Iran enters the Mediterranean

[Dachs]

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp

"The Contracting Powers agree to abstain from the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases."

I remember reading a history that stated that during WW1 the Germans first released chlorine gas from cylinders when the wind was blowing to the West arguing that as the cylinders were not projectiles they were not breaching the convention.

And when the British retaliated with chemical shells the Germans claimed that it was the British who were first breaching the convention and the Germans deployed chemical shells themselves.

Okayyyyy. This discussion isn't about Germany, though, it's about Britain. A "who was first to do bad stuff" dick-measuring contest would be even further from the thread topic than we already are.

 

[EnglishEdward]

In addition to what Takh said, the London Declaration of 1909 has even more relevance in international law. Hell, you can just scan Chapter 1, Article 1 with a cursory knowledge of Britain's distant blockade and see how they tore it to pieces in 1914.

Thank you for pointing me to the correct document.

I remember now

"(2) the geographical limits of the coastline under blockade;"

was interpreted with great elasticity by Britain.

 

[Dachs]

That, and the definition of what actually constituted contraband. Foodstuffs, for instance, were not, but the British stopped food shipments to Germany anyway.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I suppose the question is whether the Israelis will sink them?

 

[Tahuti]

Because it was a violation of the Hague Conventions - treaties governing the conduct of a war that Britain had signed less than a decade before. The Hague Conventions were the first treaties to define what a war crime was, and were basically the predecessor agreements to the Geneva Conventions. Britain therefore had the dubious distinction of producing one of the first war criminals in world history - or would have, if he'd ever been brought to trial.

With all due respect, don't you think war crimes are as old as warfare itself?

 

[Takhisis]

That, and the definition of what actually constituted contraband. Foodstuffs, for instance, were not, but the British stopped food shipments to Germany anyway.

They even sank neutral merchantment plying their trade to and from Axis controlled ports.

I suppose the question is whether the Israelis will sink them?

I don't think they'll dare. They're keeping an unstable equilibrium especially after several of the dictators that had lifelong peace treaties with them are now out of office. They made treaties with the rulers of some countries but not with the countries themselves, they've never bothered to befriend the populaces as they planned on those countries being controlled forever by their respective regimes and if it ceased to be the case it'd be someone else's problem. Well, now they might have to toe the line, the flotilla incidents were before the Arab Spring.

 

[ParkCungHee]

With all due respect, don't you think war crimes are as old as warfare itself?

As in actions we would now describe as war crimes? Yes, obviously.
However, these are crimes that are defined as criminal by the laws passed by the state.

 

[Takhisis]

And/or by international treaties and conventions said state adheres to.

 

[Dachs]

With all due respect, don't you think war crimes are as old as warfare itself?

What PCH and Takh said. Atrocities are as old as the history of human interaction. War crimes only date back as far as the effort to place explicit binding international restrictions on the conduct of warfare.

 

[kochman]

So, your argument has slowly gone from "they were one of the best observers of human rights [etc.] in history" to "at least they were only some of the worst of Europe, and weren't as bad as those savages in Africa or Asia", if I'm understanding you correctly - diluting your original point to near-meaninglessness. I'm not here to argue Eurocentrism, so I'll ignore that.

No, same argument the whole time.
Europe/The West has been on the forefront, compared to the rest of the world. Call it Eurocentrism, but it's fact.
Britain, amongst the Euros, has been on the forefront as well.

Pointing out things here and there, instead of looking at the overall picture, is really nitpicking. France is another country that has been in the forefront... doesn't mean they are perfect.

The Brits are not some of the worst in Europe... therefore, but amongst the best.

You also hear about their bad moves more because they are more relevant...

Kind of like how you hear about every single misstep by US military today, because people love to hate...

 

[Dachs]

Ignoring everything the other person says is certainly a way to conduct an argument.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Pointing out things here and there, instead of looking at the overall picture, is really nitpicking.

You haven't made a case for the overall picture, nor have you established you have any idea what the overall picture looks like.

So how about this, since you have such a clear picture of the conduct of Britain's military conduct throughout history, why don't you make the case that say, British conduct was better then their peers in say...the Nine Years War?
Either Nine Years War will do.
I'm sure a man with a grasp of the big picture can handle that.

 

[aronnax]

Pointing out things here and there, instead of looking at the overall picture, is really nitpicking. France is another country that has been in the forefront... doesn't mean they are perfect.

France! A forefront of human rights! That's hilarious.

Kochman, your moral system of what is a moral country and what isn't is 'Pro-Capitalism' and 'Pro-USSR/Anti-USA'. There is no slider to you. You've proven that in already in the Cold War/Ronald Reagan thread.

I think this thread has outlived it's usefulness.

Does anyone know where the Iranian ships are going?

 

[Dachs]

Does anyone know where the Iranian ships are going?

Artemision?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Does anyone know where the Iranian ships are going?

Syria.

 

[aronnax]

If you were trying to make a clever reference, it is lost on me.

 

[Dachs]

If you were trying to make a clever reference, it is lost on me.

Try this.

 

[kochman]

You haven't made a case for the overall picture, nor have you established you have any idea what the overall picture looks like.

So how about this, since you have such a clear picture of the conduct of Britain's military conduct throughout history, why don't you make the case that say, British conduct was better then their peers in say...the Nine Years War?
Either Nine Years War will do.
I'm sure a man with a grasp of the big picture can handle that.

I didn't limit it to only warfare.

Starting with the Magna Carta things started unfolding in English...
Later we get them banning slave ownership in the UK (but not the colonies, which insisted that they remain lazy at the expense of africans... nor the slave traders), but they started moving in that direction pretty early (earlier than the USA).
Etc, etc.
I really don't feel the need, nor have the time, to fully go through the history books and point out every single example, especially since all that will result in is me nitpicking such as Dachs as doing, learning trivial data points such as the treatment comparitively speaking between the rivals in the 9 years war, etc...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Starting with the Magna Carta things started unfolding in English...

A document which was immediately ignored, and entirely comparable to hundred upon hundreds of treaties nobles enforced on monarchs throughout the world.

Later we get them banning slave ownership in the UK (but not the colonies)

Ah, so there we have it! The British are virtuous and just because they stopped commiting a human rights abuse that they had re-introduced after it being unheard of in Europe for centuries, in a small portion of their territory.

But since you know, we're throwing out actual facts as a basis by which they're judged (since those are trivial data points) how can you even make a comparison between them and say, China, or Korea, or Sweden?

 

[kochman]

No thanks, don't feel like devoting the time.
I've presented evidence, feel free to disagree and lambast those lousy Brits all you want... They truly were terrible throughout the ages, and deserve it.