US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[JelloPuddingPop]

I'd happily shoot at any invaders.

Very Christian of you.

Meanest thing anyone has ever said to me on this GDHTMB.

AHA!!! So you were being mean when you said dat dere about Lord Trump yesterday!

Not sure where you get that. He claims to be Christian. I don't.

[Strangelove]

Not sure where you get that. He claims to be Christian. I don't.

He also claims he wants to make Canada the 51st state.

But yeahno, you're not off the hook, you called him a Christian and you hate Christians.

Very Christian of you.

Meanest thing anyone has ever said to me on this GDHTMB.

[BCExpat]

^ that's the most depressing thing I've read in a while.

They are just fed up with our federal government and an electoral system that essentially means their voices aren't heard unless Ontario and Quebec are feeling generous come election time.

They are fed up of an unfair equalization system.

They are fed up with increasing taxes to pay for foreign handouts.

They are fed up with a socialist healthcare system that cannot deliver.

They are fed up with good paying jobs leaving the country because of obtuse green ideas and catering to indigenous agendas.

They are fed up with immigration policies that keep the door wide open but don't require assimilation and, instead, trample on the rights of the homegrown citizen in order to cater to the minority.

I could probably go on.....

Right on!!

[JelloPuddingPop]

But yeahno, you're not off the hook, you called him a Christian and you hate Christians.

Not sure I need to be "off the hook" - I just said that was the meanest thing you've said to me. Simple. Wasn't saying I wasn't mean to the Orange Lunatic.

It would be like me saying your father smelt of elderberries. (I'm not saying this). Does it matter if I like elderberries or not, the spirit of it is mean.

Just saying, why so mean to Jello - do you feel the need to defend someone who has chosen to be in public office, by being mean to someone who thinks badly of said person? What if I was mean to Trudeau? Would you still be mean to me?

Meany!

[rikster]

^ that's the most depressing thing I've read in a while.

They are just fed up with our federal government and an electoral system that essentially means their voices aren't heard unless Ontario and Quebec are feeling generous come election time.

They are fed up of an unfair equalization system.

They are fed up with increasing taxes to pay for foreign handouts.

They are fed up with a socialist healthcare system that cannot deliver.

They are fed up with good paying jobs leaving the country because of obtuse green ideas and catering to indigenous agendas.

They are fed up with immigration policies that keep the door wide open but don't require assimilation and, instead, trample on the rights of the homegrown citizen in order to cater to the minority.

I could probably go on.....

So what would you suggest to better the system?

I'm bothered too that by the time we vote the election is already decided, but given where the majority of the population lives what are you suggesting to change to from the First Past the Post system?

Whose fault is it that our healthcare system is in crisis? Just the Governments or do we take blame as well? Are you saying you'd prefer to do away with healthcare for all and transition to a private system?

Had a neighbour whose husband was clinically obese and the paramedics were at the house on a regular basis, each time they'd take him away to the hospital where he'd spend a few days before being released...Would see the wife carrying cases of Coke into the house...After one incident she was p*ssed off at the paramedics for some reason and wrote a letter to the editor...of course she failed to mention that they are a habitual drainer of the healthcare system because of their poor choices....

How much of our taxes go to foreign handouts?

What good paying jobs are leaving because of obtuse green ideas and do you agree or disagree that future good paying jobs will be found in the transition to greener energy? Or maybe you are still p*ssed that we switched from the horse and buggy to the model T?

Agree, immigration needs an overhaul, I'm not bothered with how anyone lives their lives, heck I read how many posters here live their lives and think what a drain on our healthcare system they are or will soon become...

But when I hear a story about a doctor from India practising in Florida because her first choice to immigrate to, Canada, has a time consuming process so she chose to go to the US where it was much faster, that has to change...

Immigration is a balancing act that the Liberal Government let get away on them... transitioning away from immigration to a robotic workforce is something that many working Canadians should fear and for the Government robotics don't pay taxes and with an aging population who aren't in the same tax bracket and have reduced consumption, this is a topic that needs to move on from far right talking points...

My pet peeve...

When politicians rant about the affordability crisis I see two different camps...

The camp who have lived their lives in a fiscally responsible manner and just can't keep up with the cost of living increases...

The other camp who are in financial crisis because of poor choices they have made...

Have a niece who decided that they needed a new SUV and a new 1/2 ton...Between the loan payments and their insurance they were paying over $2,000 / month of their net income or about $2800 before taxes...Soon after her common law thought it made sense to quit his job to stay home and look after their 3 kids...

But they complain that they can't afford to buy a house and the cost of living is stressing them out...

Or when I drive by a food bank and see nearly new vehicles parked on the street while its owners are in the line for free food...

That camp has less of my compasion...

[UWSaint]

When politicians rant about the affordability crisis I see two different camps...

The camp who have lived their lives in a fiscally responsible manner and just can't keep up with the cost of living increases...

The other camp who are in financial crisis because of poor choices they have made...

These two kinds of people have always existed -- those who work hard and are frugal, and those who make poor spending decisions. There is a third group, not exclusive of the second group and often comprised of former first groupers -- those who have decided that working hard and living frugally doesn't make since given the safety net (which can take the shape of welfare and other government run programs, and also pro-debtor bankruptcy law).

The affordability crisis is that this first group is getting larger -- hard work and frugal living isn't enough for more and more people -- and the crisis metastasizes when these folks exit group 1 and enter group 3. Making it easier to be in group 3 only accelerates the movement (by changing the math), and if the country is funded by debt, will contribute to further non-affordability by the erosion of the currency. It is a positive feedback loop.

What contributes to the affordability crisis? Debt-financing, siphoning GDP to debt service. Inflation (more nominal dollars chasing the same number of goods). Taxation (money earned by and lost to the individual). Regulation (dragging productivity by increasing transaction costs or prohibiting activity). Supply shortages (not enough houses? prices increase). Subsidies or other market manipulations. Demand increases for essential goods (more people same number of houses, priced increase).

Many of these things interact with one another, so that a poor decision contributes in multiple ways to the affordability crisis. And of course, these things are NOT all bad; there are trade offs involved in each, but the question is one of identifying core values and prioritizing them.

No matter what government policy is, those who spend beyond their means on add ons or luxuries will always feel an affordability pinch in their personal lives. And yet, with a good income, these are the individuals who have been in the best position to weather the current economic situation because they have a personal finance cutting option. The problem is that the current economic situation has seen significantly increasing costs at truly core goods and services -- food, shelter, energy. Luxury energy policy and inflation have the biggest impact on the poor.

[rikster]

When politicians rant about the affordability crisis I see two different camps...

The camp who have lived their lives in a fiscally responsible manner and just can't keep up with the cost of living increases...

The other camp who are in financial crisis because of poor choices they have made...

These two kinds of people have always existed -- those who work hard and are frugal, and those who make poor spending decisions. There is a third group, not exclusive of the second group and often comprised of former first groupers -- those who have decided that working hard and living frugally doesn't make since given the safety net (which can take the shape of welfare and other government run programs, and also pro-debtor bankruptcy law).

The affordability crisis is that this first group is getting larger -- hard work and frugal living isn't enough for more and more people -- and the crisis metastasizes when these folks exit group 1 and enter group 3. Making it easier to be in group 3 only accelerates the movement (by changing the math), and if the country is funded by debt, will contribute to further non-affordability by the erosion of the currency. It is a positive feedback loop.

What contributes to the affordability crisis? Debt-financing, siphoning GDP to debt service. Inflation (more nominal dollars chasing the same number of goods). Taxation (money earned by and lost to the individual). Regulation (dragging productivity by increasing transaction costs or prohibiting activity). Supply shortages (not enough houses? prices increase). Subsidies or other market manipulations. Demand increases for essential goods (more people same number of houses, priced increase).

Many of these things interact with one another, so that a poor decision contributes in multiple ways to the affordability crisis. And of course, these things are NOT all bad; there are trade offs involved in each, but the question is one of identifying core values and prioritizing them.

No matter what government policy is, those who spend beyond their means on add ons or luxuries will always feel an affordability pinch in their personal lives. And yet, with a good income, these are the individuals who have been in the best position to weather the current economic situation because they have a personal finance cutting option. The problem is that the current economic situation has seen significantly increasing costs at truly core goods and services -- food, shelter, energy. Luxury energy policy and inflation have the biggest impact on the poor.

Agree with the gist of this...

It's a complicated problem which politicians tend to weaponize on the campaign trail without a clue on how to fix it...

And how do you fix bad personal choices?

You saw it first hand in the real estate crash in 2008 and us to a much smaller degree up here ... People were spending wrecklessly and using the equity in their houses to fund their spending...When the market peaked and turned south they lost their financial get out of jail card and started walking away or losing their homes...

