PDA

View Full Version : International Criminal Court



CameronD
15-07-2008, 11:50 PM
Hi

Found this happened today

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92512727

Please note that this post has nothing to do with what the president done is right or not. But about the ICC considering itself above all courts and countries sovereinty.

Interesting points.

- their seeking the arrest of a sitting president (step up from Morechvich)

- Sudan never signed up to the International court (along with USA, Syria, Israel and 4 others)

- The court believes it applies to everyone, regardless of wheather the country has signed on. Overstepping the right of countries to sovereignty. The organisation in charge of ICC is slowly building its world government

- Another example of the world powers trying to control everyone towards a single world power

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 02:23 AM
Hi

Found this happened today

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92512727

Please note that this post has nothing to do with what the president done is right or not. But about the ICC considering itself above all courts and countries sovereinty.

Interesting points.

- their seeking the arrest of a sitting president (step up from Morechvich)

- Sudan never signed up to the International court (along with USA, Syria, Israel and 4 others)

- The court believes it applies to everyone, regardless of wheather the country has signed on. Overstepping the right of countries to sovereignty. The organisation in charge of ICC is slowly building its world government

- Another example of the world powers trying to control everyone towards a single world power
Australia made a big mistake in signing up to such an unaccountable body. Same goes for the UN itself, and any treaties we sign that places us under UN oversight.

CameronD
16-07-2008, 08:12 AM
Australia made a big mistake in signing up to such an unaccountable body. Same goes for the UN itself, and any treaties we sign that places us under UN oversight.

I dont think it matters if we sign now. The International Criminal Court has taken global jurisdiction. As shown in this case, sudan never signed up to the court, yet the ICC are taking jurisdiction over their citizens.

eclectic
16-07-2008, 11:48 AM
did the united states refuse to accept the handing over of osama bin laden to it from sudan all those years ago because it, sudan, was not under the jurisdiction of the international criminal court? :rolleyes:

MichaelBaron
16-07-2008, 02:19 PM
We have to accept that while the idea of having an Internation Court is appealing, it will never become fully independent and objective. Just look at the Haague tribunal: it has been busy investgating a number of politicians from former Yugoslavia, yet USA annnounced that its citizens (including those who were bombing Belgrade) are not going to be subjected to its investigations. Yet, USA is the courts' main sponsor. To me, it is a clear example of double standards.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 02:56 PM
We have to accept that while the idea of having an Internation Court is appealing, .....

I don't even find it appealing.
1. For the International Court to work it's decisions must be enforced by International government. That idea is not appealing at all.
2. I only want to know the law of the country I live in (or visit). The idea of being judged for I do in Australia by the law of other countries does not appeal to me.

TheJoker
16-07-2008, 04:39 PM
Lots of criticisms of the ICC here (many quite valid), but how do you critics propose to deal with criminals like those in Sudan who hide behind the mask of sovereingty?

If Hitler hadn't expanded into Poland etc. would you have been happy for him to persecute the Jews in Germany under the banner of German sovereignty with out international intervention?

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 06:56 PM
If Hitler hadn't expanded into Poland etc. would you have been happy for him to persecute the Jews in Germany under the banner of German sovereignty with out international intervention?
No, not any more than Stalin and Mao should have gotten away with their crimes. But the UN is chock full of murderous despots, so it's crass that they should sit in judgement.

Spiny Norman
16-07-2008, 07:20 PM
If Hitler hadn't expanded into Poland etc. would you have been happy for him to persecute the Jews in Germany under the banner of German sovereignty with out international intervention?
No, genocide is a good enough excuse to invade ... but I'd just prefer to send in special forces sniper teams to remove the despots (and those that replace them who are of the same ilk) ... shoot a few and the rest will suddenly become much more amenable to negotiation I think.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 08:05 PM
...send in special forces sniper teams to remove the despots (and those that replace them who are of the same ilk) ... shoot a few and the rest will suddenly become much more amenable to negotiation I think.
some might call such teams , terrorists .

Basil
16-07-2008, 08:13 PM
some might call such teams , terrorists .
some might and indeed do. they are of course, clueless dummies. speaking of which ...

Axiom
16-07-2008, 08:23 PM
some might and indeed do. they are of course, clueless dummies. speaking of which ...
oh sorry , i forgot , you only operate from a single frame of reference. :hand:

Basil
16-07-2008, 08:24 PM
oh sorry , i forgot , you have only have one frame of reference. :hand:
what are you talking about (if you actually know)?

spiny made the point that genocide is sufficient reason to invade. he's right. you chimed in citing how the clueless might interpret that invasion, and unsurprisingly the discussion headed south (quickly) from there.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 08:25 PM
what are you talking about (if you actually know)?
context, perspective, frame of reference.

Basil
16-07-2008, 08:26 PM
context, perspective, frame of reference.
for instance?

Axiom
16-07-2008, 08:34 PM
for instance?
sniper teams removing despots

eclectic
16-07-2008, 08:41 PM
no warrant has yet been issued by the ICC for my worst pun on the bulletin board as yet despite duggers having tagged me with a hadbba for it :lol:

Basil
16-07-2008, 08:46 PM
Ax, this is why you win the dribbler gong without any peer in sight. A string of unrelated words and ideas (I use the term loosely) that collectively lead nowhere and make no sense.

Let's recap:

SPINY
...send in special forces sniper teams to remove the despots (and those that replace them who are of the same ilk) ... shoot a few and the rest will suddenly become much more amenable to negotiation I think.

AXIOM
some might call such teams , terrorists .

GUNNER
some might and indeed do. they are of course, clueless dummies. speaking of which ...

AXIOM
oh sorry , i forgot , you only operate from a single frame of reference.

GUNNER
what are you talking about (if you actually know)?

spiny made the point that genocide is sufficient reason to invade. he's right. you chimed in citing how the clueless might interpret that invasion, and unsurprisingly the discussion headed south (quickly) from there.

AXIOM
context, perspective, frame of reference.

GUNNER
for instance?

AXIOM
sniper teams removing despots

What point do you consider that you have made? Try and be cogent. Try and state your business. Try not to make vague statements. Try not to assume the reader knows what you intend (as history has proven they seldom do).

Go.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:04 PM
Ax, this is why you win the dribbler gong without any peer in sight. A string of unrelated words and ideas (I use the term loosely) that collectively lead nowhere and make no sense.

Let's recap:

SPINY
...send in special forces sniper teams to remove the despots (and those that replace them who are of the same ilk) ... shoot a few and the rest will suddenly become much more amenable to negotiation I think.

AXIOM
some might call such teams , terrorists .

GUNNER
some might and indeed do. they are of course, clueless dummies. speaking of which ...

AXIOM
oh sorry , i forgot , you only operate from a single frame of reference.

GUNNER
what are you talking about (if you actually know)?

spiny made the point that genocide is sufficient reason to invade. he's right. you chimed in citing how the clueless might interpret that invasion, and unsurprisingly the discussion headed south (quickly) from there.

AXIOM
context, perspective, frame of reference.

GUNNER
for instance?

AXIOM
sniper teams removing despots

What point do you consider that you have made? Try and be cogent. Try and state your business. Try not to make vague statements. Try not to assume the reader knows what you intend (as history has proven they seldom do).

Go.
You are saying that those that label despot killing sniping teams terrorists are clueless.
I'm saying that, that reveals your singular frame of reference ie . myopic.

as per

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

CameronD
16-07-2008, 10:09 PM
I cant believe how you people degenerate a thread into dribble.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:14 PM
I cant believe how you people degenerate a thread into dribble.
i believe you need to speak to gunner ,....
he'll be right with you.

Basil
16-07-2008, 10:18 PM
You are saying that those that label despot killing sniping teams terrorists are clueless.
I'm saying that, that reveals your singular frame of reference ie . myopic.

Welcome to the discussion.

Snipers killing under direction from a legitimate and democratic government, reacting to solely genocide, and for the sole purpose and motivation of preventing further genocide are not terrorists by any sane interpretation.


"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
Play play play - words and ideas rolling around and making hay. Let's be specific. Spiny's idea has nothing to do with terrorism, viz dealing in terror. Those who say otherwise miss the ideas discussed above.

Talking with you has been, yet again, an inordinate waste of time.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:21 PM
Welcome to the discussion.

Snipers killing under direction from a legitimate and democratic government, reacting to solely genocide, and for the sole purpose and motivation of preventing further genocide are not terrorists by any sane interpretation. except the interpretation by the ones commiting the genocide !



