south Vietnam. Killing around 750,000 just from chemical weapon use alone. Why is that not a war crime? Looking through history it appears as though are many hundreds of examples of the same, the west is guilty of many war crimes, just it seems accepted and ok for some strange reason. Can anyone explain how this is right? I can partly explain some of this to you... Firstly you have to understand that those put on trial after WW2 were not just charged with 'war crimes', but also with 'crimes against humanity'. War crimes are very specific, they are illegal acts as defined by the Geneva Convention and relate to the conduct of war, the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian populations and property in captured territory. When Germany rounded up and gassed German Jews that was not a war crime, it was a crime against humanity, when they rounded up Jews in occupied lands and sent them to the gas chambers that was both a war crime and a crime against humanity. Similarly when the Germans deliberately destroyed infrastructure prior to withdrawing from captured territory that was a was crime because under the Geneva Convention it was their duty as the occupying power to protect that infrastructure. When the US killed Vietnamese in the vietnam war it was an act of war not a war crime because those killed were not in captured territory and therefore had no protection under the Geneva Convention. The same is true of the infrastructure they destroyed. The same holds true for N. Korea. I know the above sounds like splitting hairs. But that is the way with all laws." Laws? Set down by those who surely seek to control the masses? We can do what we like attitude. Fuck everyone else. I can't possibly comment on the Geneva convention as know little of it, but I'm sure was it not formed by USA, Churchill and Stalin? Just like NATO was formed by the three of them? I need to read up on the act before can relate or question what you have written. Thanks for your input | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. Eh it was civilians Churchill killed..innocents.. well after Hitler" As you have said in the reply above, you dont know anything about war crimes. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. Eh it was civilians Churchill killed..innocents.. well after Hitler As you have said in the reply above, you dont know anything about war crimes. " What you on about? Clearly its you who doesn't | |||
| |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. " Legal weapons of war eh. Oh yeah that's right  legal in who's eyes | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. So as you see it the chemical weapons Hitler used was in no way an act of war Or If one country used chemical weapons on another country this is not an act of war If used to kill civilians idealogically speaking" I wouldn't say that the gassing of your own citizens constitutes a war, no. It doesn't constitute a traditional war, which is usually state-on-state. It doesn't constitute a civil war as the Jews* were not in armed conflict against Hitler's state. It also doesn't constitute the newer definitions of war such as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) which tends to be a supranational coalition against non-state actors as described by Rupert Smith and Emile Simpson. *I know Hitler's "Final Solution" covered many more groups than just the Jews, including the LGBT community, the disabled, Romany gypsies, intelligentsia and communists to name but a few, however for brevity I will not name all the groups in every post on the thread. | |||
"I think it was Napoleon Bonaparte who said history is wrote by the victors "They dont call it his-story for nothing .  | |||
Its a load of pish and wind | |||
"Laws? Set down by those who surely seek to control the masses? We can do what we like attitude. Fuck everyone else. I can't possibly comment on the Geneva convention as know little of it, but I'm sure was it not formed by USA, Churchill and Stalin? Just like NATO was formed by the three of them? I need to read up on the act before can relate or question what you have written. Thanks for your input " I do and did pass comment about the morality of those (or any other law) when I say this is the law. Nor do I usually pass comment about why laws only go so far and no further, but in this case I will... Where international law is concerned it requires a minimum of the passive consent of the whole international community and the active participation of the world and regional powers of the day to have any chance of working. this means that competing (and sometimes enemy nations) must feel that the proposed law does not disadvantage them and aid those hostile to them. This inevitably leads to lower moral standards and higher criminal thresholds. If you really find this repugnant the answer is simple. Find others around the world of a similar mindset to you. Form an international political party and run for office all over the world. Then when your party is in power across the globe you will be able to rewrite international law and lead us all into the utopian Garden of Eaden. (Of course I expect you will need to fight and win quite a few wars along the way with those who have much lower moral standards than you.) Just that simple, but neary impossible to achieve I expect. