I certainly hope you're not suggesting that Hitler was not a war criminal. The Dresden bombing was controversial to say the least - and debate on Truman's use of the atomic bomb still rages today - but they pale in comparison to the things Hitler orchestrated.
POLL Worst war criminal in history
- Thread starter Fudd
- Start date
That's sort sighted. Judaism is more than a religion, it's a culture, and in many respects it is a race.
Obviously not by the Germans. However whether or not Germany had, somehow, managed to win WW2, Hitlers war crimes were becoming more and more well known among the Allies. Yes the victor judges the vanquished, but the sheer widespread horror and brutality of WW2 demanded that Germany's leader be held accountable. To have ignored the great many crimes against humanity, would have been, essentially a crime in itself.
True to an extent. One can sift through the histories of the colonial powers to find what we today would consider to be war crimes. And in WW2 alone there were actions taken by the Allies that are at their best very questionable. I would go as far to say that Air Marshall Arthur "Bomber" Harris could be considered a war criminal, and in that note General Curtis "Iron Butt" LeMay as well. With both commanders they waged an aerial war that killed hundred of thousands, if not millions of civilians.
In the end the past actions of the Allies was not any kind of an excuse for the Germans to wipe out about 6 million Jews along with another million Gypsies, Gays/Lesbians, the mentally handicapped, and others.
Can't remember right off, could have been, ''Flags of our fathers '' or ''Iwo Jima'' I have no room to store books [ rv ] so give away when done, sorry.
Really? And here I was, remembering that the reason for Canada fighting the war on terror were the Canadians that were murdered during 9/11.
And still to this day: NO APOLOGIES. No apologies to the people of the China, Korea, Phillipines, and many others. In fact, a rewriting of history books in Japan, ommitting all such acts. Talk to a Japanese youth today, and he/she won't know much about it (in contrast, talk to any German or American youth, and they will tell you what the Holocaust is). This is a continuation of the atrocity that occurred, in my opinion. As for sheer numbers, it could very well have numbered well over 6 million (the number of Jews estimated to have died in the Holocaust). The people of China, Korea, Phillipines, and others have never forgotten what Japan did. It is no wonder N.Korea points all its nukes at Japan.
But the West has almost completely ignored it. In fact, absolutely no pressure from the United States nor Canada nor England has ever been documented to be put to bear upon Japan for a rectification or penance or apology. Not one word of regret, not one penny was ever paid. At least Germany attempted to atone for its past, and payed large sums of money to Jewish groups and raised Holocaust memorials.
And look at this poll. It forgot to mention one of the worst criminal war atrocities in WW2, while Hitler was mentioned. Just another example of the ignorance of people here of this.
Last edited:
I could write a long rebuttal to how moronic your poll is. Fortunately most of what I have to say has been covered. I will however give you a quick lesson in Law of Armed Conflict.
Uner the UN charter, all war is illegal, except in the case of self defence. The charter goes on to list what is considered self defence. When a country aids and abets a terrorist who has attacked your country, it is considered self defence to invade that country and do the minimum required to ensure the safety of your country. In the case of Afghanistan, if the taliban had not been removed, they would have continued to aid and abet Bin Laden to attack Western countries. Hence, the invasion and removal of the Taliban was legal. Not only that, but NATO continues to be there at the invitation of the current Afghan government under a UN mandate. Therefore, what is going on in Afghanistan is %100 legal. And all you have to do is look at the infant mortality rate in Afghanistan today, as compared to the Taliban years, to realise how much better off the people are.
Another self defence clause is that you are allowed to pre-emptively attack a country that is building WMDs for the purpose of attacking your country. That is the legal justification Bush used for invading Iraq. Thats why he concentrated on WMD's, and not how terrible a person Hussein was. (It is not legal to invade a country to remove their ruler because he is a bad person). If Bush had found WMD's in Iraq, legally speaking, he would be completely vindicated. However, because he didn't he is technically on a lot shakier ground.
Anyway, that was far longer than I wanted. So I will just close by saying that you and your group are clearly extremely ignorant, and should probably educate yourselves a little bit. It is people like you that make the world a worse place to live.
Uner the UN charter, all war is illegal, except in the case of self defence. The charter goes on to list what is considered self defence. When a country aids and abets a terrorist who has attacked your country, it is considered self defence to invade that country and do the minimum required to ensure the safety of your country. In the case of Afghanistan, if the taliban had not been removed, they would have continued to aid and abet Bin Laden to attack Western countries. Hence, the invasion and removal of the Taliban was legal. Not only that, but NATO continues to be there at the invitation of the current Afghan government under a UN mandate. Therefore, what is going on in Afghanistan is %100 legal. And all you have to do is look at the infant mortality rate in Afghanistan today, as compared to the Taliban years, to realise how much better off the people are.
Another self defence clause is that you are allowed to pre-emptively attack a country that is building WMDs for the purpose of attacking your country. That is the legal justification Bush used for invading Iraq. Thats why he concentrated on WMD's, and not how terrible a person Hussein was. (It is not legal to invade a country to remove their ruler because he is a bad person). If Bush had found WMD's in Iraq, legally speaking, he would be completely vindicated. However, because he didn't he is technically on a lot shakier ground.
Anyway, that was far longer than I wanted. So I will just close by saying that you and your group are clearly extremely ignorant, and should probably educate yourselves a little bit. It is people like you that make the world a worse place to live.
Are you just making this stuff up???
Here's the link: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
The area of the charter that pertains to self-defense is chapter VII, article 51.
QUOTE:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
This is highly interpretive and continues to be a source of ongoing debate.
No where in the UN charter does it say anything of the sort.
Here's the link: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/
The area of the charter that pertains to self-defense is chapter VII, article 51.
QUOTE:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
This is highly interpretive and continues to be a source of ongoing debate.
And last I checked Afghanistan wasn't doing that great. There is a Taliban resurgence. Opium production is up 90%, (funds the Taliban). As of November 2006 the country is at risk of becoming a failed state.
Good call. We need more posts like your's to stand up against the usual misinformation. Thanks!
Fudd:
It is pretty clear that your "civil activist" group has no awareness at all about
history. Bush, and particularly Harper, don't even rate on the war criminals' list. As an opinion, Saddam Hussien is far worse, having himself ordered the gassing over 1 Million Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war, and had also gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds. Your "civil activist" group needs to look at things for a lot longer period than the last 2 years. And Saddam Hussein isn't really that bad compared Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Mugabe might even be a bigger mass murderer than Hussein.
Kinman
It is pretty clear that your "civil activist" group has no awareness at all about
history. Bush, and particularly Harper, don't even rate on the war criminals' list. As an opinion, Saddam Hussien is far worse, having himself ordered the gassing over 1 Million Iranian soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war, and had also gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds. Your "civil activist" group needs to look at things for a lot longer period than the last 2 years. And Saddam Hussein isn't really that bad compared Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Mugabe might even be a bigger mass murderer than Hussein.
Kinman
I really don't think Stephen Harper belongs on that list at all. How is he occupying Afghanistan? His gov't did not send our troops there.
while discussing war criminals, you should really also seperate them into pre and post Geneva convention.
Finally! I was wondering when someone was going to mention Mao.
He may be the all time killer when it comes down to numbers.
Actually, it's true. Not quite the Spanish-American War, but the Philipine-American War that came right after.
Nope... The Philipino massacres you mentioned occurred at the start of the 20th century. "Flags of our fathers" and "Iwo jima" are unrelated WW2 events. Besides, not all the soldiers were "weeping" when "following orders". Some of them were gladly doing it.mick_eight said:
