Geneva Conventions

Remove all ads!

Do you think that these rules are good bad or neither, voice your opinoins here.

[ November 19, 2004, 02:34: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

Good, with a "but".

I think they are somewhat flawed, but necessary nonetheless. They are framed for a Western view of the world and the rules of engagement, and as such are somewhat ethnocentric. That said, there needs to be some restriction on human behaviour during wartime to avoid even more excessive abuses and violations - especially since we've had the ability to destroy the world for the last 60 years. Anyone who's played BG1 (or read Nietzsche) should know this quote:

"He who fights monsters should take care, that he does not become a monster himself..."

War is rotten. It's not meant to be pretty, and you aren't able to think about the people shooting at you as otherwise decent, caring individuals much like yourself. The Geneva convention at least provides some assurances that not all humanity is forgotten in wartime, as does the existence of a body to try those who violate it.

 

It is meaningless. It is only enforceable upon those who choose to honor it, and as is well demonstrated by the actions of the insurgents in Iraq, it does not turn the world against those who violate it regularly. Hell, half the world celebrates every atrocity committed by these lunatics.

We live in a new era, and some of the rules of the old era have to be revised.

That doesn't mean that I think that civilized nations shouldn't try to wage war with as high a code of humanity possible. But if a side chooses to booby trap themselves, surrender falsely, or play dead or incapacitated only to pull out a machine gun from under their robes, the shouldn’t expect a whole lot of quarter.

 

@ Darkwolf: Good point - I should have added "somewhat obsolete" to that list of criticisms. It can only really apply to a war between nations or identified factions.

 

I don't think insurgents are concerned about the 'geneva convention' (due to their nature) but it is very necessary for an (official) army to observe and obey these proceedures.

If you take the example of N.Ireland. Bush actually said that N.Ireland needs to shut down its army bases and have peace talks with terrorists. I don't see the US doing the same thing with Iraqi insurgents or Osma Bin Laden.

The USA has always critizes N.I's policy of dealing with terrorists which is much less harsh than the USA's treatment of civilians abroad never mind terrorists!

Don't forget that N.Ireland and Britian are allies to the USA and they fought side-by-side during the World Wars (though hollywood movies seem to think that Britian had a small part and NI no part at all) and now Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporting these N.I terrorists is a big insult to Britian and I am sure the famalies of the victims of the Omagh bombing and Docklands bombings will agree.

If we must observe the 'Geneve Conventions' and more so must the US.

 

Tell me about this new era and answer my two questions because I don't understand your sweeping critique:

• Tell me what rules don't work anymore, and why.
• Tell me what rules need to be revised, and why.

I'm breathlessly expecting your reply.

 

Absolutely good. No doubt in my mind.