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. So as you see it the chemical weapons Hitler used was in no way an act of war Or If one country used chemical weapons on another country this is not an act of war If used to kill civilians idealogically speaking I wouldn't say that the gassing of your own citizens constitutes a war, no. It doesn't constitute a traditional war, which is usually state-on-state. It doesn't constitute a civil war as the Jews* were not in armed conflict against Hitler's state. It also doesn't constitute the newer definitions of war such as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) which tends to be a supranational coalition against non-state actors as described by Rupert Smith and Emile Simpson. *I know Hitler's "Final Solution" covered many more groups than just the Jews, including the LGBT community, the disabled, Romany gypsies, intelligentsia and communists to name but a few, however for brevity I will not name all the groups in every post on the thread." Very well put you have done your research well. And I agree with what you say The Jews did not go to war but Hitler did, ergo war crimes against practically everyone on the planet. | |||
"Global War on Terror..what started by the biggest terrorists of them all
Its a load of pish and wind "The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom – noted: Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. Odom also said: By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. Legal weapons of war eh. Oh yeah that's right legal in who's eyes"In the international community and according to the treaties signed by individual countries. For example rifles and small arms are considered legitimate weapons of war, (although you can't use hollow point ammunition), but chemical weapons are no longer considered legal or legitimate weapons of war. Not so long ago anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions were legal, however the UK has signed treaties which says they are no longer considered legal (with the exception of command-controlled AP mines). White phosphorous used to be able to be used as a weapon of war, however now it can only be used for illumination and for creating smoke, it's not to be used against personnel. There are many many laws and treaties regarding armed conflict. | |||
"The UK has used chemical weapons, when they we legal weapons of war. And stopped using them after they became illegal. Hitler didn't use chemical weapons as weapons of war, he used chemical weapons to deliberately target are kill civilians for ideological reasons, completely unrelated to war. So as you see it the chemical weapons Hitler used was in no way an act of war Or If one country used chemical weapons on another country this is not an act of war If used to kill civilians idealogically speaking I wouldn't say that the gassing of your own citizens constitutes a war, no. It doesn't constitute a traditional war, which is usually state-on-state. It doesn't constitute a civil war as the Jews* were not in armed conflict against Hitler's state. It also doesn't constitute the newer definitions of war such as the Global War on Terror (GWOT) which tends to be a supranational coalition against non-state actors as described by Rupert Smith and Emile Simpson. *I know Hitler's "Final Solution" covered many more groups than just the Jews, including the LGBT community, the disabled, Romany gypsies, intelligentsia and communists to name but a few, however for brevity I will not name all the groups in every post on the thread. Very well put you have done your research well. And I agree with what you say The Jews did not go to war but Hitler did, ergo war crimes against practically everyone on the planet." Thank you, however I don't understand your last point. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Plenty of rhetoric to justify killing innocent people as usual " No justification on my part, just simple stating the facts, and as far as I can see no one else has said anything to justify killing either, just explained why some killings on behalf of sovereign states (be they recognised or not) are classed as war crimes where other killings are classed as crimes against humanity, other killings are legitimate acts of war and yet other killings are legitimate judicial acts by a sovereign state within their own borders. | |||
"Plenty of rhetoric to justify killing innocent people as usual " I would have to disagree there. We are talking about what constitutes a war crime. Who do you consider to be innocent and who a legitimate target in an armed conflict? | |||
| |||
"I don't consider any to be a legitimate target... That's the point Having a mental framework of legitimacy is the problem in itself... Detachment and justification for gullible soldiers " How many soldiers do you know? Very, very few of those I served with and those I know who are still serving were of are gullible. In fact I would say that military people are probably the best there are at spotting bullshit and bullshitters. You like most civilians mistake a willingness to make sacrifices and do unspeakable things to protect family, friends and country as gullibility and stupidity. It is not, it is a sense of duty to one's comrades and oaths (and the intense and continual training) that makes soldiers do the things they do. | |||
