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

[garbon]

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? 

http://www.cleeseblog.com/2008/06/29/swiss-sense-of-humour/

To say the Swiss have no sense of humour is to imply that they are not aware of their own foibles which they clearly are. During their otherwise excellent co-hosting of the Euro 2008 football competition, suffering the most dreadful weather conditions, coping with electrical storms and blackouts, SBC the Swiss national broadcaster managed to offend the entire German nation by by using long since abandoned verse "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" as sub-titles during the German national anthem. Cue red faces, and sincere apologies all round.

A couple of comedic phrases the more daring among you might find useful in Switzerland, which should work well so long as you're in the German-speaking parts of the country, and which will do much illustrate the admirable self-deprecating and honest Swiss sense of humour:

"Wer hat das ganzes Nazigold gestohlen?" – who stole all the Nazi gold? This is always a good one to trot out if you're lost for a witty remark and among civilised company – especially to the older Swiss who know more about these things and understand the tortuous processes by which their forebears avoided occupation and remained neutral during WW2.

Younger comedians, especially if you're at the cup final and close enough to the touchline, why not shout at the referee or either of his well-fed assistants, "Wer aß das ganzes muesli?" – who ate all the muesli? – this popular breakfast being something the healthy Swiss did invent, and of which they are rightly proud, down to the very last piece of dried fruit.

[Ideologue]

I'm pretty sure my peak advocation of area bombing for shock value predates Hamilcar's depature.  But it has been awhile.

Anyway, maybe I really don't know more about international law than Mr. Astronomy.  While I'm quite aware that chemical weapons were made illegal by international treaty after WWI, I'm afraid it's Hamilcar alone who knows who would have actually prosecuted the officials of a victorious Allied nation that had elected to use them.  But I wonder if perhaps he means the same attorneys who handled the cases against Curtis LeMay and Arthur Harris, and who secured severe sentences against the defendants for their crimes?

[jimmy olsen]

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.

Ide's devotion to total war and strategic bombing in particular as the only practical and moral form of warfare goes back to the very foundation of this forum and beyond. He's a big fan of Curtis LeMay and Buck Turgidson.

[jimmy olsen]

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

Didn't seem to cover biological weapons since they had plans to carpet bomb germany with anthrax and render it uninhabitable for centuries if the Germans gassed British cities.

[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

Didn't seem to cover biological weapons since they had plans to carpet bomb germany with anthrax and render it uninhabitable for centuries if the Germans gassed British cities.

That was because the treaty apparently didn't forbid stockpiling them or retaliating with them in case of being attacked first. It's one of the many weaknesses it had, like not forbidding its use against non signataries or within a country's borders.

[LaCroix]

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.

pretty sure supreme law of the land refers only to states. i.e., federal gov makes a treaty with a foreign nation -> the states cannot reject those treaties. it's a check on the states to ensure they comply with the federal decision to impose a treaty on the nation. i don't think it imposes any requirement on the federal government to uphold the treaty.

[The Brain]

FDR wasn't a criminal; he was a cripple.