Sure Wall Street should have experienced jail sentences and Government was asleep at the wheel but blame should also have been on those who made bad personal decisions...

Interesting that the Republicans are now removing many of the guard rails that were put up after that crisis....

A big challenge for the US and to a lessor extent in Canada is that your economy is a consumption based economy as compared to a country like China which has a manufacturing and growing consumption economy...

Covid19 was wakeup call that in Canada we need to expand manufacturing which is something the Liberal Party seemed to forget after the pandemic was declared over....

Its one of the policies I was glad to see both Carney and Bayliss talked about during the debate...

[Meds]

So what would you suggest to better the system?

I'm bothered too that by the time we vote the election is already decided, but given where the majority of the population lives what are you suggesting to change to from the First Past the Post system?

One thought.....

Scrapping the current riding system and switching to representation by popular vote. If the Conservatives get 35% of the popular vote, they get 35% of the seats in the house. Who sits in those seats is then decided by inter party membership voting. This would force the electorate to actually become engaged if they wanted a say in who sits for them beyond just the party brand.

Change whatever laws and processes need changing in order to force MP's to work together. Rather than stall and delay the passing of bills, rather than obfuscate to hide changes to laws in thousand page legal bills, do everything possible to force cooperation and compromise.

Engage the electorate. The technology exists now to actually hold referendums in a very short time, at least do this on major issues. Do we want to give $250 million to a foreign cause? Ask the people, Don't leave it up to the MP's who squabble like primary school children. If the people don't engage, well then that's on them.

While you and I disagree on which current candidate would make a better PM, we are on the same page when it comes to experience and education being important (I just put character above that). Anyone who wants to be a career politician should be able to make a comfortable living, however, the financial reward that comes from hard work and investment in one's own career in the private sector should always outstrip public office's financial prospects. You want to serve? Then you do so with "purer" motivations. MP's who enter office with a net worth of $X must exit office with a net worth where any increases can be justified. You want to serve your country? Ok, we will pay you well to do that, but your financial life will also be heavily scrutinized while in office. If a MP leaves his position and his financial position has changed, if it cannot be shown that the increases were commensurate with increases that could be gleaned by any private citizen who invested wisely, then that MP loses those benefits and rather than outright criminal charges, perhaps said increases go into a slush fund that is used for healthcare overages or military needs, or disaster relief.....

There are many many better options than what we currently have. But they all require more engagement on our end of things. I hate the fact that human history is a revolving door of ever increasing oppression from elites and governments until the populace finally has enough and rises up against them. It's violent, there are casualties on all sides, it is needless and senseless.....but corruption is human nature, and it begets, well it begets what we have.

Whose fault is it that our healthcare system is in crisis? Just the Governments or do we take blame as well? Are you saying you'd prefer to do away with healthcare for all and transition to a private system?

Had a neighbour whose husband was clinically obese and the paramedics were at the house on a regular basis, each time they'd take him away to the hospital where he'd spend a few days before being released...Would see the wife carrying cases of Coke into the house...After one incident she was p*ssed off at the paramedics for some reason and wrote a letter to the editor...of course she failed to mention that they are a habitual drainer of the healthcare system because of their poor choices....

This is where we need to kick the degree holders out of their big chairs and replace 50% of them with people who have been doing the boots on the ground work on the front lines. Decision making based upon theory and statistics, where interpretation of those that has been skewed by the idealism that our Universities are fraught with, fails to actually address real issues and always seeks to excuse individuals from personal responsibility by pandering to the sympathy and pity of the masses.

Healthcare workers need the right to refuse service to people who CLEARLY do not need it.

Healthcare workers need the right to exercise a "cry wolf" policy with patients who repeatedly use the system as an escape clause.

There needs to be a financial penalty for those who use ambulances for a taxi or emerg beds for a place to sleep (etc.), and criminal prosecution for people who repeatedly abuse the system this way.

There needs to be

How much of our taxes go to foreign handouts?

Well I don't know the exact figure, but $20B has been sent to Ukraine since 2022. That didn't come out of the Liberal party's pocket. We just promised $250M to fill the gap USAID left in Bangladesh.....is that coming from Trudeau's private account?

What good paying jobs are leaving because of obtuse green ideas and do you agree or disagree that future good paying jobs will be found in the transition to greener energy? Or maybe you are still p*ssed that we switched from the horse and buggy to the model T?