"I don't consider any to be a legitimate target... That's the point Having a mental framework of legitimacy is the problem in itself... Detachment and justification for gullible soldiers How many soldiers do you know? Very, very few of those I served with and those I know who are still serving were of are gullible. In fact I would say that military people are probably the best there are at spotting bullshit and bullshitters. You like most civilians mistake a willingness to make sacrifices and do unspeakable things to protect family, friends and country as gullibility and stupidity. It is not, it is a sense of duty to one's comrades and oaths (and the intense and continual training) that makes soldiers do the things they do. " nonsense most soldiers I know done so because they left school with little education and are just teenagers looking for adventure and travel for a few years and liked the group mentality of it all.has absolutely nothing to do with honour and pretecting their country.granted they may feel that they are doing a noble job from time to time after joining up but the whole romantic for qween and country is rubbish in fact all my friends in the army are good guys but also assholes that you can't take anywhere without trouble.all wars started by the west these days are about making money for white guys in suits and if anything puts us as a country in more danger fs. | |||
"I don't consider any to be a legitimate target... That's the point Having a mental framework of legitimacy is the problem in itself... Detachment and justification for gullible soldiers How many soldiers do you know? Very, very few of those I served with and those I know who are still serving were of are gullible. In fact I would say that military people are probably the best there are at spotting bullshit and bullshitters. You like most civilians mistake a willingness to make sacrifices and do unspeakable things to protect family, friends and country as gullibility and stupidity. It is not, it is a sense of duty to one's comrades and oaths (and the intense and continual training) that makes soldiers do the things they do. nonsense most soldiers I know done so because they left school with little education and are just teenagers looking for adventure and travel for a few years and liked the group mentality of it all.has absolutely nothing to do with honour and pretecting their country.granted they may feel that they are doing a noble job from time to time after joining up but the whole romantic for qween and country is rubbish in fact all my friends in the army are good guys but also assholes that you can't take anywhere without trouble.all wars started by the west these days are about making money for white guys in suits and if anything puts us as a country in more danger fs." Yet it's not the military who chose to fight, it's to civilian politicians elected by this society. | |||
"nonsense most soldiers I know done so because they left school with little education and are just teenagers looking for adventure and travel for a few years and liked the group mentality of it all.has absolutely nothing to do with honour and pretecting their country.granted they may feel that they are doing a noble job from time to time after joining up but the whole romantic for qween and country is rubbish in fact all my friends in the army are good guys but also assholes that you can't take anywhere without trouble.all wars started by the west these days are about making money for white guys in suits and if anything puts us as a country in more danger fs." Do you really know many soldiers? Or do you sort of know a few? Maybe more acquaintances or guys you see down the pub who are always up for a good night out who will jump in and defend any of the group who are in trouble? Did you know them before as well as after they completed basic training? Did you notice how they changed (not just the violent tendencies)? Recruits are trained by battle hardened and experienced NCO's who don't just train recruits to march and shoot straight. They also knock any ideas of the forces being an 'adventure' out of recruits heads and out the incompetent, cowardly and plain thick. As far as the military is concerned levels of education are not that much of an issue, intelligence is, if you have what it takes the military will teach you. You would know this if you really know any soldiers before they joined up and after they had 6 to 12 months service under their belts. I think the answer to most of my questions here will be negatives if you are honest. | |||
| |||
"How does killing innocent people on the other side of the globe protect family and friends in the UK? All this shite about honour and oath and camaraderie is how you trick naive young men into doing unspeakable things. " If you think everyone in the world is innocent then you are the naive one. | |||
| |||
"How does killing innocent people on the other side of the globe protect family and friends in the UK? All this shite about honour and oath and camaraderie is how you trick naive young men into doing unspeakable things. " It really is quite brutally simple you know... Better a war be fought on your enemies territory than on yours. Like everything about war it may be objectionable, brutal and repugnant but it is painfully simple in its calculus. | |||
"Of course not... But the thread started out talking about innocent people who ended up as collateral damage. " There are no innocents in war, there are the dead, the maimed, the wounded and those who survive untouched. | |||