Play play play - words and ideas rolling around and making hay. Let's be specific. Spiny's idea has nothing to do with terrorism, viz dealing in terror. Those who say otherwise miss the ideas discussed above.

ok try this

"one man's genocide is another man's victory"

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2008, 10:35 PM
Snipers killing under direction from a legitimate and democratic government, reacting to solely genocide, and for the sole purpose and motivation of preventing further genocide are not terrorists by any sane interpretation.

"Terrorism" is another tricky word to define, but to the extent that it can be defined, it is mainly defined by its means and not its objectives.

Those means consist of attacks (outside of combat between military forces) that are made not primarily for the sake of the direct damage they do, but for the way they intimidate and coerce.

Removing genocidal regimes by force is certainly not terrorism, because the action taken accomplishes the aim directly, rather than coercing agreement with an ultimate aim.

By contrast, kidnapping a bunch of (say) Mugabe's relatives and threatening to shoot them unless he resigned would be terrorism no matter who did it.

That may seem strange to those for whom the word "terrorism" has become exclusively pejorative, but who might yet think that such an action (if it worked) would not be such a bad idea.

(You can all work out for yourselves who I am agreeing with here. :lol: )

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:45 PM
(You can all work out for yourselves who I am agreeing with here. :lol: ) thank you kb. :clap: :D

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:57 PM
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
That's wrong. It's hard to argue that Islamofascists who deliberately target children are fighting for freedom. And it's also implausible that French resistance fighters in WW2 who targeted only German soldiers were terrorists.

Basil
16-07-2008, 11:20 PM
Removing genocidal regimes by force is certainly not terrorism, because the action taken accomplishes the aim directly, rather than coercing agreement with an ultimate aim.
Yes.


By contrast, kidnapping a bunch of (say) Mugabe's relatives and threatening to shoot them unless he resigned would be terrorism no matter who did it.
Yes, and no one has suggested that Mugabe's relatives be targeted. Only the perpetrator and his active 'military' supporters (cutting at the head of the organisation) are to be targeted (under the covert idea). Should the relatives also be active and significant perpetrators, then they lose their status as relatives and gain that of perpetrators.

Ax, what you are thanking KB for is quite beyond comprehension.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 11:30 PM
perhaps to be more on point , kb , you could address sniper teams ,.
this is assassination not warfare , and the ICC i dare say would see it as such.
so sniping teams in an undeclared war can be seen as terrorists ie . destabilisers of govt through violent means.

Xoote
16-07-2008, 11:49 PM
I dont think it matters if we sign now. The International Criminal Court has taken global jurisdiction. As shown in this case, sudan never signed up to the court, yet the ICC are taking jurisdiction over their citizens.

Agreed

Axiom
16-07-2008, 11:51 PM
That's wrong. technically you could well be right ! :)
" 'One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter'

Often and thoughtlessly repeated, this is one of those sayings that cry out for logical and philosophical analysis. Competent analysis will show that clear-thinking persons ought to avoid the saying.

Note first that while freedom is an end, terror is a means. So to call a combatant a terrorist is to say something about his tactics, his means for achieving his ends, while to call a combatant a freedom fighter is to say nothing about his tactics or means for achieving his ends. It follows that one and the same combatant can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. For one and the same person can employ terror as his means while having freedom as his end. " http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1173660896.shtml
but obviously you can still fight for perceived freedom on the one hand ,at the same time being potentially seen as a terrorist on the other.

It's hard to argue that Islamofascists who deliberately target children are fighting for freedom where do they deliberately target children ? any more so than the targeting of thousands of iraqi children for instance.


And it's also implausible that French resistance fighters in WW2 who targeted only German soldiers were terrorists.
the germans at the time may have seen it differently , but you are correct in that it was an openly declared official war , between clearly distinct sides.

I wonder where the diabolically clever terrorists are ?
I wonder if they ever thought to covertly hijack a government , instead of using overt violence? :hmm:
or are terrorists by their very nature just deluded angry misguided evil doers?
or is perspective necessary ?

Kevin Bonham
16-07-2008, 11:59 PM
perhaps to be more on point , kb , you could address sniper teams ,.
this is assassination not warfare

Agreed, but assassination is not automatically terrorism.


so sniping teams in an undeclared war can be seen as terrorists ie . destabilisers of govt through violent means.

It depends on whether the function of the assassination is to terrorise someone into supporting a given outcome, or the assassination itself either is or directly causes the outcome.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 12:41 AM
where do they deliberately target children ? any more so than the targeting of thousands of iraqi children for instance.
Interesting you should mention that. The previous sanctions against Iraq disproportionately hurt Iraqi children, while Saddam was safe in his opulent palace with gold-plated taps:


The U.N. embargo has devastated all of life in Iraq. But nowhere is the deprivation more evident than in the once-modern health care system, where sanctions deny doctors the medicine and equipment they need to save patients dying of the curable diseases burgeoning amid the wreckage of war. U.N. officials estimate more than 1 million Iraqis have died in the last decade as a direct result of the sanctions (http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm).

The embargo is harvesting children. Before the Persian Gulf War, when food was plentiful and clean water readily available, the greatest pediatric health problem in Iraq was obesity. Now, with widespread food shortages and contaminated drinking water, undernourished children are stalked by cholera and typhoid. UNICEF blames the sanctions for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 since 1991.

Thus the sanctions could have been called "economic terrorism".


or are terrorists by their very nature just deluded angry misguided evil doers?
or is perspective necessary ?
Yes. Many Jihadis came from wealthy backgrounds and were highly educated (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/07/16/diplomas_wont_make_jihadis_go_away,_barack).

Basil
17-07-2008, 07:00 AM
Terrorism is not the only idea with blurred edges and definitions. Warfare is as well.

Time was when terrorism didn't exist (as we know it and accept it today) and warfare involved

making a declaration of same
lining up teams of canon fodder in trenches
giving the enemy buckets of notice of intention
sending the bastards over the top


I'm not going to get into the specific definitions of each because:

Specific and all encompassing definitions won't help this discussion much (single words, omitted caveats and more will provide ample opportunity for mindless pettiness)
Varying definitions are acceptable
Some definitions change annually


Further, chuck in Geneva conventions, chemical 'warfare', Axiom's freedom fighter line and a couple of anti personnel mines and the point is well lost in rhetoric and a sea of personal beliefs.

However, to be able to communicate with each other, we (UN, people generally, governments) need broad parameters of definitions, else we remain mute grunters gesticulating at each other.

So; to the act of one democratically (and legitimately) elected government isolating and targeting the head of another country's organisation or government with a view to killing him for the purpose(s) previously stated.

As Axiom says, this is assassination, but it is assassination within the confines of an (not necessarily declared) act of war, viz attempts to assassinate Hitler (by both sides!).

Under the auspices previously described here, there is no possibility that such an act is a terrorist act. Any attempt to massage the argument otherwise shows a singular lack of understanding of the issues.

Kevin AFAIK is not attempting this massage (although I'd prefer a cleaner extinguishing of the terror idea), while Axiom seems perpetually confused skating between the issues and not sure where he sits winding up as a discombobulated flop.

-----------------------------------------

Specifically; 'Leader A' is identified as a perpetrator of genocide. 'Government B' decides it wishes to (is obliged to) take steps to prevent further killing. Instead of publicly declaring war and swapping a couple of (hundred) thousand lives with the opposing country, 'Government B' believes a dozen men in Wiggles skivvies can achieve the same end. The Wiggles are despatched and complete their duty. The originating genocide ceases. The respondent (military) action ceases.

What has just occurred is an act of war (in the broad sense - and not an annually evolving definition that allows Axioms and other obfuscators to slip and slide between tortured moral ideals while thousands die).

What has also just happened is an act of assassination, but one sanctioned under the auspices of war (democratically blah blah, legitimate purpose blah blah, justified motivation blah blah)

And in no circumstances, has an act of terrorism occurred. Not close. Not maybe. Not nearly.

* Please note, freedom fighters, the indignant, the haters, the religiously motivated, the non elected, self-professed etc may claim higher authority, large parts of the argument laid out above, but claiming it doesn't make it so.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2008, 09:33 AM
Snipers killing under direction from a legitimate and democratic government, reacting to solely genocide, and for the sole purpose and motivation of preventing further genocide are not terrorists by any sane interpretation.


