Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (42190)	1/12/2002 12:16:10 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 82486

The Geneva Convention relative to civilians in time of war. Here are some salient provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1950 as it applies to civilians in nations at war: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949, entry into force 21 October 1950 Article 14 In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven. Article 15 Any Party to the conflict may, either directly or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without distinction: (a) Wounded and sick combatants or non-combatants; (b) Civilian persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character. When the Parties concerned have agreed upon the geographical position, administration, food supply and supervision of the proposed neutralized zone, a written agreement shall be concluded and signed by the representatives of the Parties to the conflict. The agreement shall fix the beginning and the duration of the neutralization of the zone. Article 28 The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The Convention of 1950 was intended to address abuses that occurred during World War II (generally interpreted to mean abuses by Japan and Germany). Most of the major nations are signatories, although some reserved exceptions to certain provisions. Anyone reading this can judge for themselves whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have violated these provisions, had they been in effect at the time.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (42190)	1/12/2002 6:55:54 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

It would have been political suicide for the leaders of the U.S. and Britain to agree to "concessions." The final decision to allow Japan to keep their Emperor was not a concession, but rather a self-interest Of course it would have been political suicide. So what? AS far as allowing them to retain the Emperor, why dance around with word games to avoid using the word "concession." It could have been done before the bombs were dropped, and the surrender could have been accomplished with or without a "demonstration" of their ability to bury Japan beneath the sea. Japan already knew the US could firebomb them at will--anywhere, anytime. IF the concession (or not concession, as you prefer to call it) had been given BEFORE the bombs; then the heartfelt efforts of many fine leaders who strove to prevent the dropping of the bombs could have been vindicated, or proven illusory. Having decided not to make the "not concession" as a "self-interest choice", one can only presume that something more pressing than their "self-interest choice" was pressing them to press the buttons. "What it comes down to, is who dictates the terms of a surrender That is correct. And, it is how a man treats the helpless and the pitiful that determines his humanity. Dictators "dictate." If the goal is to live in peace and prosperity with the enemy, then how you treat them in victory will determine how well you have understood the interrelationship, and the commonality which exists. The allies did not understand this lesson at the treaty of Versailles. At the end of the second world war they had forgotten it. During the remainder of the forties and fifies, they remembered it again. I had a friend who survived the Bataan death march. He carried a knife in his boot for the rest of his life, and was a bitter and hateful man. He has his counterparts in all countries of the world. Warriors from every country committed war crimes for which they were never tried. Outright killing of guards after liberation; murder of POW's, etc...and sometimes torture. I have a rather definite bias for the free world and western culture. However, it is reckless to be dismissive of others or to let "patriotism" diminish the human perspective. Anyway, I thought you might get something from this account of one man's survival of Bataan... jacksonville.net