"How does killing innocent people on the other side of the globe protect family and friends in the UK? All this shite about honour and oath and camaraderie is how you trick naive young men into doing unspeakable things. It really is quite brutally simple you know... Better a war be fought on your enemies territory than on yours. Like everything about war it may be objectionable, brutal and repugnant but it is painfully simple in its calculus." ...Really...so what do you make of returning jihadi's returning to this country after fighting our soldiers in the middle east..My husband was in the forces for 11yrs as a Para and he see's this as one of the most treatrous acts put on this nation. | |||
"Of course not... But the thread started out talking about innocent people who ended up as collateral damage. " Well you said that no one is a legitimate target, so I assumed you meant that everyone is innocent, or do you think that enemy combatants are neither innocent, nor legitimate military targets? | |||
"Really...so what do you make of returning jihadi's returning to this country after fighting our soldiers in the middle east..My husband was in the forces for 11yrs as a Para and he see's this as one of the most treatrous acts put on this nation." Who is the above addressed to me or superflash? If it is me I would ask why would you need to ask? I would say not only should they be stripped of their UK citizenship but as it is treason for a British citizen to bare arms against against Crown Forces or give aid and comfort to enemies of The Crown if they are found in UK territory they should face a minimum of life in prison. Now if you are talking to superflash I expect you will get a different answer, but remember he is not a UK citizen so his view must be judged as being a foreigner commenting on a British problem. | |||
"Really...so what do you make of returning jihadi's returning to this country after fighting our soldiers in the middle east..My husband was in the forces for 11yrs as a Para and he see's this as one of the most treatrous acts put on this nation. Who is the above addressed to me or superflash? If it is me I would ask why would you need to ask? I would say not only should they be stripped of their UK citizenship but as it is treason for a British citizen to bare arms against against Crown Forces or give aid and comfort to enemies of The Crown if they are found in UK territory they should face a minimum of life in prison. Now if you are talking to superflash I expect you will get a different answer, but remember he is not a UK citizen so his view must be judged as being a foreigner commenting on a British problem. " ... Sorry..it was for you as your ex-Army..thanks for the reply. | |||
"Sorry..it was for you as your ex-Army..thanks for the reply." The Royal Marines are not part of the army yet. | |||
"Sorry..it was for you as your ex-Army..thanks for the reply. The Royal Marines are not part of the army yet. " Aren't they the bag carriers for the RAF Regiment? | |||
" Aren't they the bag carriers for the RAF Regiment?" Piss off you civi prick! | |||
" Aren't they the bag carriers for the RAF Regiment? Piss off you civi prick!" | |||
" Aren't they the bag carriers for the RAF Regiment? Piss off you civi prick! " | |||
| |||
"I'm laughing at the above. Does my non Britishness discredit my opinions somehow? Anyway back to the point... There are real enemies (people who attack you first) and then there are make believe enemies (when you are on the side of the aggressor and are starting the shit to begin with) The vast majority of wars are uncalled for and all this rhetoric of traitorism, patriotism, service to queen and country is a disgusting play on naive young minds sent to do someone else's (often pointless) dirty work. " You not being British means that your opinion on British national security is not predicated on self interest and will therefore differ from those of us whose opinion is. Add to that the fact that you live in a neutral and therefore theoretically non aligned country will further alter your perspective on armed conflict. I dont have that luxury so I want strong defences and politicians with the strength of will to use them where required but not the gung ho, 'I've got the biggest dick', aggressive attitude that is being so well demonstrated at present by Putin, Kim and Trump. | |||
Its all just a load of...killing people is killing people | |||
"Seems most have stayed a little off topic. Given I was trying to establish why its considered a war crime for one nation and yet an act of war for another, yet the same action has taken place. All it seems because of some laws laid down in favour of those that use them. My personal opinion is when it comes to innocents, women and children especially. There should be no differences, between it being done in act of war or a crime. If a rocket launched goes wrong and hits civilians by mistake, it should be a crime, just as if civilians get killed in conflict. These so called laws are just to allow some countries to do wtf they want and suppress the others and it seems it doesn't matter how you swing it...comes down to death and destruction. All for what. Money. War is profit. Look at market in America after trump said "fire and fury" up it was. Clearly everyone here is intelligent enough to realise this is not right killing people. What ever you want to call it, war, acts of terror, whatever. Its still killing people, who have nothing to do with a couple of dick heads, influenced by other idiots for their countries own gains, flexing muscles and showing off power...while the rest of us normal people have to be concerned given history and given nature of the society we live in today with nut jobs in charge, who fund other nut jobs, to kill their own innocent people, as well that allows actions, changes in laws, freedom restrictions and most of all a war against an enemy created by our own