Of course. Which means means that the country with superior military has to be clever, declare itself a legitimate and democratic government and claim that the other side is committing genocide.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 10:27 AM
No, not any more than Stalin and Mao should have gotten away with their crimes. But the UN is chock full of murderous despots, so it's crass that they should sit in judgement.

yes... yes... but what's the solution. We can all go on naming tyrant leaders there is no browny points for that! What I was asking for was an idea of how to resolve the issue not whinning!:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 10:33 AM
yes... yes... but what's the solution. We can all go on naming tyrant leaders there is no browny points for that! What I was asking for was an idea of how to resolve the issue not whinning!:lol:
Democracies should pull out of the UN and form their own union. This might have enough force to punish the worst despots.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Can we get some more solutions to the problem of respecting sovereignty and the need for an international justice system to bring to justice serious criminals that the local government either supports or ignores?

So far we have sniper teams, I am still in favour of the ICC over that.

First problem who has control over ordering the assasination? The ICC, UN, USA, Botswana?

Spiny Norman
17-07-2008, 12:20 PM
Listen up ... whilst youse blokes are gasbagging, I could have had my teams dropped into Zimbabwe, cleaned up Mugabe and a couple of hangers on, and sorted the problem out. Clean. Precise. Minimal collateral damage.

What's the problem again?

Basil
17-07-2008, 12:22 PM
First problem who has control over ordering the assasination? The ICC, UN, USA, Botswana?
At the risk of sounding blasé (I'm not), the answer is any legitimate government that feels like it. At the end of the day, they will answer to
a) themselves (yes, I believe political leaders do have a conscience in matters such as these)
b) their people
c) their (global political) allies
d) the world

AFAIK, declaring war is not illegal :eek: (plucking here, I really don't know)

Basil
17-07-2008, 12:26 PM
Listen up ... whilst youse blokes are gasbagging ...
Leave me out of it! My gas-bagging was after I returned from the mission in the helicopter. I'm just taking time out to assist Ax with his difficulties.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2008, 03:19 PM
yes... yes... but what's the solution. We can all go on naming tyrant leaders there is no browny points for that! What I was asking for was an idea of how to resolve the issue not whinning!:lol:

In short - it is not resolvable.
Forcing tyrants out (or to become benevolent) is counter productive and, possibly, harmful.

Each country should look after each own interest. If some tin-pot dictator is the threat to our security (by giving refuge to terrorists, not extraditing criminal that broke Australian law while being in Australia, etc.), then the harsh measures are warranted. Otherwise leave them to their own devices.
Cordial agreements are also more likely with the country that respect the law. Otherwise, don't even bother exchanging embassies with them.

BTW, abandoning UN and stopping "humanitarian aid" (a process when poor people of rich countries give money to rich people in the poor countries) is the first step in the right direction.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 03:34 PM
Each country should look after each own interest. If some tin-pot dictator is the threat to our security (by giving refuge to terrorists, not extraditing criminal that broke Australian law while being in Australia, etc.), then the harsh measures are warranted. Otherwise leave them to their own devices.

So if Hilter hadn't moved into Poland, you would have been happy for the international community to sit on its hands as it persecuted the Jews living in Germany?

Doesn't seem right to me.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 03:41 PM
At the risk of sounding blasé (I'm not), the answer is any legitimate government that feels like it. At the end of the day, they will answer to
a) themselves (yes, I believe political leaders do have a conscience in matters such as these)
b) their people
c) their (global political) allies
d) the world

AFAIK, declaring war is not illegal :eek: (plucking here, I really don't know)

War still results with interfering with another countries sovereignty. Consider the amount of collateral damage involved in a war. I'd still prefer to see those responsible for the injustices arrested and commited to trial.

eclectic
17-07-2008, 03:43 PM
So if Hilter hadn't moved into Poland, you would have been happy for the international community to sit on its hands as it persecuted the Jews living in Germany?

Doesn't seem right to me.

you have been brainwashed by bocialist propaganda ;)

arosar
17-07-2008, 03:43 PM
Listen up ... whilst youse blokes are gasbagging, I could have had my teams dropped into Zimbabwe, cleaned up Mugabe and a couple of hangers on, and sorted the problem out. Clean. Precise. Minimal collateral damage.?

What team would you send? Would you send these blokes: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_JRqK2dFQCg ?

AR

Basil
17-07-2008, 06:49 PM
War still results with interfering with another countries sovereignty. Consider the amount of collateral damage involved in a war. I'd still prefer to see those responsible for the injustices arrested and commited to trial.
My answer (in your quote) was solely related to your question of authority. The issues raised in your question are all worthy and good.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 07:52 PM
War still results with interfering with another countries sovereignty. Consider the amount of collateral damage involved in a war. I'd still prefer to see those responsible for the injustices arrested and commited to trial.
What's so great about "another countries sovereignty"? Governments should exist to protect people, who are the ones who should be regarded as sovereign. Genocidal despots have lost all right to sovereignty. E.g. good thing that the murderous Saddam was removed.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 08:00 PM
So if Hilter hadn't moved into Poland, you would have been happy for the international community to sit on its hands as it persecuted the Jews living in Germany?
Interesting that you should mention this. Hitler invaded Poland only after his agreement with Stalin (Molotov–Ribbentrop pact). Yet after the war, Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg for:


Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

But the stupidity was that their judges included Soviets, the very people with whom they had "conspired" and "planned" for the "war of aggression" against Poland. And the Soviets tried to pin the Katyń Forest massacre on the Nazis as a "war crime", yet it was committed by the Soviets, as the other judges became aware but merely dropped the matter.

Certainly, most of the defendants deserved the punishments handed out, but the trial would not have been such a farce if the Soviets were not judging. I use the term "judging" loosely because the Soviet judges were so objective that they demanded the death penalty for all defendants before the trial had started. And they were complicit in the Stalin show trials that were certainly "crimes against humanity".

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 08:03 PM
BTW, abandoning UN and stopping "humanitarian aid" (a process when poor people of rich countries give money to rich people in the poor countries) is the first step in the right direction.
Yes, cf. my post African economist pleads: Stop foreign "aid" (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=161694). It merely makes leftist polticians and clergy feel morally superior, but it merely enriches foreign despots and enables them to oppress their people further.

Kevin Bonham
17-07-2008, 11:03 PM
Specifically; 'Leader A' is identified as a perpetrator of genocide. 'Government B' decides it wishes to (is obliged to) take steps to prevent further killing. Instead of publicly declaring war and swapping a couple of (hundred) thousand lives with the opposing country, 'Government B' believes a dozen men in Wiggles skivvies can achieve the same end. The Wiggles are despatched and complete their duty. The originating genocide ceases. The respondent (military) action ceases.

For the record, I completely agree that such a case is not terrorism and that it is silly to conflate it as such.

Spiny's original wording was a little more equivocal about whether regime removal is the end in itself or the means to coerce the end by discouraging others from following. In some cases these concepts can blur into each other to a degree. For it to be "terrorism" the coercive aspect must be clear.

Another way in which regime removal is typically not terrorism is that the purpose of terrorism is usually to coerce a regime. But a regime can't be coerced if it is dead. However, not all terrorism coerces a regime; indeed, Mugabe's own actions are a good example of state terrorism by a regime against its citizens.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 11:18 PM
What's so great about "another countries sovereignty"? Governments should exist to protect people, who are the ones who should be regarded as sovereign. Genocidal despots have lost all right to sovereignty. E.g. good thing that the murderous Saddam was removed.

That was the original criticism/question about the ICC should they be allowed to have jusrisdiction over/interfere with sovereign nations... I'm in the same boat as you I think all Government officials should be accountable for any such crimes they have committed. The question is what's the right way to deal with such people.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 11:31 PM
Interesting that you should mention this. Hitler invaded Poland only after his agreement with Stalin (Molotov–Ribbentrop pact). Yet after the war, Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg for:


Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

But the stupidity was that their judges included Soviets, the very people with whom they had "conspired" and "planned" for the "war of aggression" against Poland. And the Soviets tried to pin the Katyń Forest massacre on the Nazis as a "war crime", yet it was committed by the Soviets, as the other judges became aware but merely dropped the matter.

Certainly, most of the defendants deserved the punishments handed out, but the trial would not have been such a farce if the Soviets were not judging. I use the term "judging" loosely because the Soviet judges were so objective that they demanded the death penalty for all defendants before the trial had started. And they were complicit in the Stalin show trials that were certainly "crimes against humanity".

Serves as good arguement for the difficulties in having a fair international court!

Politics run pretty deep in certain judical circles, an internatinal court of course be farce if crimes of the like those commited under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot where to go unpunished (I dont think any of the 'Red Army' have been to trial have they?). The My Lai masacare is a good example of why internal courts are not very good for trying war criminals.

