97 replies to this topic

[Casen]

I wouldn't. Truman did a lot of good things for the USA, we consider him one of our top ten best presidents.

And then we'd have to arrest whoever planned the bombing of Dresden and the countless other bombings of World War II.

Oh yeah and most importantly on the logic factor Truman has been dead since 1972.

[Vortigern]

Yes, I realise all that. My point was that I believe everyone should be held accountable for their actions. Truman's order to murder nearly 100'000 civilians, and well over 250'000 more over the next fifty years due to radiation and various side-effects of atomic bombings, was a highly immoral action. I very much doubt that when America held a contest to find out who the best President was they said "Truman is the President who ended World War 2 by killing thousands of innocent Japanese people." I bet it was more like "Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus ending WW2 and saving countless American lives." It all depends on perspective, but if there is some form of cosmic judgment or life after death, Truman will not have passed the test.

I wonder if it ever preyed on his conscience...

Anyway, Bill Clinton did wonderful things for America. He put the USA in its strongest ever financial state, but all anyone ever focuses on is his suspected affair with Monica whatsherface. However, just because a man did good things doesn't mean he should be forgiven for every bad thing he did. The total cost of the bad deeds might outweigh the good.

[Casen]

The reason I hate the Albanians is because they are Muslims and got weapons from Al Qaeda. Also the fact that we bombed Serbians who helped us in WWII. It's terrible. We should have let the genocide occur so there would be less Muslims in Europe!

[CodeCat]

[Spectre]

Well duh. Nobody's guilty in war. as far as i recall there is a war trial going on here in Norway against a guy that worked in a prison-camp filled with serbs, where family and friends of victims claim that he did horrible things to the prisoners.

Ever wonder how many innocent civillians got killed during the end of ww2 by allied troops? I never hear anything about that but I assume the numbers were high. all sides are guilty of warcrimes in wartime.

War is just justified murder on a massive scale, with more weapons than your common pistol.

[duke_Qa]

fixed a pretty major error in my last reply, wonder how that one passed me by.

Anyway, we've found the answer to why Kacen supports the serbs, which was not surprisingly their common foe the Muslim. we should have seen that one coming.

[Casen]

I said that earlier in the fucking thread I was just bringing it up again.

Croatians are scum too.

[Puppeteer]

War is just unjustified murder on a massive scale, with more weapons than your common pistol.

[Spectre]

War is just unjustified murder on a massive scale, with more weapons than your common pistol.

If it was unjustified then it would be illegal, and when I meant justified I meant for the governments attacking eachother.

[Casen]

War can't be made illegal since it happens between two countries, AKA two laws that govern each other.

There's nothing in between.

[Dauth]

War can't be made illegal since it happens between two countries, AKA two laws that govern each other.

There's nothing in between.

You've not heard of International Law then?

[Hostile]

Who gives a shit about international law? Really?! I'm a citizern of the US not the planet earth. I never can figure out why people can't grasp that thought. Do you think the Russians, Chinese, or other major nations really care about international law? They are only motivated by detente'.

Very few nations listen to UN mandates. You know nations like: Iran, Israel, Syria, Prior Iraq, China, Russia, Japan, USA, and so on. Not a very successful venture in my opinion. Very few nations can really enforce an international law.

[CodeCat]

And it's that kind of mentality that starts fights. The people that think they are above the law. Like Karadžić thought, and like Bush thinks.

[Casen]

I don't believe in international law, so I don't follow it. To hell with globalist bullshit.

[Hostile]

And it's that kind of mentality that starts fights. The people that think they are above the law. Like Karadžić thought, and like Bush thinks.

And like Putin thinks, and Chavez thinks when the UN told him not to nationalize his oil. Did he listen.......no. Remember to TRY not to be so blatantly biased.

[Vortigern]

And it's that kind of mentality that starts fights. The people that think they are above the law. Like Karadžić thought, and like Bush thinks.

And like Putin thinks, and Chavez thinks when the UN told him not to nationalize his oil. Did he listen.......no. Remember to TRY not to be so blatantly biased.

Just because he didn't mention them doesn't he was defending them. Please at least TRY not to be so blatantly biased. International law is widely disrespected, but it's still worth looking at. Member states of the UN who defy international law should be tried internationally, as they have broken a law under which they dwell.

By the way, CodeCat, actually, I think it's this kind of mentality that starts fights:

I don't believe in international law, so I don't follow it. To hell with globalist bullshit.

[duke_Qa]

International law doesnt work in large scale conflicts, but it certainly discourages small-time fights with the threat of being cut off from the international market.

Thats basically how international law works today; you don't want to break it if you are dependent on the global economy, but if you somehow find a way to make money on war and not get banished from global trade...what are you waiting for?

The problem today is that there is mostly a materialistic threat for nations that disobey rules. If they can avoid those capitalistic embargoes, they don't care. For international law to work better than it does today is to find a more effective punishment method that can't be stopped easily and goes beyond trade, capital and cooperation.

Hypothesis: A huge frikking laser in space along with a neutral and global espionage agency that gathers intel on the most important targets that have done crimes against humanity, is IMO one of the more direct ways international law could become more efficient. But its pretty much sci-fi and many would probably consider it inhuman.
Government of Sudan blowing up their citizens in Darfur? find the officers and politicians that are directly involved and fry their heads off. Russians invading a neighbouring country? Warn them and if they don't move out, start frying russian troops and generals involved in the conflict, along with local politicians which were a part of the cause. Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians? start blowing up settlements after a warning. suicide bombers in Iraq? well a bit harder, but scanning borders and frying people with guns running over it might be a good way to reduce such attacks.

[Soul]

Government of Sudan blowing up their citizens in Darfur? find the officers and politicians that are directly involved and fry their heads off. Russians invading a neighbouring country? Warn them and if they don't move out, start frying russian troops and generals involved in the conflict, along with local politicians which were a part of the cause. Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians? start blowing up settlements after a warning. suicide bombers in Iraq? well a bit harder, but scanning borders and frying people with guns running over it might be a good way to reduce such attacks.

Sounds like a neat idea, since everyone seems to have a habit solving conflicts with force, why not use force to keep everyone in check and what better way then an orbiting beam weapon.