Poland Was Partly to Blame for World War II, says Russia

[Martinus]

Has Raz hacked Hamilcar's account? 

[Syt]

Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities.  Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.

I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.

It's Ide's schtick to solve everything with long range bombing campaigns.

[Martinus]

I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?

[Admiral Yi]

Chemical weapons. 

[garbon]

Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.

So is this some sort of continually kick Ide in the teeth move?

[Martinus]

Hami seems to have a problem with nazis dying in droves - unlike, say, tornado victims.

[LaCroix]

Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities.  Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.

I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.

if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.

[The Larch]

Actually, when you grind down, it's really Britain's fault, for not developing long-range bombers and the appropriate tactics during the interwar period, giving them the capability to disperse large amounts of persistent chemical agents upon Berlin and other major German cities.  Thanks a lot, Chamberlain.

I see you're casually advocating war crimes. Where did you study law again? I really hope none of your clients ever take your advice.

if the british government had (british) legal authority to firebomb foreign cities, it probably had (british) legal authority to gasbomb foreign cities. unless there's some obscure british law/precedent from that era that prohibited the british government from using gas weapons. but, if that were the case, neither ide nor any law graduate could reasonably be expected to know that.

Chemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

[LaCroix]

Chemical weapons are forbidden in warfare by international law since 1925. The UK was one of the original signers of the treaty, and had signed an earlier one in 1922, part of the Washington Arms Conference Treaty, that prohibited the use of gases in warfare.

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, or the Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into international Law at Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Chemical_weapons_treaties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

i knew an international treaty existed at the time that prohibited chemical weapons, hence why i kept saying british.

as far as i'm aware, international treaties don't bind national governments. i don't see how such treaties could without a nation's constitution (or non-constitution constitution) requiring the national government to adhere to international treaties. and, why would drafters of a constitution ever put that in. wouldn't make much sense with the possible harm it could inflict on the nation.

[Valmy]

I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?

Now now we did the Dresden bombings as well. You want to get the Brits for the Hamburg bombings.

[DontSayBanana]

I never saw Americans prosecuted for nuking Hiroshima or Brits prosecuted for Dresden bombings, so why would what Ide is advocating be a war crime?

I would think we'd be in hotter water over dispersal of Agent Orange.

[Razgovory]

Plants lack legal standing in Vietnam.

[grumbler]

i knew an international treaty existed at the time that prohibited chemical weapons, hence why i kept saying british.

as far as i'm aware, international treaties don't bind national governments. i don't see how such treaties could without a nation's constitution (or non-constitution constitution) requiring the national government to adhere to international treaties. and, why would drafters of a constitution ever put that in. wouldn't make much sense with the possible harm it could inflict on the nation.

I am not sure where you are coming from on this.  Under the US Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land, and can only be abrogated in accordance with the treaty.   In the UK, I am sure that the case is somewhat different, in that Parliament is sovereign and is technically not bound by any previous acts of Parliament, including treaties, but I am sure that their "constitution" (unwritten but nonetheless held to be binding) requires that the government abrogate treaties only in accordance with the treaty, rather than unilaterally by act of Parliament, else no one would sign a treaty with it.

[grumbler]

Oh, and I am sure we can forgive Hami for not knowing that Ide routinely advocates silly stuff as part of his shtick.

Hami, Ide is just carrying his sincere beliefs to absurd extremes, as a matter of humor.

[DGuller]

Oh, and I am sure we can forgive Hami for not knowing that Ide routinely advocates silly stuff as part of his shtick.

Hami, Ide is just carrying his sincere beliefs to absurd extremes, as a matter of humor.

Do Swiss know what "humor" is?