From: Avatar Polymorph (avatarpolymorph@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 18:25:06 MDT
Mike Lorry wrote:
"Sorry, it doesn't wash. If you are going to blatantly use terms
like
'war crimes' which have an accepted legal definition, then you
ought to
at least go and read what the laws of war say before you spout
off.
First off, any civilian population or facilities within which
military
assets are hidden, i.e. using one's own citizens as 'human
shields',
are themselves legitimate targets because they become combatants
due to
their status as shields, and those forcing them to do so are the
war
criminals, not those who bomb them."
I never raised this issue. No one was claiming the Germans or Japanese did
this to any great extent.
"When a war effort becomes such an overwhelming majority of the
economic/industrial activity of a national population, such as
was the
case in North Vietnam, any individual is considered a 'war
asset'. The
laws of war were written at a time when the military component
of a
national economy was a rather small fraction of the whole. For
instance, I believe that the average military share of the US
(northern
states) economy at the time of the Civil War was around 10-12%.
European powers, similarly, used small condottier armies to play
their
'game of kings'.
While this contrast between limited or low intinsity conflicts
and all
out Total War may indicate a need for revision of the laws of
war, they
are as they are today as they were decades ago.
WWII was essentially a war of industry vs industry where the
destruction of armaments in actual combat was nothing more than
a means
of accounting for the quantity and quality of the industrial
capacity
of the respective combatant powers in a game of competetive
fitness.
In terms of actual combative recognition of the laws of war, the
allies
recognised them rather punctiliously until Hitler proved that he
gave
no care for their observance, that he believed that victors held
war
crimes trials for the vanquished and that he would be a victor.
The laws of war provide for their restrictions to be tossed out
the
window when one side decides to do so."
Okay. The Western Allies did observe the rules of war in many other
respects. For example, they did not execute large numbers of POWs like other
parties in the war. They refrained from chemical and biological weapons.
They did not abolish military trials. And so forth. Their main problem was
accepting the notion that killing defenceless civilians was not a war crime.
You appear to accepted the notion that it is legitimate to commit genocide
to stop something like Hitler. Basically after saying looking at the legal
rules of war, you now do not want to look at any rules. The "restrictions"
can be "tossed out the window" and its all okay. So you are an anarchist or
an absolutist authoritarian. But as a Singularitarian I argue that anarchy
or authoritarianism is not okay without Sysop (systems operation) - i.e.
protective shielding. See Singularitarian sites if you're not familiar with
these terms. Anyhow, I wish a Sysop had been there for all the victims of
war of the 20th century. I certainly don't blame the Germans for
"supporting" Hitler, who never won a majority of the vote and whose first
act was to kill the 50,000 leading opposition members. Factor that
percentage into your local city and think how that would affect you, bearing
in mind these victims were leaders. So any notion that the German people
were the "enemy" cannot be transferred to the whole population and in any
case even if soem (same with the Soviet Union or China) or many did "go
along" with it all and wouldn't change their inner views I would be fully
flabbergasted to envisage this as a justification for killing them. That's
what people like Pol Pot did.
By your arguments, the US army should not have desisted from stopping laser
sighting for rifles and "blinding" weapons. By your arguments, to "Save the
Union and free the slaves" the Civil War should have included killing as
many (civilian) slaves in the South as possible! By your arguments, the US
should have the biggest stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in the
world and use them whenever it feels appropriate. Remind me what the point
of fighting Hitler was? My mother was turned into a refugee by him so I'm
fully aware. In fact my grandfather (a civilian) was lined up in front of a
mock firing squad. But I guess we "throw the rules" out because "total war"
is okay because two competiting 19th century systems of Imperial alliance
started a war over territorial influence in 1914! Not very extropian of
them.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:29 MST