Should The Geneva Convention be banned? Is it really needed in War today? To me, it is useless and should go bye-bye!
Yes
No
Don't Know
MEH!
Geneva Convention
Should The Geneva Convention be banned? Is it really needed in War today? To me, it is useless and should go bye-bye!
Domesticus
Re: Geneva Convention
You think that wounded enemys don't deserve treatment?
Comrade Natascha
Re: Geneva Convention
If you want to see how a war with "no rules" is fought and how it turns out, look no further than the Eastern front in WW2.
Of course the Geneva Convention should stay.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
Re: Geneva Convention
Originally Posted by Dark Elder
Ok....And?
War is war! People die in war. It's not a game. You don't go signing a piece of paper saying "I won't do this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this this" and go off and fight. Iam going to do what I need to do to win the war. I hate to see non-combatans die, but if it must be so, then so be it. Besides, why should I sign it if my enemy isn't even going to follow by it anyhow? Please give me a honest answer besides the typical ethics BS.
Campidoctor
Re: Geneva Convention
If ethics is BS to you, then there is no sense in arguing with you about this, because it is all about ethics. It is about treating your enemies as human beings.
Why you would sign such an accord as the Geneva convention? So that your opponent might recognize your willingness to consider him as human being and to treat him decently in case of surrender - and act in a similar manner towards you. Without the Geneva convention, many wars would not have been less terrible for those affected by it - but some wars would probably have been even more bloody and cruel than without it.
Last edited by eisenkopf; March 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason: clarification
"The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it reveals in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor blighter who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own."-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Geneva Convention
If you believe so much about ethics in war, and refuse to see the logical way in war, then no friend, there no sense arguing with you. War is hell, best to learn it like that. People die in war, people come home maimed. And you want to be nice to people in war? Sure. Tell me another one.
If your enemy isn't going to sign it, and if they treat your troops like crap, is there a point? No, there isn't.
Comrade Natascha
Re: Geneva Convention
Despite the fact that I find the notion of you considering ethics to be BS slightly disturbing, if that is indeed your position then there is no point discussing it.
The "ethic BS" is about recognizing that even your enemy has some rights as a human being, and hoping your enemy will return the favour.
Under the stern but loving patronage of Nihil.
Praeses
Re: Geneva Convention
Its not about "recognizing" rights, its about granting them. If you grant rights to POW's, your opponent is more likely to do the same. The Geneva conventions basically got all the major countries to sign up to these idea's, so that if you go agaisnt them you are putting yourself squarely in the disfavor of some of the most powerful nations.The "ethic BS" is about recognizing that even your enemy has some rights as a human being, and hoping your enemy will return the favour
These nations didn't sign up to the Geneva conventions in the interests of some feel good circle jerk. It was to provide some protection to the men and women in their armed forces, a way to gaurantee their well being when they fall into enemy hands. Really the Geneva conventions are the only way to do this, and that is why they are sound.
(The banned weapons agreements are simular, and actually the one about chemical weapons worked in WWII, suprisingly.)
Praeses
Re: Geneva Convention
He could also watch the Chechen tapes from Dagastan.
Re: Geneva Convention
Yes they should. If you don't think so you clearly haven't seen a real war.
edit: Damn, when can I vote?
Praeses
Re: Geneva Convention
why should it go? It still can limit people to a degree making things a little better.
"Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
Marx to A.Ruge
Praeses
Re: Geneva Convention
in the end its a agreement if only 2 of 1000 factions stick to it it should not be abandoned
Wyrd bið ful aræd!
Re: Geneva Convention
Nope, it should be enforced though.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Saviors of the Japanese
Re: Geneva Convention
It needs to be reformed...
The last one was in 1949, war changed a lot since then.
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
—Sir William Francis Butler
International Brigade
Re: Geneva Convention
The cruelties of war should be limited as much as possible, the Geneva Convetions are a step in the right direction. Keep Them!
Protector Domesticus
Re: Geneva Convention
Yes keep it, enemies should be treated with respect.
Protector Domesticus
Re: Geneva Convention
Yes, respect of the enemy as a human being is needed. And attacking civilians in a cowardly manner shouldn't be as well. Like the Germans bombing Rotterdam...
It's weird to be back.
Re: Geneva Convention
Question, how is the Geneva Convention enforced?
Civitate
Re: Geneva Convention
After the fact, through the trials of those who have allegedly committed crimes against POWs during the war in question. Nothing can be done while the war is still ongoing (what can you do? kill the enemy harder?).
Basically, it's punitive, not preventive. Nor does it apply to the victor, even though the victor's troops might have committed the very same types of crimes as the loser. Punishment for atrocities committed by the winner's troops is also the winner's responsibility, but is taken on faith alone.
Essentially, the Geneva Conventions (there are 4 of them) are nice declarations of principles, but in practice are no more than another method for imposing a victor's justice. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to change that, either.
Son of SétantaProtected by the Legion of RahlProud corporal in the house of God Emperor Nicholas
The Armenian Issue
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930I am a spark, soon to become a flame, and grow into an inferno...
Protector Domesticus
Re: Geneva Convention
I dont think it really is, basically its a "Il follow this, and hope my enemy will too"
I like to believe everyone would be willing to show some sign of respect and humanity to captured enemy soldiers in war...
People will believe a lie because they want it to be true; or they're afraid it's true.
Given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe its true, or because they're afraid it might be true. Peoples' heads are full of knowledge, facts and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
