Crimes Against Humanity By Our Heros
Originally posted 7/24/06

goku88:

Neil_Bitch:

tulah:

goku88:
It's called war,turkey.

Abuses by one side in a conflict, no matter how vile, do not justify violations by the other side. This is a fundamental principle of the laws of war, which you should know.

Some here may recall the Nuremberg Trials from their history. The winners of WWII held trials and firmed up the existing international laws regarding acceptable conduct in a time of war by all participants.

Winston Churchill, of all people, wanted to summarily execute captured German leaders. The US pressured him to back off. Isn't it interesting how times have changed? Now Poopypants wants to kill everyone (especially those who know where the bodies are buried).

I get this mild urge to spit on those who advocate, encourage, and support violations of the laws of land warfare, including the Geneva Conventions, regardless of their ostensible motives. It's better than the nearly overpowering urge I used to have to backhand the bitches. Who says there's no progress these days?

You know whats funny Neil, It could have been the otherway around. If the german gamble at the Ardeens offensive payed off, the allies would have been cut in half giving the Nazis more time to finish with their bomb and used it on Zukovs boys. Then they would have built their New York bomber and finished off Manhattan. It's true,such a bomber was in the works. Then the war crime trials would have been with Ameicans and Soviets on the defence. History is written by the victorious,not the vanquished. You get it turkey?

So what? I won't even go into the more obvious demographic and industrial issues that would have made it impossible for the Germans to continue the war into the US, even assuming that the Allies lost the war (an incredibly unlikely event if you look at the comparative logistics).

Lets assume the Germans won the war. Now. How is acting like a total amoral asshole going to help those who survived? You wouldn't even make it to trial, obviously. Either someone in your platoon (probably your platoon leader), someone on the battlefield, or some random guard would kill you. What about everyone else? Does it make sense for the losing side to break every rule in the book? Do you somehow think that the winning side is going to forgive and forget?

Surely you aren't so stupid as to think that breaking the rules of land warfare will somehow intimidate the other side into losing? Major wars are won and lost on logistics, not whether one guns down unarmed military aged males. Minor wars are won and lost on (and I know this is going to hurt) perceived morality, the winner being the one with the highest morality, not the one that decapitates the most infants. And the US has lost every minor war except one in the past thirty years BECAUSE of that immorality that you demonstrate on here time after time. The one win? Kosovo, where the US and NATO demonstrated appropriate morality.

The war in Afghanistan is lost. The war in Iraq is lost. The war in Lebanon is lost. Not "will be." Not "might be." Is. Has been. Everyone on the ground in those places is utterly convinced of the rightness of their position because they have been violated in every possible way. The aggressors, us, are aware of this and we know that we are wrong. It translates on the ground. It always has; it always will.

Not, of course, that you get it.

--
"Go fuck yourself!"
-- VP Dick "I gots other priorities, bitches" Cheney on the floor of the United States Senate
And isn't it a bad thing to be deceived about the truth, and a good thing to know what the truth is? For I assume that by knowing the truth you mean knowing things as they really are.
-- Plato