View Full Version : Debate: - Geneva Convention
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
03-11-2009, 16:55
Should The Geneva Convention be banned? Is it really needed in War today? To me, it is useless and should go bye-bye!
LittleGrizzly
03-11-2009, 17:06
No countries are bad enough in thier treatment of prisnors of war getting rid of the geneva convention would only make such mistreatment more likely...
Is this to do with Gauntanamo or something ?
As has been shown, USA can simply sideline the rules and get away with slight deviances, so on the basis that you can mostly get away with what you want to but that it makes some bad people think twice... surely its pretty useful to USA ?
Aemilius Paulus
03-11-2009, 17:10
No, but it never seemed to help anyway :shrug:...
Kralizec
03-11-2009, 17:14
No, though it should probably be replaced by something more up to date.
Seamus Fermanagh
03-11-2009, 17:42
Ultimately, only the threat of reciprocity can truly deter excesses or mistreatment. If one party either does not believe that reciprocity will be exacted, or does not care, then all the well-intentioned efforts to minimize the horrors of war will not work.
rory_20_uk
03-11-2009, 17:55
No, though it should probably be replaced by something more up to date.
Exactly. Should be updated every 10 years as things do change in war. Armies no longer wear distinct uniforms and people can buy the same camouflage uniforms; not all countries are going to fight a nice, simple mechanical war with the winner decided on a clearly defined bettlefield.
Of course, the problem is what happens when countries decide not to sign - or basically aviod it.
If there was a new one so many countries would be trying to insert key phrases that they'd see as a way to sidestep the part the don't like
E.G. The UK is against cluster bombs in devices that have more than 10 per canister guess what? Our rockets have 9 each...
~:smoking:
Hooahguy
03-11-2009, 17:56
yes, then after they are removed replace them with something more up-to-date.
in the new "rules" there would be modified rules that would be better suited to fight terrorism.
Never!
Maintaining human rights in all situations is critical to get anywhere near peace.
yes, then after they are removed replace them with something more up-to-date.
in the new "rules" there would be modified rules that would be better suited to fight terrorism.
So you regard "terrorists" as lower-grade humans. Lesser humans. Humans below you and me?
Rhyfelwyr
03-11-2009, 22:07
Rules are needed in war. It's horrible to think of people sitting negotiating on how to kill each other, but at the end of the day it prevents a lot of pain on both sides. Unless you hope it gets so bad war become unimaginable, but that's a risky strategy and I think the Geneva Convention remains necessary. Although as others said I'm sure an update would be useful.
As long as it is mostly respected, or is seen as something that should be mostly respected even if it isn't, all fine. Ain't the law just a guidance.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-11-2009, 22:52
Tough call. On one hand, we might as well get rid of it as only the losers are ever punished, if anyone is at all, making the Convention a complete waste of paper. The only advantage I can see to it is that it makes us feel better about ourselves.
There is no need to kill beaten people let them go home when things have cooled down, restrictions on weapons is the Hague convention often gets confused, Geneva is about captured adversaries mostly.
Hooahguy
03-12-2009, 00:18
So you regard "terrorists" as lower-grade humans. Lesser humans. Humans below you and me?
no, i do not. do not put words in my mouth. i never said they were lower than we were. i just want the rules to be more relevant to todays times.
Major Robert Dump
03-12-2009, 00:31
In this time of financial crisis and corporate bailouts, it is both shameful and irresponsible for governments and companies to use taxpayer dollars to attend conventions, and not just the ones in Geneva. All conventions should be cancelled, whether they are in Vegas, Cancun or Nebraska.
I voted we should, although I strongly agree that we need rules in war. But I think they need to be revised. I am also against torture, so don't take it the wrong way.
no, i do not. do not put words in my mouth. i never said they were lower than we were.
I do. I would never do the things that makes their private parts salute.
Aemilius Paulus
03-12-2009, 01:21
I always thought the main problem with them was the enforcement. Reciprocity is a notable issue, but it seems that countries believe they can get away even after breaking the rules. And victors are not judged anyway, as Catherine II put it in the context of Suvorov (although I am sure hundreds of other people said that as well).
