West should be more "tolerant" of holocaust deniers...

[Clément Barbeau Vermet]

An illegal war, by international law, is a war of aggression wherein one state attacks another state without first being attacked

Then ALL wars are ''illegal wars'' because one country has to start the war so their can be a war.

 

[Glorified Ape]

damn edumacated fellers think they know allthing 

I don't know jack but what little I do know I like to argue about.

Right, but what you quoted was not part of the UN charter, so it doesn't really support what you were saying.  Quote the right document next time!   ;D

The two are in the same spirit, and the Nuremberg example was more poignant because it was the US spearheading the entire effort.

As far as "aggressive war" goes, is there really any other kind?   I understand what you're saying, but it's too difficult to define exactly what constitutes an "illegal war".  In some cases it's pretty clear-cut, but in other circumstances, such as the most recent US invasion of Iraq, and our own assistance in their invasion of Afghanistan...well, there's a lot of room for interpretation.  And the problem is that most of the "judgements" are based on little more than popular opinion.  Plus the problem of enforcement.  International law is a joke unless there's an impartial body which can enforce it.  The UN is neither impartial, nor can it enforce it's own decisions, so it's rather difficult to put any faith in it's laws.

I wouldn't characterize the World Court and ICJ as unfair institutions, it just so happens that politicians and alot of officers don't like being held accountable for their actions. The refusal by some Western countries to submit to the ICJ/World Court only emphasizes the fact that the West loves to apply its standards to everyone but itself and spout pretty rhetoric without actually adhering to it when it's inconvenient. So much of Western idealism, to coin a phrase, is just 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

See, there's a good illustration of why it's so difficult to define "illegal" as far as warfare goes.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the north had been receiving support from both the USSR and China for quite a while before the US came on the scene.  The US didn't like the idea of another country going Red, so they stepped in to back their own candidate.  Now you can define that as colonialism, or as an "aggresive war", or as an act of self-defence.  A fairly strong argument can be made for any of the above, but once again, as long as there isn't an imparital body to rule on the legality of the situation, and to enforce it's decision, there's no way to say which definition is right.

Agreed, Vietnam is a tricky one and it's subject to differing interpretations. As for an "impartial body" - we'll never get one as long as states refuse to cede some sovereignty to the laws they want applied to everyone but themselves.

I'll have to do some more research into that, but I'll accept your explanation for now.  I'm really not familiar with all the details of the ceasefire.  I really don't understand why the US would agree to have the UN lay out the terms for the ceasefire.

It's debatable, as everything seems to be, but to me it seems clear that the ceasefire wasn't made or supervised unilaterally by the US, but rather by the UN. As such, it's UN jurisdiction, not US. But again, we could argue either side to death.

Leaving aside the fact that the UN carries out it purpose very selectively, it seems that by that definition ALL wars are "illegal".  Which brings me right back to the absurdity of the concept.  If the body charged with enforcing these laws cannot stay impartial and cannot enforce it's own decisions, then these laws become irrelevant.  Imagine if our courts always sided with individuals of a certain ethnic background, and our police were unable to enforce the law.  What purpose would our judicial system serve?  The country would fall back on vigilantism, and the people would make and apply their own rules as they saw fit.  The "law" would cease to be relevant.

Hence the somewhat anarchic system of international relations. The concept of aggressive war isn't really absurd, it's similar to an assault case - if you strike first, you're generally in the wrong. All war, I would think, is aggressive war insofar as one side must always strike first. Thus if things worked like they're supposed to, anyone who strikes first would be charged and rightfully so. If politicians (and/or senior officers) were likely to suffer personal punishment as a result of waging aggressive war, I dare say they'd be less likely to engage in it (I'm not saying it's a 100% deterrent, but it would certainly help).

Bull.  Sure, "we" have to be consistant, but we don't have to follow all the rules that we set.  A police officer has the right to search you if he beleives you may be violating the law.  The ETF reserves the right to break down your doors and charge your house with weapons drawn.  Yet we do not give the same rights to the average citizen.  The body in power will always give itself powers which those it proposes to regulate do not have, and the same rules apply on the global level.  Beleiving otherwise is delusional at best.  So the only thing that "we" have to do is ensure that we have good cause when we invade another country.  Wether the rest of the world agrees or not is irrelevant, although it's a good idea to seek the advice and support of other global powers.

