International law & war

[Bass_Man86]

Originally Posted by Cyberknight

I agree as to the existence of some of the same motivations and problems, but we attempted the same failed solutions as a century ago.

"Balkanization" of ethnic or religious minorities into tiny enclaves or territories and calling them countries has always been a recipe for failure. Turkey, Yugolsavia and of course much earlier Germany and Italy combining into viable nation states was an imperfect but certainly better solution than letting every group with a traditional accent, distinctive hat and local beer be considered a "nationality".

Completely agree. I would love to see Corsica become part of Italy as culturally, linguistically, even genetically Corsicans are Italian, but I have no wish to see Corsica become an insignificant polity that has to depend on tourism and goat cheese to get by. Given that choice Corsica is better off remaining part of France; God I hate saying that.

[Vector]

Originally Posted by Bass_Man86

France

As well, all know, French are only good for eating cheese and surrendering to the Germans.

[Sergio]

Would it be fun if the rest of us started with the old and unpleasant Jewish stereotypes - somehow I doubt you would appreciate it much.

Also for people on a history forum to be trotting out the tired old stereotype of cheese eating Frenchman eager to surrender at the drop of a hat is remarkable and tiresome. I suggest you read up on your history - at a minimum take a look at the French role in the First World War. The country shouldered the majority of the burden on the Western Front for a large part of the war and continued to play a vital role to the end. As for the Second World I think the 85000 dead French and French colonial soldiers who lost their lives in the Battle of France might disagree with your surrendering to the Germans bit. And that is not taking into account the Free French forces and maqauis.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by Massena

Amnesty International, along with the UN are idealistic and unrealistic organizations that can be a real pain in the ass.

Especially for those regimes who use torture and repression.

[redcoat]

Originally Posted by Vector

As well, all know, French are only good for eating cheese and surrendering to the Germans.

Tiresome remark that doesn't even have the benefit of being funny

[DARKPLACE]

Someone has to speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. Even if they (amnesty) are a pain in the arse.

[DARKPLACE]

Originally Posted by Vector

As well, all know, French are only good for eating cheese and surrendering to the Germans.

And this has what to do with the topic?

[SRV Ron]

Originally Posted by Hop

The 1949 Geneva conventions were created immediately after WW2. There was certainly plenty of military input, for example the minutes of the meetings regarding the convention on the protection of civilians sees inputs from Brigadier Page for the UK, Major Steinberg for Israel, General Edwin Parker for the US, General Devijver for Belgium.

Parker at least was a proper soldier, he commanded the 78th infantry division in ww2.

Those rules are only as good as the morals of the nations that signed the documents. It has been proven time and time again that the Communist, the Palestinians, Dictators, and the leaders of http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ don't have the morals to abide by such rules. They use and break such rules to their advantage to pursue their political agenda of eventual world domination with the use of fear and brutality.

[DARKPLACE]

[QUOTE=SRV Ron;2231906]Those rules are only as good as the morals of the nations that signed the documents. It has been proven time and time again that the Communist, the Palestinians, Dictators, and the leaders of http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ don't have the morals to abide by such rules. They use and break such rules to their advantage to pursue their political agenda of eventual world domination with the use of fear and brutality.[/QUOTE

Where as the western Christian democracies have been a bright shiny example of decency common sense and humanity?

[Crackshot]

Originally Posted by DARKPLACE

Where as the western Christian democracies have been a bright shiny example of decency common sense and humanity?

Of course not. But there's a difference between abberations and policy.

For example, Palestinians and Islamic Fascists, because they are too cowardly and know that the majority of people fear and despise them, use abhorrent tactics, like hiding behind civilians and children or using ambulances as troop carriers.

[DARKPLACE]

Originally Posted by Crackshot

Of course not. But there's a difference between abberations and policy.

For example, Palestinians and Islamic Fascists, because they are too cowardly and know that the majority of people fear and despise them, use abhorrent tactics, like hiding behind civilians and children or using ambulances as troop carriers.

Nothing to do with the fact that they are poorly equipped so are using guerilla warfare in the absence of any better form of fighting.

The wests " aberrations" seem to have happened frequently enough to be classed as policy.

[Vector]

Originally Posted by Sergio

Would it be fun if the rest of us started with the old and unpleasant Jewish stereotypes - somehow I doubt you would appreciate it much.

A. I always laugh at Jewish stereotypes.
B. Granted, I'm a bit young here, but people here seem to be quite educated and intelligent, I really gave them the benefit of the doubt to recognize a jest.

[Cyberknight]

Originally Posted by redcoat

Especially for those regimes who use torture and repression.

I cannot for the life of me imagine why Western democracies have a problem with the UN stalwarts like North Korea, Congo and Iran lecturing them on human rights.

[lcm1]

Originally Posted by Cyberknight

I cannot for the life of me imagine why Western democracies have a problem with the UN stalwarts like North Korea, Congo and Iran lecturing them on human rights.

Now CK, I DID appreciate that one! lcm1

[Crackshot]

Originally Posted by DARKPLACE

Nothing to do with the fact that they are poorly equipped so are using guerilla warfare in the absence of any better form of fighting.

Somehow, I'm glad they're so poorly equipped.

There's a difference between guerilla warfare and war crimes. What I described above - hiding behind children and women, using ambulances as troop carriers, etc - is the latter. Being "poorly equipped" isn't a weak justification - it's no justification.

Originally Posted by DARKPLACE

The wests " aberrations" seem to have happened frequently enough to be classed as policy.

Such as? If I may guess, I suppose you're referring to Abu Ghraib - despicable abuse by the MP's guarding those prisoners, despite many people's desire to find a tie to Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfield - or Guantanamo Bay, which is controversial to say the least in regards to human rights. (Although, despite my own skepticism, Amnesty referring to it as the "gulag of our times" was utterly ridiculous, insulting the former Soviet dissidents like Solzhenitsyn and Sharansky who actually where in the gulag, not to mention the prisoners in the real gulag of our times - North Korea).