As for "terrorists", as they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One of the most humorous and apparent examples of this was some book I looked at from my high school's library in US, which talked about Afghanistan. On the same page, it talked of the "freedom fighters" and even "holy warriors" when talking about the battle against USSR and then about the "terrorists" and "murderers" fighting against US in its recent invasion. Same people, same time period, different names. The books sent into an uncontrollable laughing fit. The hypocrisy was so apparent, it seemed almost purposeful.
a completely inoffensive name
03-12-2009, 05:11
...
Major Robert Dump
03-12-2009, 10:42
The Republicans say that canceling conventions hurts the economies for people who make a living off the conventions through tips and wages, but I know some Republicans and they don't even tip so I don't see what it matters anyhow. The only convention that should be allowed is the annual Adult Video convention because that generates income and there are lots of breasts, and when I say breasts I mean female breasts not man breasts, because man breasts hurt the economies.
This contradicts my earlier statement but I have to agree with ACIN on this one. But I believe it depends on the situation.
KukriKhan
03-12-2009, 12:47
The Republicans say that canceling conventions hurts the economies for people who make a living off the conventions through tips and wages, but I know some Republicans and they don't even tip so I don't see what it matters anyhow. The only convention that should be allowed is the annual Adult Video convention because that generates income and there are lots of breasts, and when I say breasts I mean female breasts not man breasts, because man breasts hurt the economies.
I think we should all go to Geneva convention (http://www.genevachamber.com/festivalofthevine.html) in September, knock back a cuppla veeno's, then sign the petition promising only bows and arrows are to be used from now on. And we mean it this time. Whups... my glass is empty, "garcon!'
Major Robert Dump
03-12-2009, 13:09
I think we should all go to Geneva convention (http://www.genevachamber.com/festivalofthevine.html) in September, knock back a cuppla veeno's, then sign the petition promising only bows and arrows are to be used from now on. And we mean it this time. Whups... my glass is empty, "garcon!'
After that, we could go to the sausage convention http://video.aol.com/video-detail/doomstink-sausage-fest-07-tv-spot/3009186069
In this time of financial crisis and corporate bailouts, it is both shameful and irresponsible for governments and companies to use taxpayer dollars to attend conventions, and not just the ones in Geneva. All conventions should be cancelled, whether they are in Vegas, Cancun or Nebraska.
Have you even any idea, if ALL conventions were cancelled? Anarchy ftw.
no, i do not. do not put words in my mouth. i never said they were lower than we were. i just want the rules to be more relevant to todays times.
And how exactly can the treatment of prisoners of war in a humane way be more relevant at one time than at another?
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
03-12-2009, 16:59
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.
LittleGrizzly
03-12-2009, 17:06
Please give me a honest answer besides the typical ethics BS.
I tell you what, answer the question i asked you in the very first post on the page and ill do my best to answer you....
This
As has been shown, USA can simply sideline the rules and get away with slight deviances, so on the basis that you can mostly get away with what you want to but that it makes some bad people think twice... surely its pretty useful to USA ?
Though TBH im not sure how to without getting into ethics... is murder even wrong if you don't bring ethics into it... to just help tighten that argument up... someone who is economically inactive, doesn't look after for anyone and is nothing but a drain on society
And just to clarify here, we are talking about the rules governing prisnors of war right ?
Hooahguy
03-12-2009, 20:08
And how exactly can the treatment of prisoners of war in a humane way be more relevant at one time than at another?
i have no qualms with the rules regarding treatment of prisoners.
its the way we conduct it i have issues with.
for instance, i do not believe in the law that says soldiers cant shoot at enemy combatants unless fired upon.
our boys have died by that rule.
Strike For The South
03-12-2009, 20:21
Is that in the treaty Hooah?
Hooahguy
03-12-2009, 20:37
IIRC correctly it is.... unless im confusing the geneva convention with the ROE....
oops?
Strike For The South
03-12-2009, 20:40
IIRC correctly it is.... unless im confusing the geneva convention with the ROE....
oops?
Could you be a dear and show it to me?
Hooahguy
03-12-2009, 20:50
if i had the text on hand, sure!
seireikhaan
03-12-2009, 21:57
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.
So there is absolutely not a single issue with the Holocaust? Simply "necessity of war"? Same for the Mayans in Guatemala? Its alright what happened to them?
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-12-2009, 22:02
So there is absolutely not a single issue with the Holocaust? Simply "necessity of war"? Same for the Mayans in Guatemala? Its alright what happened to them?
