Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[Spyder]

Last outstanding point:
Is moral reprehensiveness supposed to be possible in warfare?

Moral reprehensiveness in warfare is excessiveness. I don't think it excessive to punish countries for atrocious crimes, though in Finland's case it really is a conspiratorial sort of guilt that is probably absolved with time and success. When the last SS man dies, perhaps, it will be over and done with.

So would it be accurate to say that you believe that Finland was being morally reprehensible in having dealings with Germany and should have been punished for this PRIOR to the conclusion of WW2?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So would it be accurate to say that you believe that Finland was being morally reprehensible in having dealings with Germany and should have been punished for this PRIOR to the conclusion of WW2?

I argued that, yes.

You shouldn't entirely trust what Edi says.

Look here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

Finland was at peace when it signed an agreement with Nazi Germany. At peace. They brought the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941 upon themselves by doing so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Finland may not have been involved in the Final Solution directly, but by allying with Germany for the sake of regaining territory she contributed to the deaths of millions of Russian innocents when she could have remained neutral - In a war that ultimately gained Finland nothing!

[Spyder]

So would it be accurate to say that you believe that Finland was being morally reprehensible in having dealings with Germany and should have been punished for this PRIOR to the conclusion of WW2?

I argued that, yes.

Thank you, that is all I wished to clarify.

You shouldn't entirely trust what Edi says.

Look here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

Finland was at peace when it signed an agreement with Nazi Germany. At peace. They brought the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941 upon themselves by doing so.

You mentioned that you Finland wasn't deserving of further retribution after the conclusion of the war. That is all I wished to address. Who deserved what during the war is something that I'll stay away from for the time being.

[Stuart Mackey]

Finland may not have been involved in the Final Solution directly, but by allying with Germany for the sake of regaining territory she contributed to the deaths of millions of Russian innocents when she could have remained neutral - In a war that ultimately gained Finland nothing!

Hindsight is 20/20, however. It is quite probable that Finland saw the oppertunity to take back what was stolen from them during the Winter war.
Givent there POV at that time, it was probably a good choice, but this does not implicate Finland in the Final solution. As such I dont see how anyone can really be anti Finnish over their wartime involvement.
To quote that site

Finland later also earned respect in the West for its refusal to allow extension of Nazi anti-Semitic practices in Finland. Jews were not only tolerated in Finland, but most Jewish refugees also were allowed asylum there. Finnish Jews served in the Finnish army

[Edi]

So would it be accurate to say that you believe that Finland was being morally reprehensible in having dealings with Germany and should have been punished for this PRIOR to the conclusion of WW2?

I argued that, yes.

You shouldn't entirely trust what Edi says.

Look here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

Finland was at peace when it signed an agreement with Nazi Germany. At peace. They brought the Soviet attack of June 25, 1941 upon themselves by doing so.

As if Stalin would not have attacked us even without the German troops here? Yeah, I forgot about that agreement, but believe me, it was extensively discussed in history class in high school and it was not a pact of alliance. Your trying to twist this around to make us look like villains is not going to fool anyone, Marina.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hindsight is 20/20, however. It is quite probable that Finland saw the oppertunity to take back what was stolen from them during the Winter war.
Givent he POV at that time, it was probably a good choice, but this does not implicate Finland in the Final solution.
To quote that site

Considering that they were ultimately forced to terms by the Soviets, anyway, their aide to Nazi Germany did nothing but help the Third Reich kill more people before it was destroyed. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but with the proviso that it is a judgement of today and not the moment, it is a very contemptible action.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As if Stalin would not have attacked us even without the German troops here? Yeah, I forgot about that agreement, but believe me, it was extensively discussed in history class in high school and it was not a pact of alliance. Your trying to twist this around to make us look like villains is not going to fool anyone, Marina.

Edi

There were German troops on your soil when Barbarossa started, Edi. That's a pretty good casus belli for the Man of Steel as far as I'm concerned.

[Edi]

Finland may not have been involved in the Final Solution directly, but by allying with Germany for the sake of regaining territory she contributed to the deaths of millions of Russian innocents when she could have remained neutral - In a war that ultimately gained Finland nothing!

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Why should we not have tried to regain the territory? It was ours to begin with, the Russians had no right to it. The only questionable parts about the Continuation War are the Finnish ventures into Soviet Karelia, and the defeats there, especially in the Karhujärvi region are what allowed the Soviets to roll us back in their counteroffensive.

As I stated before, I don't give a damn about how many Russian civilian lives our involvement in the war cost, because Stalin started the war we didn't want in the first place (Winter War) and it's on his head! If he hadn't, we'd have our prewar borders, Stalin could have used the tied up divisions to attack Germans instead. We were never a threat until he chose to attack us first!