It's tough to find a solution for this situation.

TheJoker
17-07-2008, 11:32 PM
My answer (in your quote) was solely related to your question of authority. The issues raised in your question are all worthy and good.
icic...my bad

(dont you just love that phrase;) )

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2008, 09:47 AM
So if Hilter hadn't moved into Poland, you would have been happy for the international community to sit on its hands as it persecuted the Jews living in Germany?

Doesn't seem right to me.
No, I wouldn't be happy. It does not mean I'd advocate the so called "international community" attacking Hitler.

First, if the "international community" let Jews in, they'd be able to leave Germany. Refusal by almost all countries to accept Jews forced them to stay in Germany (and die in concentration camps).
Second, everyone tried to use Hitler to gain advantage (but only USA succeeded, to a degree).

Not signing Munich pact (in fact, not signing anything) would make WWII less likely to happen.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2008, 09:52 AM
For the record, I completely agree that such a case is not terrorism and that it is silly to conflate it as such.

Spiny's original wording was a little more equivocal about whether regime removal is the end in itself or the means to coerce the end by discouraging others from following. In some cases these concepts can blur into each other to a degree. For it to be "terrorism" the coercive aspect must be clear.

Another way in which regime removal is typically not terrorism is that the purpose of terrorism is usually to coerce a regime. But a regime can't be coerced if it is dead. However, not all terrorism coerces a regime; indeed, Mugabe's own actions are a good example of state terrorism by a regime against its citizens.

Killing the leader of the regime can make it weaker, but does not necessary annihilate it.

The word terrorism is another widely misused term as it became loaded.
Someone jokingly defined it as "any attack that US is vulnerable to".
Killing a leader is a political assassination. Whether it's a terrorism or not depends on the circumstances and a goal.

MichaelBaron
18-07-2008, 11:46 AM
Interesting that you should mention this. Hitler invaded Poland only after his agreement with Stalin (Molotov–Ribbentrop pact). Yet after the war, Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg for:

[".

This is a very good point! And this is one of the main reasons International courts can not be objective. Both Stalin and Hitler were monsters it is just that one monster (Stalin) was successful in winning the war against his German visavi.

Would Hitler be successful in winning the war, he too would set up some kind of "international court" to bring leaders of USSR, England and USA to 'justice"

Basil
18-07-2008, 12:20 PM
Killing the leader of the regime can make it weaker, but does not necessary annihilate it.

The word terrorism is another widely misused term as it became loaded.
Someone jokingly defined it as "any attack that US is vulnerable to".
Killing a leader is a political assassination. Whether it's a terrorism or not depends on the circumstances and a goal.
Igor, I think you'll find that Kevin and you and I are in complete agreement, save possibly from some, as yet, untouched minutiae.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-07-2008, 03:30 PM
Certainly, most of the defendants deserved the punishments handed out, but the trial would not have been such a farce if the Soviets were not judging. I use the term "judging" loosely because the Soviet judges were so objective that they demanded the death penalty for all defendants before the trial had started. And they were complicit in the Stalin show trials that were certainly "crimes against humanity".

I'd say that applies to Allies as well. After all, Dresden bombing had no military purpose and killed more civilians then Hiroshima atomic bomb (which can also be considered as war crime).

Basil
18-07-2008, 04:13 PM
I'd say that applies to Allies as well. After all, Dresden bombing had no military purpose and killed more civilians then Hiroshima atomic bomb (which can also be considered as war crime).
I believe it did have a military purpose, albeit highly open to debate. As for a 'war crime', and without sufficient knowledge of these matters, my lay opinion would be that it was, or rather would fit that category now.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2008, 04:38 PM
I believe it did have a military purpose, albeit highly open to debate. As for a 'war crime', and without sufficient knowledge of these matters, my lay opinion would be that it was, or rather would fit that category now.
Dresden was a major railway junction for the German army, and would have been used as a staging area for troops to fight off the Red Army. It also contained over 100 military factories with about 50,000 workers for the Nazi war effort (see The Dresden Legend (http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2004/1004dresden.asp)). Hiroshima contained 40,000 troops, was HQ for the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, was a military communication centre (http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=15045) and had military factories and Marine Headquarters (http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e11.html). But the usual reason advanced for the nuclear attacks (which were not actually as severe as the Tokyo firebombing) were saving millions of lives through the speedy end of the war (http://www.afa.org/new_root/enolagay/mission.asp):


Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan are mostly guesswork. Truman’s critics sneer at the idea that the invasion might have cost half a million American lives and say that US dead would not have exceeded “tens of thousands.” The debate of the casualty question is open-ended. However, the record of casualties up to the summer of 1945, when Truman made his decision, is instructive.


In April 1945, an Operation Downfall planning document prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff took US casualty rates from seven previous amphibious campaigns in the Pacific War and applied them to the force numbers to be employed in Olympic and Coronet. It pointed to 1,202,005 US casualties, including 314,619 Americans killed.
The most destructive bombing attack on Japan was not the atomic weapons at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but incendiary bombs dropped on Tokyo the night of March 9–10, 1945, killing 83,793. Continuation of the conventional bombing would not necessarily have meant fewer casualties.
On Okinawa US casualties were almost 50,000 (12,520 killed or missing, 36,613 wounded). Japanese casualties were far worse: some 90,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians dead. An invasion of Japan, with many times the numbers of forces that were engaged on Okinawa, would have led to vastly higher casualties on both sides.


Also, ending the war quickly saved many civilians, according to Dwight Murphey's review of Truman and the Hiroshima Cult by Robert Newman (http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/BkRev-Newman-Hiroshima-wpage.htm):


he considers atomic bombs “just a step up in power from explosives that had come into common use by all belligerents.” Accordingly, he doesn’t believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were immoral in themselves, and in moral theory this frees him to engage in a weighing process to compare the consequences that would have flowed from the alternative courses of action. Reviewing the carnage that had occurred at the hands of the Japanese during the war, he concludes that “it is plausible to hold that upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners, would have died each month the Japanese empire struggled in its death throes beyond July 1945.” The alternatives to the bombs were to invade or to starve the Japanese by blockade, and each of these would have been terrible in their human cost.

Basil
18-07-2008, 04:53 PM
Dresden was a major railway junction for the German army, and Hiroshima contained military barracks.
Indeed. And that is what I was alluding to. Although I didn't talk at length, those actions were justifiable (as opposed to necessarily justified).

The degree of civilian collateral casualty is an incredibly difficult concept that I for one am delighted I don't foresee having to make in my lifetime.

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2008, 05:03 PM
The degree of civilian collateral casualty is an incredibly difficult concept that I for one am delighted I don't foresee having to make in my lifetime.
Agreed. No question that war is hell. One of the most hellish parts is weighing the casualties from different courses of actions; the horrible question is not whether there are casualties but how many.

Terrorism is worse, since civilians are deliberately targeted.

TheJoker
18-07-2008, 11:36 PM
Agreed. No question that war is hell. One of the most hellish parts is weighing the casualties from different courses of actions; the horrible question is not whether there are casualties but how many.

Terrorism is worse, since civilians are deliberately targeted.

I agree, but it is interesting that you don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a terrrorist action (both deliberately targeted civilian populations) or do you?

Of course there is the arguement that they saved many civilian lives, but who gets to choose which civilian lives are more precious?

I think any act of war that directly targets non-combatants should be considered a war crime regardless of whether it is beneficial or not.

Xoote
19-07-2008, 01:32 AM
interesting thread

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2008, 02:19 AM
I agree, but it is interesting that you don't consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a terrrorist action (both deliberately targeted civilian populations) or do you?
They also targeted the military (as I said, Hiroshima had considerable military significance), and the Japanese culture at the time was training women and children to suicidally resist an invasion, as per Okinawa, so even these civilians were quasi military.


IOf course there is the arguement that they saved many civilian lives, but who gets to choose which civilian lives are more precious?
If it must come to that, then ours are more important than theirs; they started it! And we are talking about saving many more than were killed.


I think any act of war that directly targets non-combatants should be considered a war crime regardless of whether it is beneficial or not.
Might have been a war crime to prolongue the war at the costs of many more lives of Allied soldiers, Asians under the cruel Japanese thumb, and even desperate Japanese defenders

Basil
19-07-2008, 02:36 AM
We'll never know, and I'm not advocating what follows, but in the midst of a macabre discussion that I hope the reader doesn't think for one minute I take remotely lightly (a quick check of casualty photos and and first hand reports should disabuse most), I'd offer this ...

