Eh... The Western front was very tame compared to the East but summary executions and collective punishment were still used (effectively) throughout the occupied territories to minimize partisan activity. There are plenty of books listing the numerous alleged war crimes of the Wehrmacht and Red Army against one another in the East.
In fact, the conventions are written in such a way as to specifically exclude from (most of) their protections those who are unlawful combatants [...] For example, a force that does not wear uniforms and hides among civilians is both not entitled to the protections of the conventions, but also is the responsible party in any attack that kills those civilians.
Absolutely true, however the key protection that all persons including unlawful combatants are entitled to is "humane treatment." It really isn't in the spirit of the conventions to justify massacring civilians by saying "but look our enemy wasn't following the rules!" Of course the conventions are not always going to be observed due to emotional stresses etc. but the goal should be to minimize violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Combatants_who_do_not_qualify_for_POW_status
The exception was the SS, who massacred American soldiers at Malmedy and as a result were generally not captured after that, nor allowed to surrender.
Yep, and the originally all volunteer Waffen SS began reinforcing its ranks with conscripts in 1944 so awful luck to be a 17 year old with those runes on your collar, but such is life.
It seems unlikely that the man who dominates the entire country and can take what he likes from its tax revenues is going to do whatever you ask for a check.
And historically at least, the system of government best suited to corporate profits is not democracy, but fascist-leaning dictatorships. That's true whether we're talking about Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, or Batista.
Uh, what? If you mean that having a rather militarist government is good if you're a corporation in the arms industry, then yes. But why the hell would an arbitrary corporation prefer having the laws change at the pleasure of a demagogue who may or may not like them instead of having an easily "lobbied"/bribed legislature?
Ok I'll play. Since piracy rates for console games are vastly lower than PC ones, how does your theory account for the fact that most console games are released at an even higher price point than PC games?
Yeah that's the ticket to corporate success: "Let's be fair to our customers instead of trying to maximize short term profits."
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's mahogany.
Sorry to rain on the populist parade but I don't think petty internet censorship alone is sufficient provocation for most people to feel inclined to risk their own lives and moreover the lives of all their friends and family by participating in any schemes of violent rebellion. The corollary to that quote should be that any government power can be abused forever as long as the abuses aren't flagrant enough to drive people to risk everything in revolt. See US Congress.
I doubt they're going to murder him for leaking information about their non-secret software if that's what you mean. Apparently North Korea still gets a fair number of Russian tourists and would probably like to not piss off the Russian government.
I ran across a bunch of pictures from a Russian tourist a while back with translated captions. I found them pretty interesting.
http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/index_e.html
The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus. This meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, but rather a general reference to anything collected as a body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
And on top of that, your quote is a total fabrication anyway.
Some critics equate too much corporate power and influence with fascism. Often they cite a quotation that has been attributed to Mussolini, although it doesn't appear in any of his texts: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." Several variations of the alleged quotation exist. However, no text written by Mussolini has yet been found with any variation of the alleged quotation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascism_and_corporatism
I hate the excessive influence of megacorporations (in the modern sense of corporations, catching on?) too but try to find a real precedent next time instead of spouting nonsense that makes us all look like incompetent asses.
That is why the defense of "just following orders" does not work. They were the ones giving the orders.
I'm not sure what you mean by that but there were certainly people executed for carrying out orders they didn't originate themselves. Nuremberg is hardly the epitome of justice, hell the first man to die was convicted of relaying an execution order against a group of Allied commandos captured while conducting military operations in civilian clothing, which made them unlawful combatants still entitled to "humane" treatment under the Geneva conventions but not protected against execution like ordinary uniformed prisoners.
Obviously, should the first German officer tried in an allied war trial be exonerated and released, it would be an embarrassment for the Roosevelt administration. For that reason, the prosecutor and my father sent a wire to Washington, informing the administration of the situation. Shortly thereafter, the prosecuting officer received the reply: "Lacking standard evidence, hearsay will be accepted as evidence in the trial."
http://www.nd.edu/~com_sens/issues/old/v17/v17_n5.html#dostler
Many of the others were convicted of "waging wars of aggression."
After the United States gobbled up California and half of Mexico, and we were stripped down to nothing, territorial expansion suddenly becomes a crime. It's been going on for centuries, and it will still go on.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring#Nuremberg_Diary_.281947.29
Yeah so "justice" at Nuremberg makes a neat bedtime story but reality is important if you're going to cite it as precedent.
One madman with a nuke is worse than a peaceful leader with a thousand nukes.
So in other words it's ok for your leaders to have as many as they want, just not anyone else? I think that's what a lot of people in countries like Iran see in the US's strong opposition to any development of nukes: not a spirit of genuine concern against proliferation but a fear of any challenge to (Anglo-)American dominance. Bitterness is understandable, especially in consideration of the fact that the US effectively allows Israel free rein with regards to its nuclear production.
On a side note I find it embarrassing that the American media constantly implies Israel will be immediately obliterated if Iran is allowed to develop a primitive first nuke, while making no mention of the fact that Israel reportedly has hundreds of nukes with modern delivery vectors. Sigh, what ever happened to logic or reason?
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