Its all just a load of...killing people is killing people "OK, I for one understand your position but I do not agree with it. It fails to take into account the realities of war. You say killing civilians should be a war crime, what about the civilians working in the munitions factories making bullets, bombs and shells? Or how about the civilians working in the aircraft factories, or the tank factories? How about those working in the engine factories building the powerplants for the tanks and planes? What about those building warships? Are any of them legitimate targets in you view? If they are does that mean that those producing components are fair game? How about those making the steel? Or those transporting all the stuff around and then to the fighting troops? If they are all legitimate targets does that mean those feeding them are also fair game? Where do you draw the line when deciding which noncombatant is a legitimate target and which is not? To my way of thinking in war there are no illegitimate targets, all contribute to a war effort therefore it is reasonable that all should targets. | |||
"Seems most have stayed a little off topic. Given I was trying to establish why its considered a war crime for one nation and yet an act of war for another, yet the same action has taken place. All it seems because of some laws laid down in favour of those that use them. My personal opinion is when it comes to innocents, women and children especially. There should be no differences, between it being done in act of war or a crime. If a rocket launched goes wrong and hits civilians by mistake, it should be a crime, just as if civilians get killed in conflict. These so called laws are just to allow some countries to do wtf they want and suppress the others and it seems it doesn't matter how you swing it...comes down to death and destruction. All for what. Money. War is profit. Look at market in America after trump said "fire and fury" up it was. Clearly everyone here is intelligent enough to realise this is not right killing people. What ever you want to call it, war, acts of terror, whatever. Its still killing people, who have nothing to do with a couple of dick heads, influenced by other idiots for their countries own gains, flexing muscles and showing off power...while the rest of us normal people have to be concerned given history and given nature of the society we live in today with nut jobs in charge, who fund other nut jobs, to kill their own innocent people, as well that allows actions, changes in laws, freedom restrictions and most of all a war against an enemy created by our own
Its all just a load of...killing people is killing people
OK, I for one understand your position but I do not agree with it. It fails to take into account the realities of war. You say killing civilians should be a war crime, what about the civilians working in the munitions factories making bullets, bombs and shells? Or how about the civilians working in the aircraft factories, or the tank factories? How about those working in the engine factories building the powerplants for the tanks and planes? What about those building warships? Are any of them legitimate targets in you view? If they are does that mean that those producing components are fair game? How about those making the steel? Or those transporting all the stuff around and then to the fighting troops? If they are all legitimate targets does that mean those feeding them are also fair game? Where do you draw the line when deciding which noncombatant is a legitimate target and which is not? To my way of thinking in war there are no illegitimate targets, all contribute to a war effort therefore it is reasonable that all should targets. "That's only true in total war, thankfully most wars are limited. | |||
"That's only true in total war, thankfully most wars are limited." Really? How do you work that out? Do the weapons and munitions used in any war just magically appear along with all the other equipment and supplies required to prosecute the conflict in the warzone? Or are they manufactured and transported to the military (and sometimes into the warzone) by civilians? And where do the resources (funds) to pay for wars come from? Would that be taxes raised by the governments who start the wars from their populations (civilians). And even if your going to hold to your position, what about armed civilian military contractors who are involved in military action, are they a legitimate target? I think you with that last group you will find they are specifically mentioned in the Geneva Convention and classed as illegal combatants and that it says they have no protection in law. I think further you will find that that has been used to justify the treatment of many people captured (kidn@ped) and transported around the world by the US government (extraordinary rendition) to be interrogated (tortured) without there being any real claims of war crimes or crimes against humanity by any who understand the realities of our present international laws pertaining to war. Let me say again I am not condoning or condemning anything here, just asking questions, pointing out inconsistencies and realities. | |||