See also Stuart's post.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

Hindsight is 20/20, however. It is quite probable that Finland saw the oppertunity to take back what was stolen from them during the Winter war.
Givent he POV at that time, it was probably a good choice, but this does not implicate Finland in the Final solution.
To quote that site

Considering that they were ultimately forced to terms by the Soviets, anyway, their aide to Nazi Germany did nothing but help the Third Reich kill more people before it was destroyed. Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but with the proviso that it is a judgement of today and not the moment, it is a very contemptible action.

It is not contemtable at all, the Finns were in a catch 22,and why should they not try to regain that which was stolen so shortly before? The Finns used the Gemans to get back their own, certainly, but then you will of course argue that those allied to the Soviet Union in a similar alliance of conveniance are just guilty as being part of Stalins Gulag system? and Stalins abhorrant treatment of POW's? or the massacre in the Katyn {sp?} forest?. So, do you condemn the USA, and Britain for helping the Soviets in ther own crimes?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It is not contemtable at all, the Finns were in a catch 22,and why should they not try to regain that which was stolen so shortly before? The Finns used the Gemans to get back their own, certainly, but then you will of course argue that those allied to the Soviet Union in a similar alliance of conveniance are just guilty as being part of Stalins Gulag system? and Stalins abhorrant treatment of POW's? or the massacre in the Katyn {sp?} forest?. So, do you condemn the USA, and Britain for helping the Soviets in ther own crimes?

Condie Rice retorted to a democratic senator in a debate over the current war where it was brought up, that we should have used the Berlin crisis of '49 to keep on going into Eastern Europe and liberate the peoples there. I agree with her. We had a moral obligation to do so and we failed them by holding back and letting Stalin deploy atomic weapons and strategic paralysis set in.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Why should we not have tried to regain the territory? It was ours to begin with, the Russians had no right to it. The only questionable parts about the Continuation War are the Finnish ventures into Soviet Karelia, and the defeats there, especially in the Karhujärvi region are what allowed the Soviets to roll us back in their counteroffensive.

As I stated before, I don't give a damn about how many Russian civilian lives our involvement in the war cost, because Stalin started the war we didn't want in the first place (Winter War) and it's on his head! If he hadn't, we'd have our prewar borders, Stalin could have used the tied up divisions to attack Germans instead. We were never a threat until he chose to attack us first!

See also Stuart's post.

Edi

Edi, I probably would have done the same thing as your leadership in the same place, with the same data. Does that, however, excuse them - or me in a hypothetical situation - from punishment, when the full gravity of what they abetted was revealed later on? And if that punishment cannot be dealt unless the entire nation is occupied, is that not necessary? I don't think a lack of knowledge excuses them. It makes what they did understandable, but not excuseable.

[Edi]

Edi, I probably would have done the same thing as your leadership in the same place, with the same data. Does that, however, excuse them - or me in a hypothetical situation - from punishment, when the full gravity of what they abetted was revealed later on? And if that punishment cannot be dealt unless the entire nation is occupied, is that not necessary? I don't think a lack of knowledge excuses them. It makes what they did understandable, but not excuseable.

Are you willing to extend that logic to those who helped Stalin, as Stuart suggested? Because in that case the Allies would be in a real sticky situation. The US and Britain were allied with the Soviets, the US provided Stalin with much of the equipment he needed to go as far as he did in the war, and so helped him get into a position where he could kill tens of millions later. Especially since his brutality was already known before Hitler started, you have a lot more explaining to do than I have. You shouldn't throw stones from glass houses.

Besides, we did not aid in Hitler's atrocities. We were defending our own country, against Soviet aggression, so your claim about our participation and abetting of the atrocities is spurious.

Edi

[Admiral Piett]

and money from Baghdad is clearly funneled to HAMAS. Iraq is a state in support of terror and

And when was the last time that Hamas launched a strike against the USA?
The Czech President Vaclav Havel concluded,after an investigation by the intelligence service,that the report about the meeting could not be substantiated.That they have suddenly changed their minds looks like a bit suspect to me.Surely it cannot be out of the political necessity of pleasing George,can it (sarcasm)?
But even assuming that some contacts have been made,which is entirely possible,so what?
Contacts are not a proof of cooperation.Do you seriously believe that western intelligence officials have never had contact with Al Qaeda members?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2115371.stm

A senior al-Qaeda leader is reportedly being looked after by British intelligence at a safe house in northern England - but security sources are denying the claim.
Abu Qatada is accused by the United States, Spain, France and Algeria of being a key influence in the 11 September attacks on the US.

