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

Started by Syt, September 27, 2015, 06:02:18 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martinus


Syt

Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
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.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

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?


garbon

Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
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?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Martinus

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

LaCroix

Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
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

Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 04:40:36 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 28, 2015, 07:12:25 PM
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.

QuoteThe 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

#53
Quote from: The Larch on September 29, 2015, 05:38:12 AMChemical 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.

QuoteThe 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. :P

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

Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2015, 02:05:01 AM
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.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

DontSayBanana

Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2015, 02:05:01 AM
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.
Experience bij!

Razgovory

I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

grumbler

Quote from: LaCroix on September 29, 2015, 06:38:56 AM
i knew an international treaty existed at the time that prohibited chemical weapons, hence why i kept saying british. :P

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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

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.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

DGuller

Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2015, 04:10:24 PM
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?  :hmm: