Reputation
2,039
Top tag
Next privilege 3,500 Rep.
Protect questions
Badges
6 15
Newest
 Necromancer
Impact
~47k people reached

Apr
13
comment Has a foreign power ever sought to compel another country to abide by international law by means of that country's internal judiciary?
@ihtkwot I have read your arguments. They are very weak. Too many errors. I'll mention two of them. You have forgotten that states could make an agreement that the discussions connected to some questions could be solved in some foretold court of one of these states or of some third state. And it is used. Your second great fallacy is that you don't understand that the law system of USA is not the sole one in the world.
Apr
10
comment Has a foreign power ever sought to compel another country to abide by international law by means of that country's internal judiciary?
@ihtkwot Sorry, I do not agree. Never a country really participates in the process. It could be SAID that it is a country, but always it is a government or much more often it is some much smaller official structure. In USA they call it STATE, but in other countries different language could be used. But the sense remains the same. So, a process of some official structure of one country against another official structure of another country should be enough as an example. And if you do not agree that my example will be just the case, can you provide at least SOME arguments against it?
Apr
9
comment Has a foreign power ever sought to compel another country to abide by international law by means of that country's internal judiciary?
@ihtkwot It could be. And in 1/3 of cases it will be. But in another 1/3 cases it will be the dispute between American and French state structures. The last 1/3 covers three-side disputes.
Feb
23
comment Has a foreign power ever sought to compel another country to abide by international law by means of that country's internal judiciary?
@ihtkwot I thought I have this explained... Maybe that is the problem of my English... 1. Any state has a Customs law or a set of such. And all of them have some mutual Customs Treaties. 2. Let it be USA, if you wish. If the France Ministry of Defense is buying something from Lockheed, the goods are passing the USA customs. If there is some serious misunderstanding, it is solved according to the law by the court. Where is the problem?
Feb
20
comment Has a foreign power ever sought to compel another country to abide by international law by means of that country's internal judiciary?
1. The first meaning of the world state is "country". So, of course, I meant independent states. 2. Your comment does not contain any arguments against mine, so, it is irrelevant, let alone its being a fact.
Oct
22
comment When did the parole of prisoners of war become unacceptable?
@Lohoris Yes. These "barbaric" states took a honest world very seriously. I have read about cases when they went into beforehand lost battles in order not to give such word.
Jun
30
comment Are there cases of U.S. Founding Fathers burning flags of other nations?
Sorry, but a flag of a regiment or other military unit was very important thing for the regiment far before nationalism. So, a flag could be destroyed because of some deeds of a unit. It WOULD be taken as a punishment. And that flag was a state flag of the appropriate state. But of course, it was not a NATION flag, for there were no nations.
Jun
4
comment Could an enlisted soldier in German Imperial Army get rank above Gefreiter?
It should be so, because I remember from Hindenburg biography that he despised Hitler for reaching only Gefreiter rank in such a great war. I think, German marshal should know the rules...
Jun
3
comment Could an enlisted soldier in German Imperial Army get rank above Gefreiter?
So, it seems, the wiki errs: that rule worked only in peace times. So, it could not work till 1918, but only till 1914.
May
29
comment Could an enlisted soldier in German Imperial Army get rank above Gefreiter?
@Kobunite Thank you. I have read the article, too. The problem is, how erroneous is it. As for your message, I know that volunteers had special rights to become an officer later. But never had I read that you had to be a volunteer to become a corporal.
Feb
28
comment Most fought over piece of land?
The question asks the most years with war. It doesn't say anything on how many battles there were in one year.
Feb
28
comment Most fought over piece of land?
All destroys, sieges and capturing started from attack. And 55 attacks? Not much really. In Stalingrad there were several attacks a day in many places and the uninterrupted battle lasted 23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943. All victim of Jerusalem's battles would fit into one Stalingrad's day. All battles of the far past were merely a handful of combats in comparison with WWI and II.
Feb
21
comment Are there any communist leaders without a record of acts we consider as a crime (against humanity)?
In post-communism lands there happen leaders who speaks for "free market" and Adam Smith, but without morals. And the whole system doesn't work, of course.
Jan
26
comment How do Tamahagane, Damascus, and Toledo Steel compare?
@LennartRegebro According to Wiki article, it WAS a common knowledge not far ago, and it remains such for American Bladesmith Society even now. So, your point of view is not obviously better and absolutely accepted
Jan
26
comment How do Tamahagane, Damascus, and Toledo Steel compare?
@LennartRegebro It do not claim this. I am merely presenting the common knowledge. Citing the sources, BTW, even if it is not necessary in this case. It is very probable, that the common knowledge is not correct, and my references and me merely stupidly repeat the lie. It often happens with the common knowledge. But I would like to see some arguments for your point of view, references at least.
Jan
26
comment How do Tamahagane, Damascus, and Toledo Steel compare?
@LennartRegebro you could tell legends from facts in history? You, personally? Or some article you read. And if somebody read other articles? This is a theme on TERMS. It is impossible to discuss correctly, for the terms are not stable.
Dec
4
comment Did anyone ever win a kingdom through single combat without a backing army or blood tie to the throne?
If he means the personal fight, then it happened in old times, when the challenger had obviously more rights for the throne, than the king. Any case, when a pretender killed a ruler personally and openly, fits for the question. And there were HEAPS of such cases in history.
Dec
4
comment Did anyone ever win a kingdom through single combat without a backing army or blood tie to the throne?
wiki: "The term combat ...typically refers to armed conflict between military forces in warfare" So, single combat=single battle. And NOT a battle of singles.
Dec
4
comment Did anyone ever win a kingdom through single combat without a backing army or blood tie to the throne?
I am only demonstrating, that the paragraph "Why would the sovereign accept single combat as an option unless the claimant had an army that was clearly outnumbering the sovereigns army?" is irrelevant, for there are other cases - viz. my answer. The same with the other two.
Dec
4
comment Did anyone ever win a kingdom through single combat without a backing army or blood tie to the throne?
@Lohoris. You have taken into account your own conditions. Why exactly these? Where is the logic?