Mr Qatada faces a death sentence in Jordan after being convicted in his absence of funding a bombing campaign, and is said by US and Spanish investigators to be Osama Bin Laden's ambassador in Europe.

He disappeared in mid-December after British authorities confiscated his passport, froze his assets and ordered him confined to his home in Acton, west London.

In April the Sunday Times said Mr Qatada had turned "supergrass" for MI5 - a theory fuelled by the arrests of several Muslim extremists in Germany who had met him.



The last thing [the British] want is a hot potato they can't extradite for fear of al-Qaeda reprisals

Senior European intelligence official

Now senior European intelligence officials have reportedly told Time Magazine that Mr Qatada and his family are being lodged, fed and clothed by British intelligence services.

"The deal is that Abu Qatada is deprived of contact with extremists in London and Europe but can't be arrested or expelled because no one officially knows where he is," says the source, whose claims were corroborated by French authorities according to the magazine.

"The British win because the last thing they want is a hot potato they can't extradite for fear of al-Qaeda reprisals but whose presence contradicts London's support of the war on terror."

But UK security sources have told BBC News there is "absolutely no substance" in the claim as British intelligence does not know where Abu Qatada is, having lost track of him after he disappeared.

So there are good chances that the british intelligence is actually feeding an Al Qaeda top brass.This qualifies as contact to me.Does this mean that they are plotting with him terrorists strikes? Of course no.The have entirely good reasons to make contact with him.For all that we know the iraqui intelligence interest about Al Qaeda may have been along similar lines.
Saddam is an apostate for Bin Laden,and thus a potential target.
It is also funny to note that one of the main proofs presented to make a case for the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is that a Jordanian member of al-Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, sought and received medical treatment in Baghdad after being injured in the fighting in Afghanistan.There is nothing that suggests that assistance went beyond badly needed medical help.The analogy with the british case is striking.
This to show that the proofs are so inconsistent that in order to accept them we have to adopt standards that if applied to others cases would bring to absurd results.

So far the closest thing to a conncection that has been shown is an aerial photograph of an Al Quaeda sponsored camp in Iraq.
A pity that Powell forgot to mention that such a camp is located in the north,where the iraqui sovereignity is purely nominal and your allies , the kurds,are in charge.

Perhaps you feel yourself in a position to deny these reports or question their validity. In this circumstance, as an American citizen, I do not.

Sure, a government desperate to find a reason to sell a war to the public opinion will never tell lies(sarcasm).
It will never resort to a forged dossier to prove that Iraqui has an ongoing nuclear program like has made Tony Blair.It will not use a forged dossier about a supposed uranium deal between Iraq and Niger to prove the same.
Oh look, Colin Powel did just that at the UN.
An surely a defector whose life depends on saying what his new masters want to hear is a 100% reliable source.
Trust that,your government will tell you always the truth.Gulf of Tonkin, what is that?

[Edi]

Oh, Marina, I also forgot to add that our wartime government, led by President Risto Ryti and Prime Minister Väinö Tanner, was tried for war crimes and imprisoned. They were tried on the basis of a retroactively applied law at that too, which was a national disgrace, but the soviet fuckers required it. At least they got their names cleared later. So you can hardly claim that it would have been necessary to occupy the whole nation in order to administer punishment to the "guilty".

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, Marina, I also forgot to add that our wartime government, led by President Risto Ryti and Prime Minister Väinö Tanner, was tried for war crimes and imprisoned. They were tried on the basis of a retroactively applied law at that too, which was a national disgrace, but the soviet fuckers required it. At least they got their names cleared later. So you can hardly claim that it would have been necessary to occupy the whole nation in order to administer punishment to the "guilty".

Edi

From the example you cite, it would appear occupation would be necessary for serious punishments. Ryti was not executed, nor was Tanner, and even assuming a collaborative role would not demand the death penalty - a reasonable assumption I will grant - Ryti's ten year sentence was commuted after only four years served, and yet he lived for one year beyond the date at which he would have been released had he served the whole sentence. Such kind treatment for the guilty, to show clemency upon them because they are... Ill, and then watch them live their full terms out and a bit more.

[Edi]

From the example you cite, it would appear occupation would be necessary for serious punishments. Ryti was not executed, nor was Tanner, and even assuming a collaborative role would not demand the death penalty - a reasonable assumption I will grant - Ryti's ten year sentence was commuted after only four years served, and yet he lived for one year beyond the date at which he would have been released had he served the whole sentence. Such kind treatment for the guilty, to show clemency upon them because they are... Ill, and then watch them live their full terms out and a bit more.

