Do you think there are any rules in war?

[DeletedUser]

A sovereign state, which Germany and Japan was, held it's own sovereignty except for what it agreed to release to others.

This is your premiss, but it is unsubstantiated. I could equally well say that a state has no rights vis a vis other states except those which it negotiates.
Image a new volcanic island forms; people rush to it and establish a new 'sovereign' state.That state then starts developing nuclear weapons and vows to conquer the world. Because it has never ceded any rights to other states, would the rest of the world have to leave it alone until it was strong enough to attack them? That would be ridiculous.

Several countries have no right to gang up and declare control over another country while pretending that other country is still a sovereign nation.

So you accept that there are rules in war? The argument would then be about what those rules are.

Are you attempting to say that because Germany acted ed, that gives the rest of the world the right to do the same when attempting to punish Germans for the same?

I'm not saying that, but people do - it's the 'eye for an eye' argument, and a tenable position.

So you are saying two wrongs make a right

Nobody ever says that - it's a 'straw man' accusation.
.

No one should be charged and convicted of crimes that were not illegal for them at the time they committed the acts claimed to be in violation of.

So Jew-killers of the Third Reich get a pardon?
After all, it's hardly retroactive legislation to say that killing people is wrong. That's why I don't think local legislation can be sovereign. You've already indicated that you believe there are rules in war, therefore there are war crimes, therefore local legislative procedures can not be sovereign.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is your premiss, but it is unsubstantiated. I could equally well say that a state has no rights vis a vis other states except those which it negotiates.
Image a new volcanic island forms; people rush to it and establish a new 'sovereign' state.That state then starts developing nuclear weapons and vows to conquer the world. Because it has never ceded any rights to other states, would the rest of the world have to leave it alone until it was strong enough to attack them? That would be ridiculous.


So you accept that there are rules in war? The argument would then be about what those rules are.



I'm not saying that, but people do - it's the 'eye for an eye' argument, and a tenable position.

Nobody ever says that - it's a 'straw man' accusation.
.

So Jew-killers of the Third Reich get a pardon?
After all, it's hardly retroactive legislation to say that killing people is wrong. That's why I don't think local legislation can be sovereign. You've already indicated that you believe there are rules in war, therefore there are war crimes, therefore local legislative procedures can not be sovereign.

I wish everyone would stops going on about the Jews. No one talks about the gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and political prisoners that were killed.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wish everyone would stops going on about the Jews. No one talks about the gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and political prisoners that were killed.

Ofc they do. You are doing it now. Don't forget the slave labourers and Russian POWs btw.
But what's your point? That the Jews get too much sympathy or that the others don't get enough? And did the Holocaust break any rules of war, if you want to be on-topic?
So far what I've got from you is that the Germans were hard done by, the Russians were nasty and the Jews get too much publicity. I'm spotting a pattern, and it isn't good.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ofc they do. You are doing it now. Don't forget the slave labourers and Russian POWs btw.
But what's your point? That the Jews get too much sympathy or that the others don't get enough? And did the Holocaust break any rules of war, if you want to be on-topic?

Of course the Holocaust broke the rules, but what I'm saying is he Jews get all the attention - you never hear of the treatment by the Japanese or the Soviet gulags.

 

[Harsha..]

The human organism isn't one to follow rules in real warfare. For one, our species are aggressive at our core. It is easy to sit in a safe, comfortable room and preach things about honor and discipline while waging war. But, on the rough, dangerous battle field, things are different. We humans turn to our rawest instincts to survive and anything is bound to happen in these conditions. But, i guess rules are warranted in a stable area with little fighting

When the atomic bomb was dropped, there were indeed no rules for such a war. But, Japan surrendered because they had no answer to such a deadly weapon. America could have made a display of its power by bombing an uninhabited/sparse area of Japan. If there was no surrender, only then they should have gone on to attack a city

 

[DeletedUser]

America could have made a display of its power by bombing an uninhabited/sparse area of Japan. If there was no surrender, only then they should have gone on to attack a city

Even after Hiroshima was bombed there was no surrender, which is why Nagasaki was also bombed three days later. It still took the Japanese another six days to decide to surrender. The duty of the US was to end the war as quickly as possible to save the lives of their own troops and civilians in occupied countries. It was not to spare Japanese lives, which even their own government was prepared to squander.