Sorry, I wasn't fully clear. Energy sector jobs, mining jobs, logging jobs, basically the entire resource sector, the types of job that build a strong middle class by employing trades people, labourers, equipment operators, as well as your jobs for those with "higher" education.....how many of those either ceased or didn't happen at all because of government regulation and carbon mandates?

Agree, immigration needs an overhaul, I'm not bothered with how anyone lives their lives, heck I read how many posters here live their lives and think what a drain on our healthcare system they are or will soon become...

But when I hear a story about a doctor from India practising in Florida because her first choice to immigrate to, Canada, has a time consuming process so she chose to go to the US where it was much faster, that has to change...

Immigration is a balancing act that the Liberal Government let get away on them... transitioning away from immigration to a robotic workforce is something that many working Canadians should fear and for the Government robotics don't pay taxes and with an aging population who aren't in the same tax bracket and have reduced consumption, this is a topic that needs to move on from far right talking points...

Please explain your meaning for the bolded comment.

My take on immigration is that if you want to come here, whether it be seeking citizenship or as a refugee, you need to become a productive member of our society and you need to become Canadian. That means recognizing and supporting Canadian values.....this is especially true for refugee status. You are fleeing somewhere, don't come here and try to make here into what you just ran away from.

My biggest problem with our system here is that when we allow these people in and promise them freedom of religion, we don't draw the line hard enough at how that religion is permitted to interact under our laws. There should be no grey area when it comes to this. Shariah law? Jihad? (just two examples) You practice that and you're gone. No appeals. No delays. Immediate incarceration and rapid deportation. You want to come here and beat your wife or children into submission because that is what your god(s) demand? You're gone. No second chances.

You want to work here in any form of job that requires you to communicate clearly? You need to demonstrate sufficient mastery of English (or French if in QC or NB).

My pet peeve...

When politicians rant about the affordability crisis I see two different camps...

The camp who have lived their lives in a fiscally responsible manner and just can't keep up with the cost of living increases...

The other camp who are in financial crisis because of poor choices they have made...

Or when I drive by a food bank and see nearly new vehicles parked on the street while its owners are in the line for free food...

That's a reasonable pet peeve. However, I land this at the feet of society as much as the individual. Society tolerated that to the point that it became the norm. Consumer society driven by in your face marketing where luxuries are pedalled as needs. Forced obsolescence by manufacturers. I grew up on the tail end of the generation where parents actually didn't get everything for their kids if affordability was an issue.....and I still had way more than some of my older cousins, and certainly more than my parents.

The food bank part.....those people should be charged with theft.

[rikster]

Well thought out response...

Scrapping the current riding system and switching to representation by popular vote. If the Conservatives get 35% of the popular vote, they get 35% of the seats in the house. Who sits in those seats is then decided by inter party membership voting. This would force the electorate to actually become engaged if they wanted a say in who sits for them beyond just the party brand.

I really don't know what system I'd prefer, if we live in BC with +/- 15% of the population should we be upset that the 2 Provinces with +/- 65% of the population gets to decide who our leader is?..

Especially considering hot topics in BC or Alberta can be very different than issues in Ontario and Quebec...

I'd like to see changes to legislation which require us to vote...Just 62% of eligable voters cast a vote in the last election and that number has gone down with each of the 3 Trudeau wins...

While you and I disagree on which current candidate would make a better PM, we are on the same page when it comes to experience and education being important (I just put character above that). Anyone who wants to be a career politician should be able to make a comfortable living, however, the financial reward that comes from hard work and investment in one's own career in the private sector should always outstrip public office's financial prospects. You want to serve? Then you do so with "purer" motivations. MP's who enter office with a net worth of $X must exit office with a net worth where any increases can be justified. You want to serve your country? Ok, we will pay you well to do that, but your financial life will also be heavily scrutinized while in office. If a MP leaves his position and his financial position has changed, if it cannot be shown that the increases were commensurate with increases that could be gleaned by any private citizen who invested wisely, then that MP loses those benefits and rather than outright criminal charges, perhaps said increases go into a slush fund that is used for healthcare overages or military needs, or disaster relief.....

My belief is that we need to find a way to attract more Carney and Bayliss types into politics and need to remove the roadblocks keeping them away...

Blind trusts should grow over time, not sure why you'd want to put a limit on what that return can be...

Being a Prime Minister is no different than a Fortune 500 CEO in the sense that they are managing income statements and balance sheets with lots of $000,000,000, only difference is that a CEO is paid millons and a Prime Minister is paid less than $500,000. I want that succesful former CEO, warts and all who is likely at the stage in life that he can give up $millions in income to serve the greater good and serve the people...