Alternate history (forgiving bomb development and obvious calendar events time-line distortions)

January 01 : Hitler declares war on Poland
January 02 : The Allies including USA declare war back
January 03 : Japan attacks pearl Harbour
January 04 : Atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Berlin
January 05 : Ceasefire

Death toll casualties to date? 250,000 to 500,000 people (including delayed and military deaths) in Japan plus say another 300,000 in Berlin. Total? Let's call it 750,000 in nice round human misery.

-----------------

Back to history. The death toll for WW2? A snappy 90,000,000. Check it (http://warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm)

And that's not counting the cash, mental anguish and so forth. The whole thing's worse than a universe worth unbelievable macabre nightmares. May God rest the souls of those who were there and lived a lifetime without loved ones.

Can I talk talk to the appeasing, head on sand, clueless fools from the era, please?

Spiny Norman
19-07-2008, 08:59 AM
Or ... alternate history #2:

January 01: Hitler declares war on Poland
January 02: Special forces sniper teams (who have been in country for several months, just in case of such an eventuality) take out Hilter, Goebbels, Mussolini, and several other numbskulls just for good measure.
January 03: Ceasefire

Total casualties: 15 (including the loss of one of the sniper teams who didn't make it out)

I'll take that over 250,000 any day ... and its out-of-sight better than losing somewhere between 50 million and 100 million people to war, famine, disease (which is what really did happen in WW2).

CameronD
19-07-2008, 09:13 AM
Or ... alternate history #2:

January 01: Hitler declares war on Poland
January 02: Special forces sniper teams (who have been in country for several months, just in case of such an eventuality) take out Hilter, Goebbels, Mussolini, and several other numbskulls just for good measure.
January 03: Ceasefire

Total casualties: 15 (including the loss of one of the sniper teams who didn't make it out)

I'll take that over 250,000 any day ... and its out-of-sight better than losing somewhere between 50 million and 100 million people to war, famine, disease (which is what really did happen in WW2).

alternative...

January 01: Hitler declares war on Poland
January 02: Special forces sniper teams (who have been in country for several months, just in case of such an eventuality) take out Hilter, Goebbels, Mussolini, and several other numbskulls just for good measure.
January 03: Ceasefire

later... the soviets defeat the allies and we are in a totally different world.

Spiny Norman
19-07-2008, 09:25 AM
later... the soviets defeat the allies and we are in a totally different world.
... a world full of snipers ... DUCK! ;)

MichaelBaron
19-07-2008, 11:43 AM
They also targeted the military (as I said, Hiroshima had considerable military significance),

First of all the war was virtually over!
Secondly, Even USA government admitted it was a horrible mistake to carry out the bombing.
Thirdly, many of the sources suggest that the real target of the bombings was not Japan but USSR as USA was trying to establish strong lead in the arms race.
Forthly, with nuclear weapons it was virtually impossible to target military targets exclusively as they were (and still are) designed as weapons of mass destruction.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2008, 12:47 PM
First of all the war was virtually over!
No it wasn't. The Japanese were fighting furiously even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, and were still preparing to defend the home islands to the death of every last man, woman and child. Many Asians were being killed as well in Japanese occupied territory, far more every month than the death toll at Hiroshima.


Secondly, Even USA government admitted it was a horrible mistake to carry out the bombing.
The USA government at the time ordered the bombing, and they were the ones weighing the costs at the time, as I've documented. Armchair critics much later mean little, especially with this recent apologizing-for-history fetish.


Thirdly, many of the sources suggest that the real target of the bombings was not Japan but USSR as USA was trying to establish strong lead in the arms race.
And more people would have been killed if the Soviets had invaded Japan.


Forthly, with nuclear weapons it was virtually impossible to target military targets exclusively as they were (and still are) designed as weapons of mass destruction.
Not as massive as the conventional firebombing of Tokyo.

TheJoker
19-07-2008, 12:56 PM
They also targeted the military (as I said, Hiroshima had considerable military significance), and the Japanese culture at the time was training women and children to suicidally resist an invasion, as per Okinawa, so even these civilians were quasi military.

What about Nagasaki? Either way it is obvious that the reason to use an atomic bomb (rather than conventional bombing) was to maximise destruction including civilian deaths.

The argument about quasi-military is so weak it's like saying 0.1% of Australian's are murders therefore let put everyone in prison for a life sentence.


If it must come to that, then ours are more important than theirs; they started it! And we are talking about saving many more than were killed.

IIRC Japan was on verge of surrendering anyway. Secondly is it ok to kill an innocent child who has no idea about the war at all, to save some military personel. How about if Australia was fighting a war that you didn't agree with, would you be happy if te enemy blew-up your children, in order to save a few enemy solider's lives. As you said the deliberate targeting of civilians is terrrorism and a war crime. THe use of weapons of mass destruction that kill indiscriminately should be considered under that category.


Might have been a war crime to prolongue the war at the costs of many more lives of Allied soldiers, Asians under the cruel Japanese thumb, and even desperate Japanese defenders

No the rules of war allow for the killing of enemy combatants. I find it impossible to justify the taking of an innocent child's life to save other lives. But maybe that's just me.

Zwischenzug
19-07-2008, 01:11 PM
I think the killing of civilians in wartimes is more to do with demoralizing the nation and cutting off the military's supply line. Things are also made difficult when military installations are placed within civilian areas.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2008, 01:16 PM
What about Nagasaki? Either way it is obvious that the reason to use an atomic bomb (rather than conventional bombing) was to maximise destruction including civilian deaths.
It was to induce the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and save lots more lives in the long run.


The argument about quasi-military is so weak it's like saying 0.1% of Australian's are murders therefore let put everyone in prison for a life sentence.
Not when all civilians were being trained to defend the home islands to the death if there were an invasion.


IIRC Japan was on verge of surrendering anyway.
No they weren't. They surrendered 6 days after the Nagasaki bombing. In the intervening week, the fighting during Soviet invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria had a death toll of 80,000 Japanese soldiers and 8,000 Russian dead, which was higher than the death toll of the Nagasaki bomb. Thousands of Asians were dying daily in occupied Japanese territory as well.


Secondly is it ok to kill an innocent child who has no idea about the war at all, to save some military personel.
As I said, war is horrible. The problem was, far more innocent children would have died in the invasion of Japan. I also have no problem saving our soldiers' lives since Japan started it.


“Liberals [i.e. lefties], it has been said, are generous with other peoples’ money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people’s freedom and security.” —William F. Buckley Jr.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2008, 01:17 PM
I think the killing of civilians in wartimes is more to do with demoralizing the nation and cutting off the military's supply line.
Especially in Japan's case, when the hole country was quasi-militarized, and the Allies had pready experienced Kamikaze attacks. They had good reason to expect over a million casualties in an invasion of Japan's home islands.


Things are also made difficult when military installations are placed within civilian areas.
That's what the Hamas and Hebollah thugs do. But the antisemitic leftmedia and UN blame Israel, although by the rules of war, it is those who hide among civilians who are responsible for casualties.

TheJoker
20-07-2008, 02:11 PM
Not when all civilians were being trained to defend the home islands to the death if there were an invasion.

Yeah right they had babies with dummies that fired bullets:rolleyes:



No they weren't. They surrendered 6 days after the Nagasaki bombing. In the intervening week, the fighting during Soviet invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria had a death toll of 80,000 Japanese soldiers and 8,000 Russian dead, which was higher than the death toll of the Nagasaki bomb. Thousands of Asians were dying daily in occupied Japanese territory as well.
Again I'll point out they were combatants and primarily Japanese ones at that.


As I said, war is horrible. The problem was, far more innocent children would have died in the invasion of Japan. I also have no problem saving our soldiers' lives since Japan started it.

There would have been no reason to need an invasion of Japan.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2008, 08:07 PM
Yeah right they had babies with dummies that fired bullets:rolleyes:
Asian babies were dying under the Japanese yoke every day that the war continued.


Again I'll point out they were combatants and primarily Japanese ones at that.
Still lots of deaths. And why should our children be rendered fatherless because of your squeamishness?


There would have been no reason to need an invasion of Japan.
Yes there was, to end the dangers of their militaristic rule. Unconditional surrender made them a peaceful society, and obliterated traces of Nazi rule. Contrast this with the wussy amnesty after WW1. This allowed German demagogues to claim that they were not really defeated but stabbed in the back instead. Many historians regard WW2 as a continuation of WW1. Closer to home, because Saddam wasn't finished off in the Gulf War, we had to finish the job, but in the mean time he had murdered hundreds of thousands.