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Even after Hiroshima was bombed there was no surrender, which is why Nagasaki was also bombed three days later.

Yeah this has already been answered:

The tragedy and if there was a war crime was Nagasaki and the second strike. There is written proof that Emperor Hirohito was planning on surrendering after the bombing of Hiroshima. The U.S. did not give enough time for them to officially surrender. There was no need for the second other than to ram the point home.

America could have made a display of its power by bombing an uninhabited/sparse area of Japan. If there was no surrender, only then they should have gone on to attack a city

The main reason that they dropped the bomb upon the relatively small (and more importantly undamaged) cites of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as opposed to somewhere like Tokyo is because the Americans wanted to see how much damage their new wonder weapon would cause.

you never hear of the treatment by the Japanese or the Soviet gulags.

The reason you don't hear about the Gulags so much is simply because the Soviet Union was on the winning side and also the reason you hear so much about the holocaust as opposed to the others is because of the sheer industrialised nature of it. This wasn't you're traditional death by neglect/abuse it was a single minded system designed purely for killing people.

Now when do I get to enact Godwins law?

 

[DeletedUser30834]

This is your premiss, but it is unsubstantiated. I could equally well say that a state has no rights vis a vis other states except those which it negotiates.

And if you said that, you would be correct insofar as the sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the other state were upheld.

Image a new volcanic island forms; people rush to it and establish a new 'sovereign' state.That state then starts developing nuclear weapons and vows to conquer the world. Because it has never ceded any rights to other states, would the rest of the world have to leave it alone until it was strong enough to attack them? That would be ridiculous.

Well, this is sort of flawed from the start. Instead of this being a situation where laws or rules were created after the fact of an act and imposed despite other states doing the same during the same time period (like WWII), it is actually a position where you advocate a state be punished for acts yet to be committed. There is a big difference there in that one is dealing with an act already happening and the other is dealing with an act that might or might not happen.

Now, the presence of Nuclear weapons alone is not enough for an outside state to interact with them. The threat to another nation is not either. Iran and North Korea are in a different situation then you describe because they signed treaties giving up their rights to nuclear weapons and reaped benefits those treaties gave. This is why the IAEA is able to inspect their so called energy facilities looking for weapons development and international sanctions have teeth. If you were to look at countries who have never surrendered their abilities to own or hold nuclear weapons like India and Pakistan, Countries who have not only threatened other countries but went to war with them after possessing Nuclear weapons, you will find the situation is quite different. Look at Israel too, they never signed the treating banning nuclear weapons and do not face sanctions for having it, or any of the hostile acts they participate in while trying to secure their country.

So you accept that there are rules in war? The argument would then be about what those rules are.

There can be rules, rules in which all parties subjected to them agreed to be bound by them. And by parties, I do not mean Captain Stupid or lieutenant idiot, I mean the countries in which they serve and follow order of that holds them sovereign. This in effect does mean that Captain Stupid or lieutenant idiot would not be bound to your rules of war if their country never decided to obligate themselves with it.

The right I said they do not posses is a human right. not a rule, but a right to have actually had a law in place and in effect before an act that was otherwise legal is considered illegal and punishable. It does not matter what horrible thing in your mind they did, it is no different then the state all the sudden saying chewing gum is illegal and because you were caught chewing gum on camera 4 years before it became illegal, you are now going to serve 10 years in prison. Absolutely no difference other then how ridiculous one is and how you can use emotions like hate and wanting to seek revenge on the other.

I'm not saying that, but people do - it's the 'eye for an eye' argument, and a tenable position.

The argument doesn't even follow logic, it's not right for X to happen so we will do X+y to whoever does X? Ask yourself, why is it that if someone kills your wife or daughter or someone else close to you and is apprehended by the police, trialed and convicted, that is it a separate crime for you to punish the person yourself by either causing physical harm to them, locking them in your basement, or kill them in an eye for an eye fashion? Lets even skip the trialed and convicted part and say he got off on a technicality or escaped before that happened and you found him.

Nobody ever says that - it's a 'straw man' accusation.

Wrong, everyone knows it's wrong but it's said enough because people do it. But it's no more then a strawman then the eye for an eye argument you claimed was tenable.

So Jew-killers of the Third Reich get a pardon?
After all, it's hardly retroactive legislation to say that killing people is wrong. That's why I don't think local legislation can be sovereign.