Why wouldn't we have to follow the rules that we set? Are we above our own laws? The police officer searching the home is subject to the same laws as the searchee and regulation, oversight, and review. The searchee has an avenue for appeal and grievance. We cannot reasonably claim ourselves to be justified in executing any action against another state (except in rare circumstances - IE genocide, humanitarian intervention, aggressive war - which incidentally are identified by the UN as the few occasions justifying force) unless we submit to a higher authority for review and, if needs be, punishment. Otherwise we're just the self-appointed dictator, which hardly jives with our "yay yay democracy" tripe that we pour on everyone everytime we're looking for an excuse to do something.

Who is to determine what constitutes sufficient cause for invasion? The invader? It's completely unreasonable and in complete defiance of our society's principles. We are not the judge, jury, and executioner of the Earth, self-appointed by virtue of our belief in our own moral superiority. If we're going to behave like it, we need to shut up about democracy, liberty, the rule of law, etc. and openly admit that we're nothing more than self-interested, self-righteous twinks with no more legitimacy or morality than the people we're busy pointing fingers at. I'd be far happier knowing that we're not trying to hide it through some pathetic propagandistic veil that's not fooling anyone but ourselves and those few poor souls ignorant enough to buy what we're selling because they're starving and desperate. 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in democracy, the rule of law, and all that glorious stuff but advancing it unilaterally, unequally, from the end of gun, and with no regard for the ideals we're supposed to live by is not the right way to go about it.

"I'm a big boy now and I'm quite capable of brainwashing myself, ..."

- Rather successfully, too, evidently.

;D

Hey now, no more than you or anyone else.  ^-^

Then ALL wars are ''illegal wars'' because one country has to start the war so their can be a war.

All wars are illegal insofar as one side is waging aggressive war, yes. The defending or intervening parties are not criminal since they didn't initiate. See my response to 48's points for more. Everyone has a right to defend themselves or intervene on behalf of an illegally attacked party but states have no more legitimate justification in agression as I do in kicking in my neighbour's door and hacking his head off with a lawnmower blade because I don't like the way he minds his garden.

 

[TCBF]

"Hey now, no more than you or anyone else."

- Fair comment.

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

>admit that we're nothing more than self-interested, self-righteous twinks with no more legitimacy or morality than the people we're busy pointing fingers at.

Morally speaking, intentions count as well as actions.  It is entirely possible for us to wage aggressive war for reasons which place us morally on a higher plane than others who wage aggressive war.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

"Inter arma silent leges: in time of war the law is silent."

I had to raid my basement bookshelves to find the latin version of this quote (quite a feat, after five moves), which was one of the few lines I remembered from the course.  The author of the book would disagree with me, but I tend to agree with the spirit of the quote.  "International law" is, to me, somewhat of a mirage when it comes to war (remember Lisa Simpson and her model UN charter in the Lord of the Flies episode?  ;D ).  I should add that about 95% of my fellow students and my professor vehemently disagreed with me on these points. 

My own belief is that we can certainly try to regulate the conduct of war (treatment of prisoners, civilians etc), but that efforts to "criminalize" the act of war itself are futile.  States will do must states think they must do and then live with the consequences of their action or inaction.  Your aggressive war is my pre-emptive strike.

Cheers,

2B 

 

[Kilo_302]

2 million vietnamese probably WERE killed as a result of the war, however, a good chunk of that number was a result of NVA actions AFTER the US left.  Seems the communist government that took over didn't much like free thinkers, scholars, and disidents.  Big surprise there.

The figures I quoted were from the time that American forces were in theatre, not after they left. It seems that I could say anything, backed up by facts, and you would argue with it because it spoils your romantic notion of war.

 

[48Highlander]

The figures I quoted were from the time that American forces were in theatre, not after they left. It seems that I could say anything, backed up by facts, and you would argue with it because it spoils your romantic notion of war.

It's become evident over your last 18 posts that you're a weee bit of a conspiracy theorist, so you'll forgive me if I take your "facts" with a grain of salt.