If I may nitpick, the Holocaust - or specifically the extermination camp part - could be classified as a crime against humanity rather than a war crime.
The Geneva Conventions are a necessity:
It gives a soldier the Rules, the Code of Conduct.
You don’t kill a soldier who surrenders, who don’t harm civilians, you as much as possible stay human and try not to deprive your enemy (to whom you will have to make peace at one moment) of his humanity.
You acknowledge that to surrender an enemy will use a white flag, and few rules of engagement. You don’t torture, finish off injured enemies, in short, you try to do war with respect and honour, raping and looting are not any more in the soldiers duties.
Of course, all soldiers knew that to surrender to assault troops who have no time to make prisoners would be stupid.
Of course it would happen that atrocities would occur but you KNOW that is WRONG.
Even the SS knew what they were doing was wrong, of the NKVD in case of Kathyn… That is why they tried to hind it…
The problem with the Bush Administration is this new “unlawful combattants”. Either you say that they are terrorists so they belong to the Code of Justice, Criminal Appendix, either they are soldiers, and so have to be under Geneva conventions…
My Grand Parents were Freedom Fighter so Terrorist for the Germans and the French Nazi… They were perfectly aware of what would happen to them if caught.
"There is no such thing as a war with rules. Any country, if pushed to the breaking point will disregard any backlash of international opinion and will throw its entire arsenal at the enemy to preserve itself. Torture, chemicals, nuclear weapons, whatever, if it means using these horrible weapons or total loss and/or destruction they will use the weapons."
Not true. If USA would have used all its power in Vietnam, US wouldn’t have lost the war without having loosing battles…
There are rules in war. You can decide to break them, but they exist.
Wars are the continuation of politic. You have a claim, you can’t achieve it by peaceful means, you do war…
And the use of torture didn’t win the war for the German during WW2, nor Chemical weapons in WW1 and no proof that nuclear weapons would do it.
In my pressurised APC you would need a direct hit for missile or shell to kill me. To nuke my family wouldn’t be the solutions, except if you wanted me to do same or worst to yours…
“Maybe the only rule to the Geneva Convention should be not to push the other country into extinction. But then again that is laughable as well. I am sure AP would probably agree with me on this point: Who would not push forward after just handily destroying his enemy’s armies unless unconditional surrender was agreed upon?” Destroying enemy’s ARMIES is the point, not the entire population.
“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-combatants 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.”
Yes, war is war. That is WHY you need rules.
You don’t sign a paper. You don’t say I won’t do this. You just learn for the Army Regulations (TTA in the French Army) how you are supposed to do you job.
And if you don’t, if you do something against the law approved by your Government, voted by the 2 Chambers of your Parliament, you will be judge and sentenced.
In case of conflict against the Red Army in the 80s my life expectation in an Armoured Division was 3 days. Chance to be burned alive in my APC was quite high. So, somehow, the fact that there are things you can’t do, that there are some limits in what can happen to you is a necessity…
It is as well a question of respect. Self respect as a soldier, as a fighter, as a human.
When fighting against the Green Devils in Italy at the Monte Casino, the British and even the Polish had respect for them because this Germans soldiers rescued their soldiers. The Germans Paratroopers prided themselves (with good reasons) NOT to kill a neutralised enemy.
In return, they received the same treatment and are still honoured by their former enemies.
Can you say the same things for the SS?
What you need to do to win the war is to win the future peace… It is what the Germans in 1870 and the French in 1918 didn’t know.
Dear, the BS is "I am going to do what I need to win"… You will do what you need to do to survive… Then, to win will be in the agenda.
But ignoring Geneva Conventions is in fact a way to loose, a sign that you are loosing.
And the Geneva Conventions are not so strong any way…:beam:
a completely inoffensive name
03-12-2009, 23:52
...
seireikhaan
03-12-2009, 23:54
If I may nitpick, the Holocaust - or specifically the extermination camp part - could be classified as a crime against humanity rather than a war crime.
The line is a tad blurry, though you certainly are more correct. However, it is an extreme form of total intimidation that can be used as a war tactic to subdue "rebellious" populations.
If I may nitpick, the Holocaust - or specifically the extermination camp part - could be classified as a crime against humanity rather than a war crime.