Nice appeal to emotion there. Most if not all of the convicted jew killers are dead already, including the one man convicted and sentenced to death in abstention which should be enough alone to ask how legimate the tribunals were. Imagine a popular trend in courts convening and convicting people with a sentence of death without the accused ever setting foot in the court, hearing the charges made against them, or being offered a chance to defend themselves against those charges. That is exactly what happened.

But yes, it would be retroactive legislation to say that killing people is wrong and therefore illegal. States give powers to kill people all the time, especially when participating in war but there are also executions, and it appears that suicide and abortions are morally right depending on who you talk with, as well as killing off the elderly so you do not have to pay for their health care or watch them cling to life or let them suffer (euthanasia).

Even at the time, Eugenics was a popular scientific practice/thought principle. Some of the most popular people in America were staunch supporters of Eugenics and it wasn't until somewhat recently that Killing people for certain reasons, or even forcing abortion and sterilizations for the same was not considered wrong so lets not put something that happened 80 years ago solely into today's so called enlightened perspective.

You've already indicated that you believe there are rules in war, therefore there are war crimes, therefore local legislative procedures can not be sovereign.

Not at all. I have consistently said that in order for rules to exist, the sovereignty of those involved have to be compromised by with parties agreeing to be bound by them or by force. This entirely supports the sovereignty of nations. Unfortunately, it also creates situations where unjust circumstances happen depending on who the victor of the force is.

Yeah this has already been answered:

Well, like I said, the allies were doing the same as the axis except we won and held mock trials then killed them for doing it. It was considered a war crime at the time to target civilian populations but we redefined the two cities as military industrial complexes because they gave support to and housed most of the workers at nearby factories used to maintain the Japanese war machine. But this was nothing of a stretch as allied command in Europe would actually looks for targets close to residential areas in attempts to inflict panic in the public. We firebomed cities, more or less taped explosives and incendiary devices to bats and dropped them from planes over cities knowing they would seek shelter in the flamible rafters of the buildings.

The interesting thing here is the mindset that this type of action was proper warfair at the time justifying it with "there was no surrender" when both the Germans and the Japanese were prosecuted and hung for much the same thing as a war crime. It's called victors justice and it is only there to make one side feel better.

Now when do I get to enact Godwins law?

Ha.. Good joke.. I about spit my Gatorade through my nose when I saw that.

 

[DeletedUser]

That was a long, rambling post SDA which it would be tedious and boring for other people to refute in detail. I believe what cannot be said in a few hundred words is not worth saying.
Firstly, Nazi Germany signed away all rights when it surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY. You understand that don't you? They threw themselves on the victors' mercy - whatever they got in the way of any trial was a bonus, so no carping about trials in absentia etc.
Secondly, your 'sovereign state' argument fails because a state then has the sovereign right to invade another, which is self-contradictory. You can change it to include a rule that one state cannot infringe the sovereignty of another. But that is still a rule, even though you say you don't accept rules. It is also a rule that forbids war, which is to say the least, unenforceable. And of course if a state broke the rule by, say, invading Poland it would automatically lose its own sovereign protection, unless you are advocating double standards.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

Sumdumass, you do not live up to your name. I don't entirely agree with you, but very well said.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

That was a long, rambling post SDA which it would be tedious and boring for other people to refute in detail. I believe what cannot be said in a few hundred words is not worth saying.

Then I would suggest you steer away from conversations that deal with complicated issues or something important as they often require more then a minimal subset of a few sentences to make concepts clear.

Firstly, Nazi Germany signed away all rights when it surrendered UNCONDITIONALLY. You understand that don't you? They threw themselves on the victors' mercy - whatever they got in the way of any trial was a bonus, so no carping about trials in absentia etc.

Well, no. Germany the country signed it's rights over when the country surrendered. None of the German soldiers or citizens signed away their human rights and losing a war does not automatically remove them. I see that you do not mind someone being convicted of a crime and sentenced to death when they never heard any charges brought against them or were never afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. Are you from Texas by chance? I shouldn't have said that as it would be an insult to all Texan's. They, even in their rush to execute prisoners, at least give the defendant the ability to defend themselves with a trial that is held with the accused present before sentencing them to death.

Secondly, your 'sovereign state' argument fails because a state then has the sovereign right to invade another, which is self-contradictory.