TheJoker
21-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Still lots of deaths. And why should our children be rendered fatherless because of your squeamishness?

Well I think the international community is behind me when it cmes to killing combatants (allowed) and non-combatants (to be avoided). it is as simple as that.



Yes there was, to end the dangers of their militaristic rule. Unconditional surrender made them a peaceful society, and obliterated traces of Nazi rule.

Japan wasn't under Nazi rule.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-07-2008, 10:53 AM
No it wasn't. The Japanese were fighting furiously even after the first atomic bomb was dropped, and were still preparing to defend the home islands to the death of every last man, woman and child. Many Asians were being killed as well in Japanese occupied territory, far more every month than the death toll at Hiroshima.


Yes it was. USSR planned an attack on Japan forces in China (which it started between Hiroshima and Nagasaki), which USA was informed of.
As you noted yourself, Japan kept fighting after the bombs were dropped, and decided to surrender only a week later, after the defeat in Manchuria and annihilation of Kwantung army.

The reasons for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:
1. Test the nuclear weapon (four Japanese cities were exempted from the US bombing)
2. Put pressure on Stalin by demonstrating the lead in AB race.
3. Frighten Japanese.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Well I think the international community is behind me when it cmes to killing combatants (allowed) and non-combatants (to be avoided). it is as simple as that.
International community? What a joke. This includes Mugabe and all his supporters in the UN. This same "international community" also sees no problem with Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists killing Jewish civilians.


Japan wasn't under Nazi rule.
It was under a militaristic quasi-fascist rule. If we had not forced unconditional surrender, they would have caused more problems in a decade or two.

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2008, 11:10 AM
Yes it was. USSR planned an attack on Japan forces in China (which it started between Hiroshima and Nagasaki), which USA was informed of.
As you noted yourself, Japan kept fighting after the bombs were dropped, and decided to surrender only a week later, after the defeat in Manchuria and annihilation of Kwantung army.
This supports my point though. This hardly indicates readiness to surrender. America had recent memories of 50,000 casualties on tiny Okinawa. So it's understandable that they thought they needed something much more drastic to convince the Emperor that the Japanese cause was completely lost, and that they wouldn't even have the perverse satisfaction of taking out many of the enemy.


The reasons for Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:
1. Test the nuclear weapon (four Japanese cities were exempted from the US bombing)
2. Put pressure on Stalin by demonstrating the lead in AB race.
3. Frighten Japanese.
#3 especially: frighten them enough to surrender relatively quickly.

TheJoker
21-07-2008, 04:16 PM
International community? What a joke. This includes Mugabe and all his supporters in the UN. This same "international community" also sees no problem with Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists killing Jewish civilians.

By international community I mean a majority of the world's population, not the UN or any other organisation. The same international community does have a problem with the killing of Jews by Hezbollah and Hamas. They also have a problem with the killing of Palestinian children. Basically I would suggest they have a problem with the killing of any innocent civilians where by terrorists or governments



It was under a militaristic quasi-fascist rule. If we had not forced unconditional surrender, they would have caused more problems in a decade or two.
But not Nazi rule. The second point is mere speculation.

TheJoker
21-07-2008, 04:21 PM
Jono when do you consider it acceptable (not criminal) to kill innocent civilians in order to potentially save more lives? What's the rule/guideline?

Who should have the right to decide if such action is warranted?

What sort scruntiny should the cost-benefit analysis in terms of lives saved be subject to?

Capablanca-Fan
21-07-2008, 04:28 PM
By international community I mean a majority of the world's population, not the UN or any other organisation.
I wonder. Brutal terrorist child-murderers recently received a heroes' welcome in Lebanon (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MonaCharen/2008/07/18/a_child_killers_homecoming).


The same international community does have a problem with the killing of Jews by Hezbollah and Hamas. They also have a problem with the killing of Palestinian children.
One would hope, except that they blame Israel for Palestinian deaths even when they are due to the terrorists hiding among them after killing Israelis. Of course, some of them are fabrications, e.g. see Faking a Killing (http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/143/full), and the raw footage that conclusively proves that Pallywood lied through its teeth (hardly for the first time): Al-Dura shooting: credibility wounded (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/al_dura_shooting_credibility_wounded/).


Basically I would suggest they have a problem with the killing of any innocent civilians where by terrorists or governments.
It should be qualified with intentional killing.


But not Nazi rule. The second point is mere speculation.
If anything, the Japanese were even more dangerous than the Nazis in the way they brutalized captive Asian populations and PoWs.

TheJoker
21-07-2008, 05:06 PM
It should be qualified with intentional killing.

Or negligent

Xoote
22-07-2008, 04:38 AM
interesting thread

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2008, 12:20 PM
Jono when do you consider it acceptable (not criminal) to kill innocent civilians in order to potentially save more lives? What's the rule/guideline?

Who should have the right to decide if such action is warranted?

What sort scruntiny should the cost-benefit analysis in terms of lives saved be subject to?
When we are fighting a just war, such as WW2, we have the responsibility to win it, and also win the cause we are fighting for, with the lowest possible death toll. And it's more important to save lives of the good guys than the bad guys, if a choice must be made.

Hence the Allies had to do what it took to force the Nazis and Japanese Warlords to surrender unconditionally. The atomic bombings forced this in the quickest way possible, and saved potentially millions of lives in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2008, 01:44 PM
When we are fighting a just war, such as WW2, we have the responsibility to win it, and also win the cause we are fighting for, with the lowest possible death toll. And it's more important to save lives of the good guys than the bad guys, if a choice must be made.

Hence the Allies had to do what it took to force the Nazis and Japanese Warlords to surrender unconditionally. The atomic bombings forced this in the quickest way possible, and saved potentially millions of lives in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

The problem is the definition of the "just war". Any war we fight in is, by definition, a "just war", otherwise we wouldn't fight it.

Also war might start as not a "just war", but become the one.
Another case - war initially is "just", but becomes "unjust" later on.

If we are fighting a "just war", then the opposing side is in "unjust war". Therefore what we do is normal, what they do is war crime.



The point is:
War should not be entered in lightly, there must be clearly defined benefit for general population and clearly defined objective. Usually the people bear the cost and well connected elite reaps the benefit (if any!).

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2008, 01:53 PM
The problem is the definition of the "just war". Any war we fight in is, by definition, a "just war", otherwise we wouldn't fight it.
We would hope so. But one of the indictments against the Nazis and Japanese in post-WW2 war crimes trials is that they conspired to wage aggressive war, which was presumably unjust.


Also war might start as not a "just war", but become the one.
Another case — war initially is "just", but becomes "unjust" later on.
This might be more to do with the means than the end. Unjust actions can happen in a just war, as you argue with Dresden and the atomic bombings.


If we are fighting a "just war", then the opposing side is in "unjust war". Therefore what we do is normal, what they do is war crime.
The Nuremberg Trials smacked of this. The prosecutors simply declared tu quoque arguments out of bounds, although for example German leader KArl Dönitz argued that his naval tactics were not that different from those of American Admiral Chester Nimitz. I already mentioned the rank hypocrisy of Soviet judges meting out punishment for conspiracy to wage aggressive war when they were co-conspirators.

However, I have no problem with the Nuremberg verdicts against those who participated in the Holocaust for example.


The point is:
War should not be entered in lightly, there must be clearly defined benefit for general population and clearly defined objective. Usually the people bear the cost and well connected elite reaps the benefit (if any!).
All true.

TheJoker
22-07-2008, 04:20 PM
When we are fighting a just war, such as WW2, we have the responsibility to win it, and also win the cause we are fighting for, with the lowest possible death toll. And it's more important to save lives of the good guys than the bad guys, if a choice must be made.

The point is that the citizens are not necessarily the "bad guys" particularly if the government is not representative of the people, or if they opposed to the unjust actions of the government, or if they are too young to have an opinion either way.

Most of the perpertrators of the most brutual crimes against humanity (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) believed they were doing so for a just cause and for the overall benefit of the population.

You a walking a dark path trying to justisfy the killing of innocent civilians for some "greater cause".

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2008, 04:32 PM
The point is that the citizens are not necessarily the "bad guys" particularly if the government is not representative of the people, or if they opposed to the unjust actions of the government, or if they are too young to have an opinion either way.
The Japanese at the time were very much militarised. The Holocaust was so pervasive that many civilians had a hand in it, from train drivers to the factories that made Zyklon B. And many Palestinian civilians cheer and dance in the street whenever Americans and Israeli civilians are murdered.