"Laws? Set down by those who surely seek to control the masses? We can do what we like attitude. Fuck everyone else. I can't possibly comment on the Geneva convention as know little of it, but I'm sure was it not formed by USA, Churchill and Stalin? Just like NATO was formed by the three of them? I need to read up on the act before can relate or question what you have written. Thanks for your input I do and did pass comment about the morality of those (or any other law) when I say this is the law. Nor do I usually pass comment about why laws only go so far and no further, but in this case I will... Where international law is concerned it requires a minimum of the passive consent of the whole international community and the active participation of the world and regional powers of the day to have any chance of working. this means that competing (and sometimes enemy nations) must feel that the proposed law does not disadvantage them and aid those hostile to them. This inevitably leads to lower moral standards and higher criminal thresholds. If you really find this repugnant the answer is simple. Find others around the world of a similar mindset to you. Form an international political party and run for office all over the world. Then when your party is in power across the globe you will be able to rewrite international law and lead us all into the utopian Garden of Eaden. (Of course I expect you will need to fight and win quite a few wars along the way with those who have much lower moral standards than you.) Just that simple, but neary impossible to achieve I expect." | |||
| |||
"That's only true in total war, thankfully most wars are limited. Really? How do you work that out? Do the weapons and munitions used in any war just magically appear along with all the other equipment and supplies required to prosecute the conflict in the warzone? Or are they manufactured and transported to the military (and sometimes into the warzone) by civilians? And where do the resources (funds) to pay for wars come from? Would that be taxes raised by the governments who start the wars from their populations (civilians). And even if your going to hold to your position, what about armed civilian military contractors who are involved in military action, are they a legitimate target? I think you with that last group you will find they are specifically mentioned in the Geneva Convention and classed as illegal combatants and that it says they have no protection in law. I think further you will find that that has been used to justify the treatment of many people captured (kidn@ped) and transported around the world by the US government (extraordinary rendition) to be interrogated (tortured) without there being any real claims of war crimes or crimes against humanity by any who understand the realities of our present international laws pertaining to war. Let me say again I am not condoning or condemning anything here, just asking questions, pointing out inconsistencies and realities." Sorry for the late reply. Total war is when the full machinery of the military, the state, and society is dedicated to the destruction of the enemy. In world war two the military was focused on the destruction of the enemy. The government was focused on that task, and society had rationing, conscription, Bevan Boys, requestioning, evacuations, home guard, wardens, self sufficiency, women in the work place etc. etc. That is total war. We haven't had it since. Look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been very busy for the military, however it hasn't been their one and only consideration. They have also dealt with things such as Ebola in Sierra, air policing missions in the Baltic, peace keeping in Cyprus, defence of the Falklands etc. The wars were not really a key priority for the government, once they had started they mainly lost interest, and had no real undertanding of the strategic objectives that they wanted to achieve. Some members of the public were interested, but there was no conscription, or rationing or any real impact at all on the life of the average Brit. This is therefore limited war. | |||
| |||
"Sorry for the late reply. Total war is when the full machinery of the military, the state, and society is dedicated to the destruction of the enemy. In world war two the military was focused on the destruction of the enemy. The government was focused on that task, and society had rationing, conscription, Bevan Boys, requestioning, evacuations, home guard, wardens, self sufficiency, women in the work place etc. etc. That is total war. We haven't had it since. Look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have been very busy for the military, however it hasn't been their one and only consideration. They have also dealt with things such as Ebola in Sierra, air policing missions in the Baltic, peace keeping in Cyprus, defence of the Falklands etc. The wars were not really a key priority for the government, once they had started they mainly lost interest, and had no real undertanding of the strategic objectives that they wanted to achieve. Some members of the public were interested, but there was no conscription, or rationing or any real impact at all on the life of the average Brit. This is therefore limited war." CLCC, I fully understand what total war is. The point I was making is no war is fought in a military vacuum, all require civilian support and I for see no difference in target legitimacy between the war fighters and the war materials production chains and their component parts (including finance) and personnel. Both are equally necessary to prosecute any war regardless of size or intensity. ... ... "Jumping back in again. Do