I do not believe I ever claimed they did not. In fact, I specifically said one of the ways to impose rules or laws on a state that they do not agree to is by force which would very much require an invasion. It has happened many times in the past 50 or so years without any of the countries being charged for war crimes. North Korea invaded south Korea, Noth Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, The USSR invaded Afghanistan, Israel invaded Egypt, Jordan invaded Israel, Palestine which was never a country, invaded Israel, South Ossetia invaded Georgia. There have been between 95 and 105 depending on how you count them, wars whether civil or sovereigns invading each other, since 1990 alone. You can more then double that if you count from the end of WWII. One of the reason you do not hear about most of them is because the countries involved are not part of any treaties where they gave up portions of their sovereignty concerning war.

You can change it to include a rule that one state cannot infringe the sovereignty of another. But that is still a rule, even though you say you don't accept rules. .

I'm not sure where you are coming from here. I certainly did not say there are no rules, I said that the rules only apply to sovereign nations if they agree to let them apply or someone imposes them by force.

It is also a rule that forbids war, which is to say the least, unenforceable. And of course if a state broke the rule by, say, invading Poland it would automatically lose its own sovereign protection, unless you are advocating double standards

Well, no. If Sumville, an independent country with it's own sovereignty, invades Poland, Sumville does not lose it's sovereignty. It can lose the war and have the sovereignty taken from them, which is the case that happened with Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait and the axis powers after WWII. But even then, each and ever human that participated within the war has a human right to get a fair trial for charges that were illegal and subjected to the accused at the time the act was committed and an opportunity to defend themselves against the charged leveled at them.

There would be no double standard in that. The double standard would be where the charges against someone were for acts the prosecution's country participated in, were still participating in at the end of the war, and which were not illegal at the time the acts were committed. No country involved in the prosecution or judicial side of the Nuremberg or IMTFE trials besides perhaps Russia, would have allowed the same type of charges and the same types of trials on their own citizens in their own country. But they created this international court that for some reason was not bound by what their own countries considered right and fair.

 

[DeletedUser]

Then I would suggest you steer away from conversations that deal with complicated issues or something important as they often require more then a minimal subset of a few sentences to make concepts clear.

Please don't patronise. I just choose not to ramble.

Well, no. Germany the country signed it's rights over when the country surrendered. None of the German soldiers or citizens signed away their human rights and losing a war does not automatically remove them.

You're confusing human rights with the rights of states here. By definition you cannot sign away a human right, but you can forfeit it by denying it to others, which is what happened with the Nazis.

I certainly did not say there are no rules, I said that the rules only apply to sovereign nations if they agree to let them apply or someone imposes them by force

.
No. What you said was "There can be rules, rules in which all parties subjected to them agreed to be bound by them". You have just added the coda that they can also be imposed by force. But that's like saying "you have a right to a biscuit and you can only lose that biscuit if you give it up, or someone takes it from you". That's no right at all.

each and ever human that participated within the war has a human right to get a fair trial for charges that were illegal and subjected to the accused at the time the act was committed and an opportunity to defend themselves against the charged leveled at them.

This is the privilege of habeas corpus. It is not a universal right but is enshrined in the legal systems of most western countries.
By appealing to human rights, you implicitly accept that wrongs can be done and people may be punished for acts that may have been technically "legal" when they were committed. That's what human rights are - things we are allowed even if our national legislation denies them to us.
If I go around killing people, can I claim my "right" to life? Because that's what the Nazis did. If I participate in summary executions, can I claim the "right" to a fair trial? Maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss Nuremburg.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Please don't patronise. I just choose not to ramble.

You also choose not to pay attention some times. Please do not confuse the necessity to clarify when this happens with rambling.

You're confusing human rights with the rights of states here. By definition you cannot sign away a human right, but you can forfeit it by denying it to others, which is what happened with the Nazis.

You can not confuse human rights with rights of a state. A state is nothing but a collection of humans organized under their own political control. The right of sovereignty gives those humans the ability to have independent self control over an area and the inhabitants within. When you remove the sovereignty of the state, you do not remove the human rights of the people who made the state. It is not a situation where you can treat those humans that remain in ways that violate human rights or even the laws of the land of the entity overtaking the sovereignty. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Here is a question, do you support the extraordinary rendition programs that happened under president Bush? If not, how is that any different then removing the sovereignty of a country, in this case, Iraq and Afghanistan, and imposing whatever it wants because "you can forfeit it by denying it to others, which is what happened with the" taliban and Al Qeada.

