However they are covered in the Hague Conventions - and yes you are correct they are technically not allowed under the Hague. If captured they can be tried as criminals not soldiers.Originally Posted by BigTex
However they are covered in the Hague Conventions - and yes you are correct they are technically not allowed under the Hague. If captured they can be tried as criminals not soldiers.Originally Posted by BigTex
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Under the Geneva Conventions they fit well into the catagory of spy also.Originally Posted by Redleg
More then likely both will be changed to allow and protect them. They are becoming more and more previlent in warzones.
Wine is a bit different, as I am sure even kids will like it.
"Hilary Clinton is the devil"BigTex
~Texas proverb
that would require a new convention for both the Hague and Geneva.Originally Posted by BigTex
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
And I doubt that it'll happen any time soon.Originally Posted by Redleg
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Everything from Teh Hague is slower then a bucket of *BLEEP* uphill Rory.
It has been changed ,it is specific on mercenaries and them not being allowed or protected , but that only applies with countries that signed and ratified the protocol . Iraq , Afghanistan and the US are amongst those who didn't sign .Under the Geneva Conventions they fit well into the catagory of spy also.
More then likely both will be changed to allow and protect them. They are becoming more and more previlent in warzones.
America did sign but didn't ratify.
Badly, is how it will end. At first at least. America will claim victory and honor and have a ceremony as it withdraws forces, keeping a brigade or two in Kuwait for rapid-response capability, probably for many years to come. There will be much rejoicing by various groups in Iraq, burning of American flags, effigies of bush, etc, followed by an intense period of sectarian violence as the civil war opens up full scale. Possibly incursions by Turkey in the north and Iran in the west to secure some of their intrests, until eventually, a Shia controlled military-government will take over and restore relative peace and security to the area.
"urbani, seruate uxores: moechum caluom adducimus. / aurum in Gallia effutuisti, hic sumpsisti mutuum." --Suetonius, Life of Caesar
It'll end with lack of funding and lack of morale... and lack of life.
Once the Nations who are running the war lose their resources to throw at the region (people, money, morale), their mercenaries will still the waters for a time, but in the end the region will take another 50 odd years to get back on its feet after this.
Iraq will never be truly together, as it never should be. Woe to the Statesmen who still take the ruminations of an Oil Survey team in the early 1900s to heart and continue to interlock the landscapes, chaining peoples and cultures to eachother and their map of what is supposedly their Nation - one created by other Nations.
robotica erotica
Bookmarks