blah the Prussian

Actually, no, that's not the case. What you just did there, write this down, is called an appeal to emotion, namely trying to connect the debate to personal experience. The reason why this is flawed is that if you connect the debate to personal experience you go in with a bias. To use a more simple example, you hopefully find nothing wrong with killing soldiers who are not surrendering. You might think differently if your father was killed in this manner, but it wouldn't change the fact that killing enemy soldiers is okay. Thus, people who have no personal experience in issues are actually better suited to appraise them than people who do, because they can weigh the sides evenly without personal bias. Make sense? To reduce the number of people who fight back is also commonly referred to as a battle.

I would even question the use of the term innocent in a total war. In WWII, for example, civilians worked in the factories. It only makes sense to defeat the enemy by cutting off their method of production. Simple.

Whatever happens, I'm casting my vote for the Monarchist Party.XD In all seriousness, I hope Trump wins the Republican nomination. He's completely unelectable.

/in if not already

First of all, Crimes against humanity are clearly distinct from war crimes, as they deal with crimes not committed in war, like the concentration camps. I believe that crimes against humanity should still be prosecuted, as they are so large in scale that it's pretty obvious who did them. Your bringing up of Dresden actually helps my case; in many cases the Allies, particularly the Red Army, were just as guilty of war crimes as the generals they were charging. I honestly can't come up with a way to prevent war crimes from being cases where people get shot for being on the wrong side; The Hague is a start, but only the victor is in a position to turn people in to them. Just look at the Yugoslav Wars: there are a bunch of Croatian generals who are accused of what got their Serb counterparts a cell block, but they have never been tried since Croatia won that war. So yeah, that's my problem with the institution of war crimes.

True enough. I support Socialism as an economic system, though.

Rusty. Also, I had a hunch that this hack let you fight Giovanni! Was always mad the remakes never let you do that.

The Nazi leaders were tried for,crimes against humanity, not war crimes. The Wehrmacht generals who were tried by the Red Army were guilty of the same things their prosecutors were. There was even an incident where the USSR framed the Nazis for the murder of Polish rebels. I'm not saying the Wehrmacht was clean of atrocities, but it's clear that war crimes are nothing more than a way for the victor to punish those who pissed them off. Don't even get me started on the Yamashita case. Nothing wrong with socialism, just Communism. But lets save that for the elections topic.

Quoted for truth.

Incidentally, the whole concept of war crimes is stupid. The only thing they have ever done is to serve as a way for the victors to get back at enemy commanders that gave them trouble. In war, anything should go.

My favorite series in gaming period are the Paradox games, divided into the sub series of Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron. They allow you to play through all of human history from the fall of Rome to the nuclear age, and you can start in Crusader Kings and finish in Hearts of Iron with a vastly different world. It also reveals interesting things about our history, for example the Byzantine Empire rarely falls and Iberia usually remains Muslim, showing that these outcomes historically were rather unlikely.

/in. At least I killed someone!

Seriously? Trump sounds like a guy who alternate histories will be written about in 2050.

Goddammit Koneko.

Actually, the Mongol conquests were some of the more justified wars of the time, certainly more so than Vietnam. Genghis invaded China because it was demanding a tribute in exchange for not killing Mongolia, and he attacked Persia for killing his ambassadors. Not saying that Mongol atrocities before those invasions were justified, but the invasions themselves were. @Dwalin: I don't need personal experience. I'm actually of the opinion that war in General is bad, but it isn't anyone's problem if civilians are in the way, except in the case of Hamas in Gaza for example. I'm sorry if you think that's cruel, but war itself is cruel.

The idea that it is always wrong to kill innocents is an idea that needs to die in a fire. Admittedly, it was wrong in the case of Vietnam, but it was not wrong in cases such as Hiroshima or the Lusitania. In war, people die, and, get this, it's no ones fault. The soldiers who killed innocents would be evil if and only if they enjoyed it, rather than seeing it as a dirty job that someone has to do. The vast majority of soldiers had PTSD about their actions, proving that wasn't the case. That is my opinion on the matter, as a student of military history.

Even if it means you won't have a counter to Sliver's Kingdra, Panzer was the right call!

YOU CANNOT DEFEAT THE POWER OF THE PICKELHAUBE!

It speaks volumes about the Johtan military that a criminal organization has taken over an entire city. I also wish you had shown people scared shitless of you in TR. I fooled around with that so much as a kid.

It shall be a very pan German return for the writing skills of blah2127. Gib win plox.

What Pokemon is also the Capitol of India? Delhibird!

Ulysses lived up to his namesake, I see. Even if I do consider Grant one of the more overrated ACW generals, Lucario handled a Magnezone better than he ever could.

Thanks.

Plus I think he'd be much more morally gray than the villains we got.

/in. Lets hope my guy has some balls this time.