Your logic breaks down extremely fast when applied to reality.

No. What you said was "There can be rules, rules in which all parties subjected to them agreed to be bound by them". You have just added the coda that they can also be imposed by force. But that's like saying "you have a right to a biscuit and you can only lose that biscuit if you give it up, or someone takes it from you". That's no right at all.

Again, you are not paying attention. There can be rules if all states subject to the jurisdiction of them agree to be subjected to the jurisdiction of them or they are imposed by force. Obviously, if they agree to be bound by them, force is not needed. If they do not agree, then force is needed to impose them.

You are correct in your understanding of the biscuit expect for it to be legit according to the conversation, it would need to be changed to "you have a right to a biscuit and you can only legitimately lose that biscuit if you give it up, or someone takes it from you by force which can be legitimate or not." Now a biscuit and sovereignty are completely different objects and I hope you did not use the term biscuit expressly to diminish the right of sovereignty. That would be a fraudulent act of intellectual dishonesty.

This is the privilege of habeas corpus. It is not a universal right but is enshrined in the legal systems of most western countries.
By appealing to human rights, you implicitly accept that wrongs can be done and people may be punished for acts that may have been technically "legal" when they were committed. That's what human rights are - things we are allowed even if our national legislation denies them to us.
If I go around killing people, can I claim my "right" to life? Because that's what the Nazis did. If I participate in summary executions, can I claim the "right" to a fair trial? Maybe start a new thread if you want to discuss Nuremburg.

You should write your law professor and ask him to return to school before disseminating dangerously incorrect information to it's pupils. Or perhaps the problem is that the law is more then 100 words? Habeas Corpus is only to determine if the state has the right to hold a person against unlawful detention. In the situation with Nuremberg and IMTFE, some of the laws that were being prosecuted were actually made up in the days before and during the construction of the court and the authority the court claimed it held. That would be an ex post facto law and if that law was allowed to stand, habeas corpus would not save an unjustly accused. The term you are looking for is called Natural Justice in which habeas corpus is only a part of.

The ex post facto nature of the trials actually made it's way into the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was created less then just one year after the Nuremberg and IMTFE trials took place. The Trial in abstention that you seem to think is proper actually violated article 16 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal used to justify a legal authority over the accused. I'm not alone on this interpretation and you would be served well to explore some history on it- even if it is more then 100 words and you consider it rambling.

 

[DeletedUser]

You can not confuse human rights with rights of a state.

Thank you.
But you go straight on to do just that:

A state is nothing but a collection of humans organized under their own political control. The right of sovereignty gives those humans ....

Whose "right of sovereignty"? The state's or the people's? If the state is "nothing but a collection of humans...." it cannot have its own rights as you insist.

It is not a situation ofwhere you can treat those humans that remain in ways that violate human rights or even the laws of the land the entity overtaking the sovereignty.

Incorrect. Martial law does not acknowledge the same terms as civil law. The Nuremburg trials took place in a zone of military occupation. Sovereignty cannot be 'overtaken' by definition.

Here is a question, do you support the extraordinary rendition programs that happened under president Bush?

Another irrelevant diversion. What I support or not is immaterial. I am only questioning the coherence of your position.

Again, you are not paying attention.

Can you blame me?

There can be rules if all states subject to the jurisdiction of them agree to be subjected to the jurisdiction of them or they are imposed by force. Obviously, if they agree to be bound by them, force is not needed. If they do not agree, then force is needed to impose them.

You're just repeating the redundancy that a state can do something of its own free will or be forced to do it.

You are correct in your understanding of the biscuit expect for it to be legit according to the conversation, it would need to be changed to "you have a right to a biscuit and you can only legitimately lose that biscuit if you give it up, or someone takes it from you by force which can be legitimate or not." Now a biscuit and sovereignty are completely different objects and I hope you did not use the term biscuit expressly to diminish the right of sovereignty. That would be a fraudulent act of intellectual dishonesty.

Whaaaaat?

Habeas Corpus is only to determine if the state has the right to hold a person against unlawful detention.

That's the most common usage, but strictly it means that a person has the right to a court appearance, which a trial in absentia would violate.

PS. Talking of not paying attention, I suggested a new thread the Nuremberg trials, to stay on-topic here.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Thank you.
But you go straight on to do just that:
Whose "right of sovereignty"? The state's or the people's? If the state is "nothing but a collection of humans...." it cannot have its own rights as you insist.