Even assuming 2 million Vietnamese civilians did die while the US was in theater, you'd be hard pressed to show it was as a result of US actions.  You'd also have a hard time showing that the majority of those deaths wouldn't have occured wehter or not the US was there.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I feel the pretense for GW2 should have been better tricked out in the way of the sell job and PR.  The WMD angle proved to be too thin and each of the countries that refused to support a UN mandate probably had their own intel that told them the US was floating a red herring.  Unfortunately, simply stating the obvious and necessity of going in would not have carried the day.
But none the less, it is a righteous war.  Whether or not the States should have acted on its own is only a point of international law.  The fact is that Iraq was for years in blatant contravention of the cease fire agreements and should have been subject to whatever pounding they were asking for.  What was the option?  To ignore Iraq and let  Saddam continue to do whatever he and his psycho kids wanted to?  Continue to let Iraq be a training camp for terrorists, and give cash money to the family of suicide bombers in Palestine?  After 9-11 the States had to get their sh_t sorted out in a hurry and get a grip, or there would have been plenty more terrorist actions within their borders.  Stomping on Afghanistan was a good start, but they had to sort out the other countries that had institutional support of Islamic terrorism.  There were lots to choose from, but Iraq was the easy choice.  Been there already, pussy military that will cave in a heartbeat, lots of oil to pay back some of the huge cost of going in and cleaning house. 
It was also a useful gesture to show that the United States will act against any sh_trag anywhere it wants to without the UN's blessing.  People bitch that they have appointed themselves the "World Police" but I say they got the position by default.  It could be a topic of much debate, but if the US had sat on it's hands on Iraq and let them again get away with ignoring the UN resolutions, what do we thing that North Korea would be doing right now?  Or Iran?  Or Syria and Jordan?  Maybe the war on terror is a shooting war now, but inaction only emboldens these groups and creates an atmosphere of invincibility (also no doubt arguable, but I believe it). 
If the UN had some teeth/balls then it would not have had to come to this.  Their adopting the "haha we told you so" attitude with Iraq will cost money in the long run to the US, but it will bite them in the ass when the oil tankers are steaming into Texas, with Euro gas at $3.50/l and ours holding at $1.00.

And if you want war stats, baby I got war stats!

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm

Enjoy!

 

[Glorified Ape]

>admit that we're nothing more than self-interested, self-righteous twinks with no more legitimacy or morality than the people we're busy pointing fingers at.

Morally speaking, intentions count as well as actions.  It is entirely possible for us to wage aggressive war for reasons which place us morally on a higher plane than others who wage aggressive war.

By our own standards? Sure. But that's not really very impressive - I'm pretty good at justifying things to myself when I want them, too. If I tried hard enough, I could probably justify robbing a bank to myself as stimulating the local economy as long as  the money I steal gets spent in local businesses. As for intentions, one can always claim lofty, sweet ambitions but when one's behaviour and one's incessantly espoused values clash, intentions are suspect.

My own belief is that we can certainly try to regulate the conduct of war (treatment of prisoners, civilians etc), but that efforts to "criminalize" the act of war itself are futile.  States will do must states think they must do and then live with the consequences of their action or inaction.  Your aggressive war is my pre-emptive strike.

Cheers,

2B 

We didn't take the same approach to Germany when trying its leaders. I'm not referring to the crimes against humanity angle, but the charges of aggression.

If the UN had some teeth/balls then it would not have had to come to this.  Their adopting the "haha we told you so" attitude with Iraq will cost money in the long run to the US, but it will bite them in the *** when the oil tankers are steaming into Texas, with Euro gas at $3.50/l and ours holding at $1.00.

That's really what it comes down to, isn't it? That's a perfect example of what I meant regarding real vs. claimed intent.

I agree that the UN needs "teeth and balls" but their lack thereof is a function of (amongst other things) the Security Council neutering them whenever it doesn't fit the interests of the SC.

2 million

From what I've read, the 2 million figure is accurate but I seriously doubt that all of those deaths can be attributed to the US. I think the 2 million figure is a total for the entire conflict, likely including the Vietnamese killed by the North.

