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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (779)	12/19/2002 11:45:54 AM
From: William B. Kohn	Respond to of 15987

Show me a war, ever, where the combatants fought and according to your definitions war crimes were not committed! Lecturing from the safe shores of Monoco doesn't change facts. It is the lot of mankind to war, and in those wars often not so nice things happen. If the Arab world doesn't want those not so nice things to happen to them, then they have a clear choice. They can clean up there acts, remove the evil doers who are hiding in their societies, and stop those that preach hatred to others. If they choose not to do this, then they are taking sides, and whatever happens, they deserve.

To: zonder who wrote (779)	12/19/2002 11:52:05 AM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

So, if you see some guy on the point of letting a guillotine chop off the head of an adultery weapon, you won't shoot the maniac because the outcome of his action would not disculp you from your own crime. Or tell me that the Japanese were not maniacs in the way they fought, in the way the suicide-piloted, in the way the never surrendered.

To: zonder who wrote (779)	12/19/2002 12:22:00 PM
From: mistermj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

zonder, the crux of the issue is what defines a war crime. You might want to read the part about military necessity. >>The body of laws that define a war crime are the Geneva Conventions, a broader and older area of laws referred to as the Laws and Customs of War, and, in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague (ICTY). Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including . . . wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, . . . taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes. << news.bbc.co.uk

To: zonder who wrote (779)	12/19/2002 12:45:36 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Even after the Emperor got on the radio and called for surrender, after Nagasaki, the Japanese Navy had to suppress several attempted mutinies from officers who would not accept defeat, and intended to fight on. It took the Emperor himself until the second bomb to call for surrender. And the casualties sustained in the invasion of Okinawa had been horrendous. It is as sure as most things can be that had we not dropped the atomic bombs, there would have had to have been a massive invasion involving tremendously greater loss of life on both sides.....