So you are saying that no state has sovereignty? I do not think you understand what Sovereignty is or a state for that matter. Do you think a bunch of bunny rabbits can create a country or something? I would hope not. Once you remove the state, all that remains are the people that made it up. You simply cannot get around that or deny human rights because of it.

Incorrect. Martial law does not acknowledge the same terms as civil law. The Nuremburg trials took place in a zone of military occupation. Sovereignty cannot be 'overtaken' by definition.

So then you admit that a system of courts, rules and laws were implemented that were not in place at the time of the offenses or part of the jurisdiction covering the parties accused. I guess the only thing in dispute now is whether the creation of ex post facto law was justice or vengeance.

Another irrelevant diversion. What I support or not is immaterial. I am only questioning the coherence of your position.

It is very relevant. You are making the claim that because a side lost, they lose all rights held before they lost and it that was justification to impose ex post facto laws and to prosecute and in some instances kill people by means they countries of the very prosecutes would not allow if done to their own citizens. Do you actually believe that, or are you spouting rhetoric in attempts to confuse the issue?

Can you blame me?

Yes, I can blame you for misconstruing positions and statements due to purposely not paying attention.

You're just repeating the redundancy that a state can do something of its own free will or be forced to do it.

Again, you are lost. It is not that a state can do something of it's own free will, it's that outside forces cannot impose rules on a state unless it agrees to them or it is forced onto them. This is supported in reality today with real life situations of countries violating human rights according to UN standard (international law) and no one taking action against them because they are not signatory to the treaties or wrote reservations and signing statements out of enforcement of certain parts.

Whaaaaat?

Well, outside of misspelling except (phone's auto correct) the statement is as clear as your attempt to use a biscuit in place of soverignty and human rights. I suggest that if it is confusing to you, you might want to look into both a little more before commenting again.

That's the most common usage, but strictly it means that a person has the right to a court appearance, which a trial in absentia would violate.

Lol.. Like I said, speak with your law professor. It does guarantee the person being held (or is supposed to) will get a trial or released if there is no reason to hold them, but it is solely a tool for when a person is already in the custody of the state. It has nothing to do with absentia.

PS. Talking of not paying attention, I suggested a new thread the Nuremburg trials, to stay on-topic here.

Actually, the comments on Nuremberg are on topic here. They pertain directly to if there are any rules of war and if they apply or how they are applied. Nuremberg is just an example of how rules of war are made up at will and imposed by the victor supporting the idea that they can only be enforced by force or if a state previously agrees to them. Not all of the charges at Nuremberg were made up, some was legit. I really have nothing to say about it other then what has already been said, that they were only possible because the so called rules were implemented by force.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh, SDA, you are just repeating, rambling and riling, but I won't follow you down that road.
In all your thousands of posted words you still have not said clearly if you think there are rules in war and, if so, what they might be.
You just keep asserting the sovereignty of states without the least justification for such a concept or explaining its relevance and that there are such things as human rights. That, and complaining that certain victimisers did not get a fair trial in your opinion, with no mention of the victims.
And if you have a spell-checker, please use it on your own posts. Unfortunately, reliable grammar ahd syntax checkers do not yet exist.
I think you are the only person in human history who could find offence in the use of the word "biscuit".

 

[DeletedUser30834]

Oh, SDA, you are just repeating, rambling and riling, but I won't follow you down that road.
In all your thousands of posted words you still have not said clearly if you think there are rules in war and, if so, what they might be.

As I said, you are not paying attention. Any rule of war has to be created by treaty meaning that the countries subjected to it agreed to allow it, it imposed by force after the fact. If neither of those exist, then any rule is non-existent no matter how much someone wants there to be one.

You just keep asserting the sovereignty of states without the least justification for such a concept or explaining its relevance and that there are such things as human rights.

I guess I incorrectly expected a certain level of intelligence and knowledge from the people discussing this topic or at least the ability to find out what certain terms mean. Do you want me to apologize for your failings or is this a situation where nothing can be done to educate you because it would take more then 100 words? A sovereign State has complete rule and dominion over itself. It's a historical pretext for most countries being countries in the first place. I'm sure you are not going to like my history lessons from what I can gather in discussing this with you so far.

That, and complaining that certain victimisers did not get a fair trial in your opinion, with no mention of the victims.