As for lifers like a PP or an Andrew Sheer or anyone else, I prefer term limits and one of the reasons is that when you look at PP's record over his 21 years in politics its void of any accomplishment of significance which ties into your comment;

Change whatever laws and processes need changing in order to force MP's to work together. Rather than stall and delay the passing of bills, rather than obfuscate to hide changes to laws in thousand page legal bills, do everything possible to force cooperation and compromise.

....

Engage the electorate. The technology exists now to actually hold referendums in a very short time, at least do this on major issues. Do we want to give $250 million to a foreign cause? Ask the people, Don't leave it up to the MP's who squabble like primary school children. If the people don't engage, well then that's on them.

Agreed, the push back will be that some decisions are of an urgent nature so I would suggest that some spending like foreign aide over a certain $ amount requires a referendum befoe proceeding...

Ranting against $ spent overseas without understanding the ROI is just ranting....At least with a referendum politicians are forced to explain why and what the expected return is...

Sorry, I wasn't fully clear. Energy sector jobs, mining jobs, logging jobs, basically the entire resource sector, the types of job that build a strong middle class by employing trades people, labourers, equipment operators, as well as your jobs for those with "higher" education.....how many of those either ceased or didn't happen at all because of government regulation and carbon mandates?

We can chew gum and walk at the same time...

All those blue collar industries you mentioned are vital to our economy today, but we also need to transition to new industries from green technology...

Carney talks about his time dealing with insurance leaders and their worry over the growing cost of extreme climate events which is what got him attracted to green technology...

I think of a company like Toyota which looks forward 50 years in its planning and a friend who was running a hatchery for a fish farm ...His company was taken over by a Japanese company and when the CEO came to Canada to meet the management team, my friend was taken back by the CEO's request to know where the hatchery saw itself in 10 years....

During my time in corporate, we worked on yearly projections and I wouldn't know how to forcast 10 years out...

this is a topic that needs to move on from far right talking points...
Please explain your meaning for the bolded comment.

I'll withdraw my comment....

My take on immigration is that if you want to come here, whether it be seeking citizenship or as a refugee, you need to become a productive member of our society and you need to become Canadian. That means recognizing and supporting Canadian values.....this is especially true for refugee status. You are fleeing somewhere, don't come here and try to make here into what you just ran away from.

My take is similar to yours, only to point out that legal immigrants are a positive economic contributor to our economy...

[Strangelove]

But yeahno, you're not off the hook, you called him a Christian and you hate Christians.

Not sure I need to be "off the hook" - I just said that was the meanest thing you've said to me. Simple. Wasn't saying I wasn't mean to the Orange Lunatic.

It would be like me saying your father smelt of elderberries. (I'm not saying this). Does it matter if I like elderberries or not, the spirit of it is mean.

Just saying, why so mean to Jello - do you feel the need to defend someone who has chosen to be in public office, by being mean to someone who thinks badly of said person? What if I was mean to Trudeau? Would you still be mean to me?

Meany!

If I were mean I'd call yo mama a hamster at this point.

But yeah, I'm not, so...

[Meds]

Well thought out response...

Sometimes I try.....

I really don't know what system I'd prefer, if we live in BC with +/- 15% of the population should we be upset that the 2 Provinces with +/- 65% of the population gets to decide who our leader is?..

Especially considering hot topics in BC or Alberta can be very different than issues in Ontario and Quebec...

This is why I am in favour of western separation. Neither metro nor rural can really survive without the other in a society/civilization like ours, however rural can survive without metro if we want to return to an older way of living. But we don't, or at least most of us don't.....I'm sure the Quakers would be happy to do just that.

However, Ontario and Quebec, and the maritime provinces, depend upon Sask, AB, and BC.....yet we have no voice. We're like the British colonies in that sense. Time for change there.

My belief is that we need to find a way to attract more Carney and Bayliss types into politics and need to remove the roadblocks keeping them away...

Blind trusts should grow over time, not sure why you'd want to put a limit on what that return can be...

Being a Prime Minister is no different than a Fortune 500 CEO in the sense that they are managing income statements and balance sheets with lots of $000,000,000, only difference is that a CEO is paid millons and a Prime Minister is paid less than $500,000. I want that succesful former CEO, warts and all who is likely at the stage in life that he can give up $millions in income to serve the greater good and serve the people...