Most of the perpertrators of the most brutual crimes against humanity (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) believed they were doing so for a just cause and for the overall benefit of the population.
No they didn't. They were plain evil. Stalin was especially sadistic. Conversely, the Allied cause was just.


You a walking a dark path trying to justisfy the killing of innocent civilians for some "greater cause".
It's an even darker path to be so squeamish that many more innocent civilians are killed because a war is prolongued, or an evil regime revives after a ceasefire left it in place.

TheJoker
22-07-2008, 05:41 PM
It's an even darker path to be so squeamish that many more innocent civilians are killed because a war is prolongued, or an evil regime revives after a ceasefire left it in place.

It's got nothing to do with being squeamish it is about justice. I feel it is unjust to involuntarily sacrifice peoples' lives because of what some "authority" percieves as a greater good, regardless of circumstance. Of course this is a personal opinion and you are entitled to disagree.

How would you feel about rounding everyone up with HIV (or identified with a gene responsible for cancer) and exterminating them in order to potentially save many more lives?

How about changing the burden of proof for murder from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to the 'balance of probabilities' that way more guilty murders will be put behind bars at the expense of a few innocent people.

Where do you draw a line in the sand? Hell with all the global warming discussion it would be easy enough to justify a worldwide population cull in the countries with highest CO2 per capita to "save more lives" in the long-run.

Speculative justification is pretty easy to come by (e.g. WMDs).

Capablanca-Fan
22-07-2008, 06:25 PM
It's got nothing to do with being squeamish it is about justice. I feel it is unjust to involuntarily sacrifice peoples' lives because of what some "authority" percieves as a greater good, regardless of circumstance.
Nothing to do with relying on authority. The Allies who actually lived through WW2, as opposed to armchair critics living >60 years later, thought that the atomic bombings would save many more lives than they take. And Americans at the time expect the American government to care more about American lives than the lives of the nation that attacked them. There is not much justice expecting sacrifices from one's own people because a war is prolongued.


How would you feel about rounding everyone up with HIV (or identified with a gene responsible for cancer) and exterminating them in order to potentially save many more lives?
Against. Not the slightest thing in common with fighting a just war like WW2.


How about changing the burden of proof for murder from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to the 'balance of probabilities' that way more guilty murders will be put behind bars at the expense of a few innocent people.
No, how about reducing silly technicalities that let more guilty crims go free to prey on the public again?


Where do you draw a line in the sand? Hell with all the global warming discussion it would be easy enough to justify a worldwide population cull in the countries with highest CO2 per capita to "save more lives" in the long-run.
Some have justified this crap (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4853).


Speculative justification is pretty easy to come by (e.g. WMDs).
Although most US Dems and Chairman KRudd believed that the evidence was strong, aided by Saddam's games with the weapons inspectors as if he had something to hide.

But there is no speculation that the Nazis and Japanese warlords were mass murderers who had to be stopped.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-07-2008, 09:56 PM
I'd say - while you wage an war, don't deliberately target civilians to terrorise the other side (as Palestinians do nowadays). On the other hand, don't try too much to spare other side, especially at the cost of it's own people (as often Israel, and, to a lesser extent, US does).

First, it's the other side responsibility to protect their population (which includes not starting a war). The government on my side should car first and most about our citizens, not theirs.
Second, you'd be subjected to a much higher scrutinity and be condemned anyway (as always happens with Israel an USA).

TheJoker
22-07-2008, 10:04 PM
Igor I like your idea that a governments primary focus is to protect their civilians and do what is necessary to carry out that agenda.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2008, 09:32 AM
I'd say — while you wage an war, don't deliberately target civilians to terrorise the other side (as Palestinians do nowadays). On the other hand, don't try too much to spare other side, especially at the cost of it's own people (as often Israel, and, to a lesser extent, US does).
A very good balance. Especially when those who attack Israel and the US deliberately hide among their civilians. This would not have worked against the Allies in WW2, and they would have also brought to trial those who his thus and risked civilian lives.


First, it's the other side responsibility to protect their population (which includes not starting a war). The government on my side should care first and most about our citizens, not theirs.
Second, you'd be subjected to a much higher scrutinity and be condemned anyway (as always happens with Israel an USA).
Yes, it is crazy to try to appease those who hate you regardless, but this doesn't seem to bother the current feckless Israeli government or the US Dems.

Axiom
23-07-2008, 06:38 PM
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/exxon_dees.jpg

Basil
23-07-2008, 08:54 PM
What do you believe this is an illustration of, nonghead?

Axiom
23-07-2008, 09:17 PM
What do you believe this is an illustration of, nonghead?
Oh Hi Gunner ! :D
Does immoral ,illegal ,based on lies war for resources ,profit and oil , ring a bell ?

Basil
23-07-2008, 09:24 PM
Oh Hi Gunner ! :D
Does immoral ,illegal ,based on lies war for resources ,profit and oil , ring a bell ?
Here we go again - round and round the (obfuscating) mulberry bush. For the second time, what do you think the illustration represents? Direct question. Do you have an opinion that you would care to state?

Kevin Bonham
23-07-2008, 09:25 PM
I'd say it illustrates dubious photoshop skills and a monodimensional account of the causes of a certain current war.

Axiom
23-07-2008, 09:39 PM
Here we go again - round and round the (obfuscating) mulberry bush. For the second time, what do you think the illustration represents? Direct question. Do you have an opinion that you would care to state?
I thought i made it quite clear , by presenting the illustration as exhibit A to the ICC judge as photoshop evidence that the war was an immoral ,illegal ,based on lies war for resources ,profit and oil .

Axiom
23-07-2008, 09:40 PM
I'd say it illustrates dubious photoshop skills and a monodimensional account of the causes of a certain current war.
SOUNDS LIKE TV NEWS ! :owned:

Basil
23-07-2008, 10:18 PM
I thought i made it quite clear , by presenting the illustration as exhibit A to the ICC judge as photoshop evidence that the war was an immoral ,illegal ,based on lies war for resources ,profit and oil .
You made nothing clear. You asked a question in answer to my question, deliberately couched to prompt a response while not hanging your own beliefs out for scrutiny.

Your subsequent offering in answer (above) does it's usual fumble in the dark, pirouette and flop.

You offered an image as an exhibit.
An exhibit is a document (of similar) offered as evidence.
We are agreed the exhibit is doctored.
Your offered evidence is doctored.
You are a plank.

Axiom
23-07-2008, 11:00 PM
An exhibit is a document (of similar) offered as evidence.

AN EXHIBIT IS ANY ITEM OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, MR. PLANK ! :lol:

And are you telling me photoshop evidence doesnt count ????
Oh nooooooooo , but what about those bin laden tapes ?? :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2008, 11:06 PM
Does immoral ,illegal ,based on lies war for resources ,profit and oil , ring a bell ?
If they want oil, all they have to do is drill in ANWR, off the coast, or extract it from their abundant oil shale.

Axiom
23-07-2008, 11:08 PM
If they want oil, all they have to do is drill in ANWR, off the coast, or extract it from their abundant oil shale.
True . it is just one of the bonuses in this case , along with a regional geo-political strategical role.

Axiom
23-07-2008, 11:32 PM
Kucinich vs. The Establishment: Impeachment Hearing On Friday



Congressman, supported by majority of American people, bravely out to ensure Bush goes down in history as liar and war criminal as Democrats rally to his defense

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Congressman Dennis Kucinich will this Friday present his single article of impeachment concerning the Bush administration’s deliberate and unconstitutional lies that led us to war in Iraq, putting him in tandem with the majority of the American people, yet in the cross hairs of both Neo-Cons and Democrats who have tried to block his efforts at every turn.