you support torture will will? And a better question... Where do you draw the line on unnecessary violence or do you have one? " Superflash, in answer to your first question: No, I do not support torture, it does not work the vast majority of the time and is usually counter productive. There are 2 reasons for this, firstly anyone on a battlefield who has access to useful intel will have been give interrogation resistance training and the information they have will be useful for a maximum of 48 hours from the time it is passed to them. They know this so they know how long they need to resist for (makes resistance much easier). Secondly any information gained is suspect when pain is used to extract it as the tortured will quickly tell their tormentors whatever they think they want to hear to make the pain go away. Thirdly and most importantly, how you treat prisoners quickly becomes common knowledge to enemy fighters. If you use torture it gives the enemy extra incentive not to be captured and although some will run if given the opportunity those cornered fight harder often to the death when they know they will be tortured if captured alive. As for your second question that depends on your definition of unnecessary violence, so let me start there. The only time violence is unnecessary is when it is unprovoked (normally aquasite) aggression. Having said that, I believe you are actually asking is where do I draw the line as regards levels and intensity of violence. If this is the case you are not going to like my answer. I really don't have a line. Let me use simile to explain, you are in a bar enjoying a quiet night out. Someone you din't know attacks you without reason, you fight back, you do not hold back, you only stop when there is absolutely no further resistance, then you quietly walk away about 5 steps turn round take a measured run up and deliver a mighty kick in the crotch before placing your heel on your attacker's nose and spinning on it while at the same time quietly telling everyone to tell your attacker that the reason you have administered the final indignity of disfiguring their face is so every time they look in a mirror they remember what happens when they attack people without reason and loose. Wars are like fights. Proportional responses illicit further proportional replies (that is called escalation), escalation leads to expansion as others join in, in an attempt to swing the balance in favour of one side or another. Eventually you end up with extreme unfettered violence becoming the norm. Although it is totally counter intuitive I am an advocate of using overwhelming violence from the start. The shock stops the cycle of escalation from even beginning and any onlookers who are looking for an opportunity to join in without risk to themselves take one look and decide that not only will they not bother but they remember you and spread the word about what you did when attacked, that is genuine deterrence at work. If you wish I can give you verifiable examples both in small scale (individuals fighting) and large scale (wars) that will prove the veracity of what I say. | |||
| |||
"Even if you are on the side of the aggressor??? " Did you actually read, digest and give some critical thought what I said? I think not. My first comment was that any unprovoked aggressive violence is unnecessary (and wrong). By extension any violence by others in support of such violence is wrong. I think that totally went over your head as you focused on what I said about the use of violence. In fact your reply is a perfect example of the mechanics of escalation. Further the example you have given to justify your beliefs is an object lesson in how proportionality in violent conflict causes escalation, intensification and expansion of of that violent conflict. I appreciate that you are a pacifist, that is your right and I would die to defend your freedom to hold and express your beliefs. But you need to understand that the only reason you have that freedom is because others used violence to win that freedom in the past (my grandfather being one) and more that are willing to use any level of violence required to stop that freedom being taken from you. My whole point that you missed, as most do. Is that it is better for there to be a single jump from peace to the carnage of no quarter in any violent conflict than slow escalation. Because the truth is less people get involved in the prior than the latter and the more involved in a conflict the higher that body count when eventually it is all over. As I said you would not like what I said. | |||
| |||
"I did... A quick hard attack is best to avoid counter attacks or surviving enemies... But while that's great in theory it doesn't work in practice.. To take my pount of terrorism in the UK now. Despite the history of others dying for us, recent times are the closest thing we have gotten to a semblance of peace and further fighting won't create more peace. Look to northern Ireland and you know well that letting both sides calm down for a generation or two is the answer " There is no point in continuing this discussion. You have a fixed opinion of me and the military. Regardless of what I say or how many examples i give you you will find another conflict that started in minor disturbances and developed into a protracted conflict and sight it as proof that the problem is the military. Nothing I or anyone else says will sway you. So lets just agree to disagree. After all this is not worth fighting over. | |||