As for lifers like a PP or an Andrew Sheer or anyone else, I prefer term limits and one of the reasons is that when you look at PP's record over his 21 years in politics its void of any accomplishment of significance which ties into your comment;

I agree with you on term limits, not at all opposed to that, although I think 3 over 2. Oddly enough Pollievre agrees with you too.....or at least he did when he was in university.

Is there a way to attract the types of people you want brought in (or really this applies to anyone who wants to sit in MP chairs) without them having their networth balloon like Obama's, or even quadruple like Trudeau's?

We can chew gum and walk at the same time...

All those blue collar industries you mentioned are vital to our economy today, but we also need to transition to new industries from green technology...

Carney talks about his time dealing with insurance leaders and their worry over the growing cost of extreme climate events which is what got him attracted to green technology...

I think of a company like Toyota which looks forward 50 years in its planning and a friend who was running a hatchery for a fish farm ...His company was taken over by a Japanese company and when the CEO came to Canada to meet the management team, my friend was taken back by the CEO's request to know where the hatchery saw itself in 10 years....

During my time in corporate, we worked on yearly projections and I wouldn't know how to forcast 10 years out...

Sure. But the ROI is never explained, and in general most governments on the left side of the aisle don't have legit returns in mind. They spend to appease and buy votes.

[Per]

Yet you and everyone else on this board

Over the top generalizations are unlike you.

Also...the terminology "wanted for war crimes" always makes me shake my head in wonder....

Yeah, a bit of exxageration but it did feel like me against the board at the time.

War crimes What an oxymoron. I'm sure Per will elucidate.

Right, the Geneva Convention contains rules that regulate warfare, including the treatment of civilians and the treatment of prisoners of war. If you violate these rules you are committing war crimes. There are also some older conventions regulating the use of chemical and biological weapons that went into effect even earlier. So if you eg use poison gas against enemy troops, that would also constitute a war crime.

Since many countries do not prosecute their own troops for war crimes, and the winning side seldom has to face consequences, the ICC (International Criminal Court) has been formed to fill this hole. They will investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity (eg genocide) when national courts fail to do so. At present 125 nations are members of the ICC, but unfortunately neither the USA, China nor Russia.

[5thhorseman]

Yet you and everyone else on this board

Over the top generalizations are unlike you.

Also...the terminology "wanted for war crimes" always makes me shake my head in wonder....

Yeah, a bit of exxageration but it did feel like me against the board at the time.

War crimes What an oxymoron. I'm sure Per will elucidate.

Right, the Geneva Convention contains rules that regulate warfare, including the treatment of civilians and the treatment of prisoners of war. If you violate these rules you are committing war crimes. There are also some older conventions regulating the use of chemical and biological weapons that went into effect even earlier. So if you eg use poison gas against enemy troops, that would also constitute a war crime.

Also, you're not allowed to sneak up on somebody from behind, I heard.

[Meds]

Yet you and everyone else on this board

Over the top generalizations are unlike you.

Also...the terminology "wanted for war crimes" always makes me shake my head in wonder....

Yeah, a bit of exxageration but it did feel like me against the board at the time.

War crimes What an oxymoron. I'm sure Per will elucidate.

Right, the Geneva Convention contains rules that regulate warfare, including the treatment of civilians and the treatment of prisoners of war. If you violate these rules you are committing war crimes. There are also some older conventions regulating the use of chemical and biological weapons that went into effect even earlier. So if you eg use poison gas against enemy troops, that would also constitute a war crime.

Also, you're not allowed to sneak up on somebody from behind, I heard.

Or lure them into an ambush.

[Per]

Yet you and everyone else on this board

Over the top generalizations are unlike you.

Also...the terminology "wanted for war crimes" always makes me shake my head in wonder....

Yeah, a bit of exxageration but it did feel like me against the board at the time.

War crimes What an oxymoron. I'm sure Per will elucidate.

Right, the Geneva Convention contains rules that regulate warfare, including the treatment of civilians and the treatment of prisoners of war. If you violate these rules you are committing war crimes. There are also some older conventions regulating the use of chemical and biological weapons that went into effect even earlier. So if you eg use poison gas against enemy troops, that would also constitute a war crime.

Also, you're not allowed to sneak up on somebody from behind, I heard.

Or lure them into an ambush.

You are allowed to lure enemies into an ambush, but you are not allowed to go into combat wearing the uniform of your opponent.
I actually used that as an argument during some sad years that Björklöven used black jerseys. Black is the colour of Skellefteå. We should never wear it, as it violates the Geneva convention.