It was harsh enough given how they were not guilty of anything criminal despite your claims to the contrary. These men happened to be innocent of any war crimes, but unfortunately they became victims of Soviet demands for vengeance. If we want to talk about light punishments for the guilty, how about you start explaining to me why the Japanese war criminals got off so lightly for what they did to China and American, British and other allied POWs?

You still don't have a case, no matter how desperately you try to make one, and you just dig yourself deeper into a hole with every post you make. The only good thing to come out of this is that it might get people interested enough to look up the facts for themselves.

For the record, your rhetoric regarding Finnish war crimes here sounds exactly like Soviet propaganda regarding the issue, propaganda they have admitted was all lies.

Edi

[MKSheppard]

Such kind treatment for the guilty, to show clemency upon them because they are... Ill, and then watch them live their full terms out and a bit more.

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/detai ... 011063.pdf

In June 1952 Konrad Adenauer met with
Basil Liddell Hart in Bonn, and told him of the Wehrmacht
veterans associations which refused to support German
rearmament in the form of ratification of the European
Defence Community Treaty as long as the nation’s military
honour was impugned by the continued imprisonment of
former soldiers.

The Soviet doubts were not unjustified. Protests were heard from
many of the politically initiated about the wisdom of trying some
of the most respected members of the Wehrmacht, in anticipation
of the young German officer who said in 1950: ‘I cannot serve as
a soldier in order to guard the door of Field Marshal von Manstein’s
cell.’

We made a deal, germany would take up arms again in NATO,
and in exchange, we'd free every German soldier imprisioned
for warcrimes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It was harsh enough given how they were not guilty of anything criminal despite your claims to the contrary. These men happened to be innocent of any war crimes, but unfortunately they became victims of Soviet demands for vengeance. If we want to talk about light punishments for the guilty, how about you start explaining to me why the Japanese war criminals got off so lightly for what they did to China and American, British and other allied POWs?

You still don't have a case, no matter how desperately you try to make one, and you just dig yourself deeper into a hole with every post you make. The only good thing to come out of this is that it might get people interested enough to look up the facts for themselves.

For the record, your rhetoric regarding Finnish war crimes here sounds exactly like Soviet propaganda regarding the issue, propaganda they have admitted was all lies.

Edi

I'm not necessarily inclined to trust even a Soviet admission that they were lying.

As for Japan - MacArthur's war crimes trials there were a travesty. The Emperor should have been forced to resign his post and confined to a monastery for the rest of his natural life, and the Crown Prince placed on the throne under the regency of one of the few pacifistic members of the Imperial family; a couple did exist.

[Posbi]

Mike, considering I'm friends with highly intelligent, rational people who think we should have tested the atomic bomb on Germany after they surrendered, I think we're coming at this from such an extremely different angle it's totally pointless to try and debate it.

Some things that the Germans did - their whole populace willing - were just so horrific and beyond comprehension that those who aided them don't deserve human sympathy. They willfully removed themselves from the human race as a nation - And so did their allies, the guilt of conspirators.

You actually believe that Goldhagen bullshit, do you? I know that this doesn't mean much to you, but my opinion of you has just dropped a great bit...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You actually believe that Goldhagen bullshit, do you? I know that this doesn't mean much to you, but my opinion of you has just dropped a great bit...

On the contrary, it is displeasing me that this has to affect us. The Germany of today is not the Germany of 1945, for all concerns to the contrary. That much I can affirm.

[MKSheppard]

As for Japan - MacArthur's war crimes trials there were a travesty. The Emperor should have been forced to resign his post and confined to a monastery for the rest of his natural life.

MacArthur was smarter than you. Political expediencey ruled the day, and
we managed to get the Emperor behind us in a happy facade.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

MacArthur was smarter than you. Political expediencey ruled the day, and
we managed to get the Emperor behind us in a happy facade.

I wasn't talking about abolishing the Empire, Mark. Just forcing the Emperor to commit himself to a Shinto monastery and then place his son on the throne as Emperor under a suitable regent.

[MKSheppard]

I wasn't talking about abolishing the Empire, Mark. Just forcing the Emperor to commit himself to a Shinto monastery and then place his son on the throne as Emperor under a suitable regent.

What better way to convince the Japanese that you're O.K. by not even
deposing their emperor but working hand in hand with him to rebuild
Nippon?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What better way to convince the Japanese that you're O.K. by not even
deposing their emperor but working hand in hand with him to rebuild
Nippon?

My concern is that we left the Japanese with a bit too much leeway with Mac's method, nevermind the moral considerations of letting the Emperor get away unpunished.