That's correct. Actually the Nazis followed the Geneva Convetion with those countries who signed it (that exludes Russia). This is a generelized statement but I find it rather accurate, based on my knowledge.
CountArach
03-13-2009, 00:04
Why is this even being discussed? Seriously... That anyone in this modern period could suggest that we would do away with the fundamental rights of Prisoners of War is astounding.
Hooahguy
03-13-2009, 00:35
im not saying we should do away with them- i think we should update them, thus removing them and replacing them with the same rules, but better suited for the times.
Beefy187
03-13-2009, 01:32
If we follow Geneva Convention, not only we can lower the unnecessary casualties, it will also encourage the troups that "justice on our side"
I think its necessary although theres couple of adjustments which could be made to suit the modern warfare.
Major Robert Dump
03-13-2009, 01:38
im not saying we should do away with them- i think we should update them, thus removing them and replacing them with the same rules, but better suited for the times.
First off, they aren't out of date. Even with internet and cell phones the same rules can still apply.
And second, stop looking at it from only the perspective of the USA. There are other countries who fight with each other, there were multiple countries who agreed to the terms, and the idea of changing the Geneva convention to include terrorists, or enemy combatants, or whatever we want to call them to have an excuse to abuse them well -- make a new doggone law/treaty/policy for that but leave Geneva alone. The term "terrorist" is about as flexible as the morals of the politician who wants to use the term, up to and including "financial terrorism", and the "war on terror" is hyperbole, it's symbolic. It's not a real war, no country named "terror" attacked anyone, and I dare say -- I dare say -- no one is expecting terrorists to abide by the Geneva Convention anyway because they are, after all, terrorists.
I should also point out that just because an enemy isn't wearing a uniform or carrying ID does not make them a terrorist. This opens up a new can of worms which also needs to be addressed.
Maybe we could make a Geneva Convention 2k that keeps all the old rules and adds some new spice for the 21st century.
Taking the moral high ground is what civilized countries are bound to do by both their citizens and their founding, even if some of our more toothless, nuke-em-all brothers sometimes disagree. Yes, other countries/regimes have failed to follow basic human rights for POWs.....where are they now?
Name, Rank, ID......that's all you are gonna get from me. Leave my family out of it.
Hooahguy
03-13-2009, 01:49
First off, they aren't out of date. Even with internet and cell phones the same rules can still apply.
And second, stop looking at it from only the perspective of the USA. There are other countries who fight with each other, there were multiple countries who agreed to the terms, and the idea of changing the Geneva convention to include terrorists, or enemy combatants, or whatever we want to call them to have an excuse to abuse them well -- make a new doggone law/treaty/policy for that but leave Geneva alone. The term "terrorist" is about as flexible as the morals of the politician who wants to use the term, up to and including "financial terrorism", and the "war on terror" is hyperbole, it's symbolic. It's not a real war, no country named "terror" attacked anyone, and I dare say -- I dare say -- no one is expecting terrorists to abide by the Geneva Convention anyway because they are, after all, terrorists.
I should also point out that just because an enemy isn't wearing a uniform or carrying ID does not make them a terrorist. This opens up a new can of worms which also needs to be addressed.
Maybe we could make a Geneva Convention 2k that keeps all the old rules and adds some new spice for the 21st century.
Taking the moral high ground is what civilized countries are bound to do by both their citizens and their founding, even if some of our more toothless, nuke-em-all brothers sometimes disagree. Yes, other countries/regimes have failed to follow basic human rights for POWs.....where are they now?
Name, Rank, ID......that's all you are gonna get from me. Leave my family out of it.
um, thats what i want. by out of date i mean that they should change/add rules to better suit our times.
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.
I kinda smiled when you said "not a game". I mean it actually seems it is you who are treating this like a game, not bound by principles such as morality. Allow me to elaborate; in Medieval 2 you are given the chance to execute prisoners and I have absolutely no problem doing so. I don't even think about it, I don't think like I would in real life, I don't consider the thousands of lives I would be destroying and the vast amount of families I would be devasting.
Why would I have a problem in RL then? The answer is what you imprudently refer to as "ethics BS". In my opinion, you cannot totally disregard human life's value. The Nazi Party did, and I don't think we want a repeat, do you?