Fair enough, I'll let you be | |||
"I'm claiming victory as you are retaliating
Fair enough, I'll let you be "No need to let me be. I know I am correct. Even you admit I am correct (on a personal defence level). The shame is you fail (or refuse) to understand that violent confrontation is violent confrontation and the same rules apply in all cases. The only differences between a fight involving 2 people, a gang fight and a war is ones of scale and and as numbers rise the level of violence increases exponentially. The real shame is most people also share your beliefs and accept that what I say holds true for self defence but refuse to accept that it also holds true in all conflict situations. As a result the truism of 'Go ugly early' is probably one of the most over used ideas virtually never put into practice. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And equally you know I'm right in the case of Northern Ireland... You've dodged that point twice. Peace creates peace " No, I did not dodge that issue, I just did not feel like teaching you your own history as that seemed to me to be insensitive... But as you keep bringing it up... so NI is sorted and only needed a little time for cooling off... Have you heard of the continuity IRA? Before that were the provos. Before that the Official IRA. Before that the IRB. Before the the Fenians. The Irish troubles have been a recurring nightmare that has been flaring up every 10 to 20 years dating back to Wolfe Tone. The solution to that problem is genuinely very simple. The UK needs to withdraw from NI and allow Ireland to reunite. Of course for this to happen the protestant (presbyterian) population in NI will have to accept that they are not the majority and need to get on with their Catholic neighbours. That will be far from easy to achieve. Until then the cycle of low level violence will continue. As for your prior point about purpose and whys being being extremely important. They are not in relation to what we are now discussing. I have said on many occasions I leave others to grapple with the moral issues raised by warfare and armed conflict, my only concern is the mechanics of conflict and of using violence for conflict resolution. If you wish to talk about relative morality, start a thread, I will be asking lots of questions that I have no absolute answers for beyond saying that there has to be a point where everyone says 'no further'. I would say that earlier than most I hope, but I am sure that there are issues where I would see no problem where others see great wrong. and that is the rub. But from once a conflict reaches the point where it tips into violence less damage overall is done if the transition from peace to the final levels of violence are instantaneous rather than incremental over time. Its just like boiling a crab, drop it in a pan of boiling water and it screams put it in a pan of cold water and put that on the stove and it fails to notice it is being cooked alive! Finally you have said I am barbaric. I am not, war is barbaric. What is not just barbaric but outrageous is the censorship being employed to 'protect' western population from images that show the true horror of violence of any kind. But hey ho, I have veered off topic, forgive OP. | |||
| |||
"This detachment from the issues...and a renouncment of personal agency on the morality of things sits very uneasily with me. I'm just a cog in the machine... Who am I to make decisions.. Im just doing what I'm told It's that attitude that gives us pollution/exploitation for profit in big corporations, paedo coverups in the church, financial meltdown when banks overextend themselves and genocide when foot soldiers do what their despot dictator tells them. " I'm glad it does not sit easy with you. You are a civilian and military thinking should concern you. But no military is a democracy. In fact for a military machine to function it has by nature to be an absolute dictatorship. Politicians give instructions to the Joint Chiefs in the Defence Council and from that point on orders are passed down the chain of command and it is every service persons duty to obey those orders or face the harshest of punishments. I don't often quote poetry but on this occasion I think Lord Tennyson nailed what the duty of service really means. The Charge of The Light Brigade. Verse 2 'Forward, the Light Brigade!' Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. As for your conclusions, I would respectfully refute them very simply with a question: Who or what is responsible for the chopping down a tree? The axe, the woodsman who wielded the axe, the tinker who sharpened and honed the axe, the smith who made the axehead, the carpenter who fashioned its handle or the landowner who ordered the tree be felled? It is too easy to blame the tool or tool wielder. | |||
| |||
"Replace the tree with someone's neck and where does your argument stand? Its still all THEORY to excuse individuals of heinous acts in the name of a PERCEIVED cause It's 2017 and you have the ability to opt out." OK... I'll try one last time... You dont like the military, I get that. You think the military are made up of stupid, unthinking, brainwashed automatons that have no place in our world. OK, but what would you replace the armed services of the world with? Or do you think that overnight all those who seek to use violence to enforce their will on the rest of the world will suddenly change their beliefs and turn their swords into ploughshares? | |||
| |||