Kucinich should be commended for his brave and restless pursuit of impeachment. Whether Bush had a few months left in office or a few years doesn’t matter one iota - the Congressman’s efforts are aimed squarely at ensuring Bush rightly goes down in history as the most flagrantly criminal and anti-American president in history, while also making sure that a repeat of the debacle we have witnessed over the past eight years is not allowed to happen again.
http://www.************.com/kucinich-vs-the-establishment-impeachment-hearing-on-friday.html

Axiom
26-07-2008, 10:33 PM
45f1Riv_z1I

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2008, 12:11 PM
Pilger on war crimes (http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/08/pilger-on-war-crimes.html)
Oliver Kamm


I direct [Pilger] to the work of two scholars who have examined it minutely: Robert P. Newman, in "Ending the War with Japan: Paul Nitze's 'Early Surrender' Counterfactual", in Pacific Historical Review, May 1995; and Gian Gentile, in "Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan", in Pacific Historical Review, February 1997. In his book Enola Gay and the Court of History, 2004, p. 38, Professor Newman summarises:


All these [Japanese] officials said the war would have gone on absent the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and some said Soviet entry was also important. There is no contradictory testimony in USSBS files. Nitze made up the testimonial basis for the early surrender claim out of whole cloth.
...
There is not a single piece of documentary evidence from Japanese sources of a desire to surrender. Moreover, the conduct of the Japanese military after the bombs were dropped demonstrated that no such prospect had been on offer. General Korechika Anami, the Japanese Minister of War, explicitly denied that Hiroshima had been hit by an atomic bomb. After the bombing of Nagasaki, Yoshijiro Umezu, the chief of the army general staff, urged that unconditional surrender would be inexcusable. These were, to repeat, the stated views of Japan's military leaders, after the dropping of two A-bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The significance of the A-bombs for the Pacific War was that the shock of them allowed the peace party to prevail in Japan's Cabinet. Without the bombs, there would have been no surrender.

Scorpio
07-08-2008, 04:58 PM
Pilger on war crimes (http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2008/08/pilger-on-war-crimes.html)
Oliver Kamm


I direct [Pilger] to the work of two scholars who have examined it minutely: Robert P. Newman, in "Ending the War with Japan: Paul Nitze's 'Early Surrender' Counterfactual", in Pacific Historical Review, May 1995; and Gian Gentile, in "Advocacy or Assessment? The United States Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany and Japan", in Pacific Historical Review, February 1997. In his book Enola Gay and the Court of History, 2004, p. 38, Professor Newman summarises:


All these [Japanese] officials said the war would have gone on absent the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and some said Soviet entry was also important. There is no contradictory testimony in USSBS files. Nitze made up the testimonial basis for the early surrender claim out of whole cloth.
...
There is not a single piece of documentary evidence from Japanese sources of a desire to surrender. Moreover, the conduct of the Japanese military after the bombs were dropped demonstrated that no such prospect had been on offer. General Korechika Anami, the Japanese Minister of War, explicitly denied that Hiroshima had been hit by an atomic bomb. After the bombing of Nagasaki, Yoshijiro Umezu, the chief of the army general staff, urged that unconditional surrender would be inexcusable. These were, to repeat, the stated views of Japan's military leaders, after the dropping of two A-bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The significance of the A-bombs for the Pacific War was that the shock of them allowed the peace party to prevail in Japan's Cabinet. Without the bombs, there would have been no surrender.
Apart from Iran wanting to develop nuclear capabilities, we don't often hear about A Bombs too much anymore.

Capablanca-Fan
13-08-2008, 12:39 PM
HIDEKI Tojo, Japan's prime minister for much of World War II, wanted to keep fighting after the atomic bombings because he believed surrender was a disgrace, according to journal entries published today. (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24168898-5005962,00.html)

Tojo, an army general, ordered the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor that brought the US into World War II but was forced out as premier in 1944 as the tide of the conflict turned.

He was hanged as a war criminal in 1948 by orders of an allied court.

In the run-up to Friday's anniversary of Japan's surrender, the Nikkei newspaper said it had discovered Tojo's diaries from the last days of the war.

"Without fully employing its abilities even at the final moment, the imperial nation is surrendering before the enemies' propaganda," Tojo wrote, as quoted by the newspaper.

"I never imagined the torpor of the nation's leaders and people," he wrote.

Tojo said Japan was surrendering because it was afraid of more atomic bombings and of the Soviet Union entering the Pacific front.

But Tojo warned Japan "will come off as a complete loser by accepting unconditional surrender, even if it makes a few demands".

MichaelBaron
15-08-2008, 11:33 AM
Kucinich vs. The Establishment: Impeachment Hearing On Friday


Congressman Dennis Kucinich will this Friday present his single article of impeachment concerning the Bush administration’s deliberate and unconstitutional lies that led us to war in Iraq, putting him in tandem with the majority of the American people, yet in the cross hairs of both Neo-Cons and Democrats who have tried to block his efforts at every turn.

[/url]

No need to impeach Bush. He will be gone soon...- Thx God :lol:

Zwischenzug
15-08-2008, 11:47 AM
I'm curious, are there any pro-Russia politicians in the US or are they putting themselves behind Bush and Georgia? If they in the International Arena, aim to trip Russia of it's power to unilaterally take military action, they must adhere to the same standards or be branded as hypocritical. I agree that sometimes unilateral military action is necessary, but what gives the US the right to judge if another country should or should not have the same option?

MichaelBaron
15-08-2008, 12:39 PM
I'm curious, are there any pro-Russia politicians in the US or are they putting themselves behind Bush and Georgia? If they in the International Arena, aim to trip Russia of it's power to unilaterally take military action, they must adhere to the same standards or be branded as hypocritical. I agree that sometimes unilateral military action is necessary, but what gives the US the right to judge if another country should or should not have the same option?


I think it is only normal for the US politicians to be pro-US rather than pro-Russia.

In case of the conflict in Georgia - it is very clear that Republicans are trying to use it to boss their re-election chances. In case of the Democrats - their response is far more moderate.

Capablanca-Fan
15-08-2008, 01:59 PM
I think it is only normal for the US politicians to be pro-US rather than pro-Russia.
Not the Dems, with their "blame America first" attitude.


In case of the conflict in Georgia — it is very clear that Republicans are trying to use it to boss their re-election chances. In case of the Democrats — their response is far more moderate.
One wonders. First, Obama plays the usual moral equivalence card, then proposes taking it to the UN (where Russia has veto power).

See Time To Get Serious With Russia (http://townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/14/time_to_get_serious_with_russia) by Charles Krauthammer. Czar Vladimir should not be allowed to get away with his aggression.

Axiom
15-08-2008, 02:38 PM
See Time To Get Serious With Russia (http://townhall.com/Columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/08/14/time_to_get_serious_with_russia) by Charles Krauthammer. Czar Vladimir should not be allowed to get away with his aggression.
but georgia should be allowed to get away with its initiating provocative mass murder of russian civilians ??
usa warns russia about invading nation states , whilst waltzing in and out of countries as a matter of course !

cmon jono , please stop peddling this blatently absurd propaganda rubbish.

krauthammer is one of the most vile propagandists i've witnessed.

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 08:54 PM
From another site:


I have covered many of the points mentioned by Peter Ryan on the Pacific War website : http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/AtomBomb_Japan.html

But the elephant in the drawing room that is never mentioned in relation to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is Japan’s truly awesome arsenal of biological and chemical weapons that were used extensively against China (including non-military targets) between 1937 and 1945.

The Japanese were so far ahead of the United States in biological warfare that General MacArthur indemnified the Japanese army’s biological and chemical warfare scientists against prosecution for appalling war crimes in return for handing over their secrets to the US military.

At their “factories of death”, such as the notorious Unit 731, Japanese Army scientists carried out ghastly biological experiments on live prisoners of war. Vivisections on human beings at Unit 731 are described in horrrifying detail in the Japanese documentary “Riben Guizi” (translated as “Japanese Devils”). To dehumanise their male and female victims, Japanese Army scientists called them “maruta”, or “logs”, and casualy described exposure of these victims to diseases such as anthrax, cholera, typhoid, and glanders, and the suffering of the victims.

In April 1945, the Japanese Suzuki government had prepared a war policy called Ketsugo which was a refinement of the Shosango victory plan for the defence of the home islands to the last man. These plans would prepare the Japanese people psychologically to die as a nation in defence of their homeland. Even children, including girls, would be trained to use makeshift lethal weapons, and exhorted to sacrifice themselves by killing an American invader. The American government was aware from intelligence intercepts of the chilling implications of these Japanese defensive plans.

The US Army would almost certainly have been made aware by their Chinese allies that the Japanese had been routinely using biological and chemical warfare against Chinese military and civilian targets with horrifying results, and it very likely that President Truman’s decison to use the atomic bomb would have taken into account not only the views of his defence chiefs that an amphibious assault on Japan’s home islands would be likely to produce at least one million Allied casualties, but also the very real possibility that a country committed to national suicide would be likely to deploy against invaders the deadliest weapons available to it, namely, Japan’s arsenal of biological and chemical weapons.

James Bowen