Poll: Is the Geneva Convention totally pointless?

[yllus]

My stance: Fsck the entire thing. Seriously.

When we're talking total war WW1 and WW2 style, it's a stupid idea to begin with - war is about killing people and breaking sh!t. If you're in a war, I would hope that you would not play nice with captured captains, majors or whatevers instead of torturing them if you could possibly get information out of them that could save the lives of your own comrades at arms. Obviously torture for the sheer sake of torture when they aren't going to be able to resume fighting you is pretty pointless.

If it's nation vs. nation instead of the nation vs. gov't thing we see lately, bomb hospitals in the first wave to kill the doctors and impede their people from recovering to storm the battlefield the next day. I'd stop short at WMDs like nukes or germ warfare though if possible because it's a cat you don't want to let out of the bag, but if your opponent used them first, let 'em fly!

IMO, the brutal honesty is that in war, your people are more important than their people. What do you think?

 

[StageLeft]

Well not entirely, but it's not useful all the time. I love how so many people harp on the innocent killing of civilians, but damn near every nation on the planet that's ever been engaged in a real war has done exactly that - and deliberately, I might add. Remember, it was the US that nuked two cities in Japan and took part in firebombing various cities. Obviously it had to, and I don't condemn it for that. When the enemy starts into that sort of nonsense you pretty much have to return it in kind unless you want to lose or already have a grossly superior position of power.

 

[digitalsm]

There needs to be a new one. I mean technically under the current Geneva Convention, what we are doing with Saddam and Milosovic is illegal, as it clearly states, heads of state can not be prosecuted for war crimes. Thats not the only flaw in the current Geneva Convention.

 

[sandorski]

It might need an update and you are correct in that often the rules get broken, but overall it's a good thing. It acts as a deterrent to commiting certain acts, it doesn't always deter, but it does make warring parties think twice about commiting atrocities.

 

[Yossarian]

your subquestion invalidates the poll.

 

[emmpee]

Originally posted by: Yossarian
your subquestion invalidates the poll.

^

 

[Raiden256]

I'm going to go with "This Thread Belongs in Politics and News," Alex, for $600.

 

[BeauJangles]

Wars weren't always so brutish. In fact, it was much more of a gentleman's game before the first world war. Geneva Convention imposes some pretty minimal standards for war and the treatment of enemies. It's human rights.

 

[So]

I'd follow the geneva convention, especially if the other nation is a signatory and I feel they are likely to honor their obligations.