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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (26676)	5/5/2004 8:48:04 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Under the definition, it is a war crime, obviously. The question is, does it have any force under the circumstances? Since the authority of such a treaty is based on reciprocity, it is my contention that the Axis powers had, in effect, invalidated the treaty, and left the Allies with little recourse except to adjust their tactics to avoid defeat. There was no other way to enforce the treaty against the Axis except to defeat them, and they could not be defeated if they were allowed a free hand in tactics. Thus, it was not criminal for the Allies to use tactics that would ordinarily be deplored. As I said, the morality of the question is separate. I do not think that the Allies should have felt no constraint, and I suspect that the bombing of Dresden, for example, was a genuine war crime. However, given the facts and surmises upon which the decision to use the atomic bombs were based, I do not think that they were morally wrong.