Criminal Prosecution for TFR Bust?

"Tom Hyslip" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote

Hey, Germany formally declared war on us! By the standards of the
time in international law, that's entirely adequate grounds.

And Japan committed a hostile act, to which we responded to with a
formal declaration of war, all right and proper, and fully within the
international law of the time on the topic.

Neither of which are in any way similar to what we're now doing (to
our shame) to Iraq.

You may have forogotten the gulf war of 1991, that was authorized by the UN.
At the end of the fighting, Iraq agreed to follow certain guidelines.
However, the war never ended, it was still on going till this day, if you
read the agreement between Iraq and the Coalition. When they failed to
comply, the war is back on. That is why we are there. So, eventhough it
was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.

The experts in international law don't seem to agree with you on that
interpretation.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Tom Hyslip wrote:

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.

Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
war on the U.S.

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
viewed it as unavoidable.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

On 19 Nov 2003 09:19:26 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

So, eventhough it
was not needed, your UN did authorized this war.

The experts in international law don't seem to agree with you on that
interpretation.

The only experts in international law getting attention in the news
outlets of record in Europe and the U.S. loyal-opposition press [1]
are the ones who disagree with the Administration.

Rob
[1] To borrow a term from merrye olde Englande

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...

His treaty with Japan required him to.


Only if Japan was attacked.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Well, that's the first time I heard that one. Most of the books I read postulate
that Hitler hoped Japan would reciprocate by attacking Russia.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

I love how these conversations jump from topic to topic. It started with
the USSS and the TFRs, then went to Iraq & AlQueda, and now we have
progressed to WWII.

Nothing stimulates the mind like a good debate on differring view points.
Accepted maybe flying.

Atleast we all agree that we love to fly, and would stand together to
further the interests of G.A.


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Well, that's the first time I heard that one. Most of the books I read
postulate
that Hitler hoped Japan would reciprocate by attacking Russia.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in message ...
"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Tom Hyslip wrote:

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.

Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the U.S.
would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to declare
war on the U.S.

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
viewed it as unavoidable.

I vote for stupid. Given his past performance (i.e. non-aggression
pact with Stalin), I don't think he took treaties all that seriously.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

I also vote stupid. Look at how many times he wouldn't listen to his
generals, and force them to do bad tactics. If he listened to his generals
who knows how much longer the war could have lasted.


"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in message
...
"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Tom Hyslip wrote:

Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight
against
Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.

Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that
the U.S.
would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to
declare
war on the U.S.

His treaty with Japan required him to.

Given how far away Japan was, and how little difference their enmity
would have made to him, perhaps it was still stupid; but I think he
viewed it as unavoidable.

I vote for stupid. Given his past performance (i.e. non-aggression
pact with Stalin), I don't think he took treaties all that seriously.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Tom Hyslip wrote:
|
| Seems odd, but I beat you would not have wanted the USA to fight against
| Germany in WWII because they didn't attack us, only Japan did.
|
| Many people felt that way at the time, and there's a good chance that the
U.S.
| would not have fought Germany if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to
declare
| war on the U.S.

Such an assertion completely ignores the fact that the US and Germany had
been inflicting casualties on one another for months, if not years, before
Pearl Harbor. Though war had not been 'declared' (whatever that means), it
certainly was waged.

Most Americans who opposed war with Germany changed their tune when Germany
invaded the Soviet Union. As long as Hitler and Stalin were allied, the
anti-war left in the US was content to stay out of the war.

"Tom Hyslip" wrote in message
.. .
| I also vote stupid. Look at how many times he wouldn't listen to his
| generals, and force them to do bad tactics. If he listened to his
generals
| who knows how much longer the war could have lasted.
|

If Hitler had listened to his generals the war would not have started in the
first place. Most of them violently argued against the invasions of Austria,
then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then France and the low countries, then
Greece and Serbia, then the Soviet Union, saying each time that the
operation had absolutely no chance of success. OTOH he could have ended the
war much sooner by listening to his Air Marshal and invading Great Britain,
ensuring the complete destruction of the German war machine and a German
surrender, probably preceded by a coup.

Sir B. H. Liddell Hart pointed out in "The Other Side of the Hill" that
every captured Nazi general claimed that he had a plan that would have won
the war for Germany. What Hitler actually had was a bunch of prima donnas
that could not get along with each other; in fact, on the eve of the battle
of Kursk Hitler's two top generals in the theatre held such animosity that
Guderian actually challenged another general to a duel. Such an atmosphere
is not conducive to coordinating large military formations -- and the
performance of the German army reflected that.