 

[Kilo_302]

Well the 2 million casualty estimate is exactly that - an estimate. There is information that suggests casualties were as high as 4 million, so when I say 2 million died in Vietnam it is because that figure has been academically accepted since the war's end in 1975. However, that does not mean that it is a bit on the low side Obviously not all these casualties were inflicted by the US, but considering only one side conducted massive strategic air raids, and used air power rather indiscriminately it is a sure thing that most casualties were. I think it would also be easy to prove that these casualties would not have occurred if the US had not intervened. Without a US intervention, the North would have won by the mid-60s at the absolute latest. ARVN troops were under-equipped without US kit, and remained unmotivated throughout the war. The South only existed because the US supported it. By the late 60s, nearly its entire economy was based on having a half million US soldiers based there. Bars, prostitution, etc were its biggest generators of income. Its clear that without any US intervention, the French would have left anyways, because they could not afford to stay, and the North would have united the country by 1965 at the latest. As for casualties, most of the Vietnamese in the South would have supported the North, Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist first, not a communist. If the South had collapsed by 1965 (I think this would have happened much earlier, but we will say 1965 for arguments sake) Vietnamese casualties in total would have been well under 600,000, as most of the 2-4 million who actually died did so after 1969.

 

[Brad Sallows]

What makes you so certain the North Vietnamese might not have murdered a couple of million people after successfully concluding a military campaign in the mid-'60s?  Re-education can be an arduous and painful process.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What makes you so certain the North Vietnamese might not have murdered a couple of million people after successfully concluding a military campaign in the mid-'60s?  Re-education can be an arduous and painful process.

Yup. Just ask Pol Pot, ooops he's dead. You can still ask Brother Number 2, Nuon Chea, or Khieu Samphan, President of the Khmer Rouge.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I think it would also be easy to prove that these casualties would not have occurred if the US had not intervened. Without a US intervention, the North would have won by the mid-60s at the absolute latest. ARVN troops were under-equipped without US kit, and remained unmotivated throughout the war. The South only existed because the US supported it.

What do you think they were doing there???  Burning off old ordinance?  Conducting an extended field exercise?  Has everyone forgotten Ivan the Red Commie Dog so quickly.  Viet Nam was an extension of the Cold War and a demonstration to the Soviets that the US would not sit idly by and let an area get annexed by a communist regime.  Of course the French were pulling out.  It was a shooting war.  How are they supposed to conduct a shooting war without proper lines of retreat and sufficient white flags?  They were totally unprepared.

By the late 60s, nearly its entire economy was based on having a half million US soldiers based there. Bars, prostitution, etc were its biggest generators of income.

Sounds like Windsor, so whats wrong with that? ;D

 

[combatcamera]

Here's the entirety of his contribution to this thread:

Great eh?  Looks like Combat Camera is about as usefull and informative on these forums as it is when they publish articles.

48Highlander,

Read all about me:  http://www.frankhudec.ca/CHRONICLE_JOURNAL.htm  Like Tom, I'm from Thunder Bay too.  Been to Israel and the Middle East and a few other places as well .....

 

[GO!!!]

48Highlander,

Read all about me:  http://www.frankhudec.ca/CHRONICLE_JOURNAL.htm  Like Tom, I'm from Thunder Bay too.  Been to Israel and the Middle East and a few other places as well .....

I have to say, I've met a number of people who are egotistical about their employment in the CF, some with good reason, but an Air Force Photographer takes the cake. Who do you think you are?

<Edited upon cooling off>

 

[combatcamera]

Thanks for that GO!!!

Actually, I worked with Garth in Burma in 1996.  No ego here.  Just telling you what I've done.  No BS either.  I was already a 3RCR Sgt in Anti-Armour Platoon  when I remustered to photo in Germany in 1991, and I'm glad  I don't walk around with blinders on like some here do in their views about our professional military - though I've met a few anal-types in my travels.  That's really quite sad for a guy like you - 921 posts and all.

 

[muskrat89]

GO!! Re-read the Conduct Guidelines, particularly the "respect between users" section. Maybe it was just the way I read it, but I wasn't feeling a whole lot of respect, right there.

You're a switched-on dude, well-spoken, and have the benefit of real experience to back up a lot of your opinions. There's no need to use the 12-pound sledge every time you make a post, particularly when a tack-hammer would suffice.

Thanks in advance

 

[combatcamera]

I have to say, I've met a number of people who are egotistical about their employment in the CF, some with good reason, but an Air Force Photographer takes the cake. Who do you think you are?

<Edited upon cooling off>

No problems.  Already forgotten. 

Here's what I do in my job:  http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&defaultjoin=and&field=Keywords&op=contains&value=+&field=Description&op=contains&value=hudec&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos&template=results_e.np&sorton=IPTC%20-%20DateCreated&ascending=0

Like I said on another thread, we get to work on operations with all three branches of the Forces, which I appreciate and respect.