Kagemusha
03-13-2009, 19:15
Here are the main conventions and added protocols of Geneve convention:
convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3
convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/44072487ec4c2131c125641e004a9977
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II)
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/d67c3971bcff1c10c125641e0052b545
Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/615?OpenDocument
Warman. Maybe you should copy these in the starting post? I cant see anything wrong with the values of these treaties, so maybe those who are for disbanding the treaty, should read the treaties and tell the rest of us, what is so wrong about them?
“But my point is that their desperateness to save themselves from being crushed will cause them to make those choices, even if they don't work.” Well, even in these circumstances the none-respect of Geneva conventions would change nothing.
History shows that in fact most of the war crimes are done by the winners…
a completely inoffensive name
03-13-2009, 21:00
...
LittleGrizzly
03-13-2009, 21:06
So if the losers are breaking the rules and the winners are breaking the rules, what is the point again?
Because everyone doesn't break the rules all of the time, if they did you would possibly have a point...
um, thats what i want. by out of date i mean that they should change/add rules to better suit our times.
For crying out loud, then come with suggestions! You've done virtually nothing in this thread but posting how the rules should be updated. Any ideas?
For crying out loud, then come with suggestions! You've done virtually nothing in this thread but posting how the rules should be updated. Any ideas?
That should be your territory, the geneva convention is old fashioned, under the geneva convention you can do to hamas or the taliban whatever the hell you want to do because they don't represent a state. You can't because UN's declaration of human rights, not because of the geneva convention. It should stay because there is no reason to scrap it, but that's really all.
the geneva convention is old fashioned
How can the humane treatment of prisoners of war ever be old-fashioned?
How can the humane treatment of prisoners of war ever be old-fashioned?
As I said, under the Geneva convention combatans that don't represent a state aren't protected, Hamas, AL Quaida, Taliban, we are legally allowed to do as we please.
The Spartan (Returns)
03-14-2009, 00:41
No offense to the thread starter, but I think this debate is futile.
Even if it sometimes seems that the Geneva Conventions as Captain Barbarossa would say it, "More like guidelines." It's better to have it, than not. If the Geneva Conventions was removed, more harm than if any good will be done. POW's will be likely be prone to more mistreatment, and I don't think military commander would benefit from it. This is not like Medieval 2 where if you capture some prisoners you may only execute, ransom, or release. In fact I don't think POW's today or in the past were dealt with so simplistically, where you must choose from the three options.
“ So if the losers are breaking the rules and the winners are breaking the rules, what is the point again?”.
To provide justice. To state there are borders, lines you don’t cross.
If you don’t the action of the Lt William Calley (My Lay for the young generation) and the actions of the Air Cav. pilot who stopped the massacre would be looked at the same level. The Fallschirmjagers were not the SS. Not in the ideology, not in the way to fight, and because their high moral ground far better fighters…
It is like to excuse a person who became rich in selling drugs, to give to an Escobar the same respect than to a Bill Gates…
“as Captain Barbarossa would say it, "More like guidelines”.
Nope. There are laws, included in the Rules of Engagement taught in every army. Well, at least in the French one. I know it because I had to do and explain them to my soldiers.
The Spartan (Returns)
03-15-2009, 02:54
“as Captain Barbarossa would say it, "More like guidelines”.
Nope. There are laws, included in the Rules of Engagement taught in every army. Well, at least in the French one. I know it because I had to do and explain them to my soldiers.Oh, excuse me for my ignorance then. :hanged:
However people still break those rules.
“However people still break those rules.” Yeap. But people break the laws in general and we even don’t think about burning the Code Civil or Criminal laws do we?:beam:
It is what in France we call “jetter le bébé avec l’eau du bain”, to throw the baby with the water from the bath…
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.
Err, I think they did. If treaties did not exist, then we would have had a Third World War and they would had blown our Earth in fragments of nuclear bombs. See the Partial Nuclear Ban Treaty.
a completely inoffensive name
03-17-2009, 03:19
...
Hooahguy
03-17-2009, 12:09
id like to recast my vote for "no."
i think this is the first time that a debate in the backroom has changed my opinion...
:smash:
KukriKhan
03-17-2009, 14:15
Should The Geneva Convention be removed?'
No. We need them (Geneva & Hague Conventions) to whack the SOB's who tortured our soldiers, after we've won the war(s).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.