I'm not sure why I would have to mention the victims of a related instance when mentioning someone else becoming a victim. If two wrongs do not make a right, it would be unneccesary to mention the first wrong when complaining about the second. It seems that mentioning the first wrong only serves to afford the acceptance of the second wrong. But the inference of the Nuremberg trials does not separate and or isolate the victims of the second wrong from their accused first wrong to anyone with a small bit of knowledge or ability to look up information concerning the trials. I am completely confused to what you point is.

And if you have a spell-checker, please use it on your own posts. Unfortunately, reliable grammar ahd syntax checkers do not yet exist.

It's my phone- err different phones.. I don't like it, but when I got electricity back after the storms, they have yet to recover my internet to a sound state so most of my posts are done over my phone instead of the computer.

I think you are the only person in human history who could find offence in the use of the word "biscuit".

I don't think I objected to the use of the word biscuit. I objected to the type of use when it was put in place of the topic at hand in order to make a point that was not close to the reality of the topic at hand.

 

[DeletedUser]

As I said, you are not paying attention.

Are you done trolling yet?

I incorrectly expected a certain level of intelligence and knowledge....

I guess not.

Any rule of war has to be created by treaty meaning that the countries subjected to it agreed to allow it, it imposed by force after the fact

So if country A wants to march into country B, country B needs to sign a treaty allowing A to invade it. Doesn't sound very likely.

it imposed by force after the fact

I thought you were against retroactive legislation.

Do you want me to apologize for your failings or is this a situation where nothing can be done to educate you because it would take more then 100 words?

No thanks Mr Troll.

A sovereign State has complete rule and dominion over itself.

Newsflash - most wars are BETWEEN states. All except civil wars, in which the state clearly DOES NOT have complete rule over itself.

I'm not sure why I would have to mention the victims of a related instance when mentioning someone else becoming a victim. If two wrongs do not make a right, it would be unneccesary to mention the first wrong when complaining about the second. It seems that mentioning the first wrong only serves to afford the acceptance of the second wrong. But the inference of the Nuremberg trials does not separate and or isolate the victims of the second wrong from their accused first wrong to anyone with a small bit of knowledge or ability to look up information concerning the trials. I am completely confused to what you point is.

That looked like English but it's incomprehensible.

I don't think I objected to the use of the word biscuit. .

Oh, but you did.

 

[DeletedUser30834]

So if country A wants to march into country B, country B needs to sign a treaty allowing A to invade it. Doesn't sound very likely.

that's because you are purposely confusing the point. Country A is by default imposing it's will _by_force_ on country B and at that point it really doesn't matter what country B thinks. If country C, D, or E wants to claim country A's war has to operate according to a set of rules, country A has to either agree to be bound by those rules, or country C, D, and E, will need to impose those rules after the fact by force (Ie, invade country A and secure it's defeat). If they do not, there is not real rule.

I seriously do not understand what is so difficult about that concept for you to understand. I do not know how to put it into more simpler and more plain terms for you to understand. It is spelled out so clearly that 7 year old can understand.

I thought you were against retroactive legislation.

I am. And I did not say imposing something by force after the fact was good- just that it is the only way to enforce something that the party in question has not previously agreed to. In fact I spent a considerable amount of time showing how unjust it was with the Nuremberg information you ignored because it was over 100 words.

Newsflash - most wars are BETWEEN states. All except civil wars, in which the state clearly DOES NOT have complete rule over itself.

This does not preclude the sovereignty of a state. If a group of people outside a state can get together and claim a bunch of rules apply to a sovereign state, then there is no sovereignty of the state and those same people can impose any rule they wish to impose including not allowing a public election of leaders or whatever suits them if they so desire. This simply is not the case and the fact that one state seeks to remove the sovereignty of another when it creates a war does nothing to damage that unless that state losses the war and it's own sovereignty in the process.

That looked like English but it's incomprehensible.

I'm sorry, is English not your first language? Perhaps you are fresh out of the American Education system? Perhaps someone who speaks your language could translate it or someone with more patients then me could draw you a picture or something. IF it comes down to a picture, can I request spiders and unicorns be involved in order to lighten it up a bit while impressing the seriousness of it still?

 

[DeletedUser]

Perhaps someone who speaks your language could translate it or someone with more patients then me could draw you a picture or something.

Are you a doctor, then?