English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The "rules of engagement" our fighting men are forced to abide by are not reciprocated by our enemy who engages in a kind of "assymetrical" warfare where "anything goes" "throw-out-the-rule-book" tactics have become the norm.

I'm of the opinion we should consider the Geneva Convention a relic of history and allow our forces the latitude to respond in kind to what they are facing.

Comments, questions, snide remarks?

2006-10-15 16:55:49 · 15 answers · asked by s2scrm 5 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

the Geneva convention gives guide lines for a conventional war between uniformed countries. last i looked terrorist wore no uniforms and they did not sign the convention. the Geneva convention is antiquated. it kills me every time i see what gets written about how the USA is in violation of the convention but i hear nothing about how cutting someones head off live on TV is also against the convention. many people wear blinkers through life and see just what makes their argument better. it's time for people to wake up and look at the world for what it is. I don't want to live under extremist rule.
the world is very different now.

2006-10-15 17:03:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

There has been a long history of civilians without uniforms fighting regular soldiers, dating back well before the treaty. As an example: ' Minutemen were members of the American colonial militia during the American Revolutionary War. They vowed to be ready for battle against the British within one minute of receiving notice.' "Most Colonial militia units were provided neither arms nor uniforms and had to equip themselves. Many simply wore their own farmers' or workmans' clothes, while others had buckskin hunting outfits. Some added Indian-style touches to intimidate the enemy, even including war-paint" Were these the eighteenth century version of the Iraqi insurgents?

2016-05-22 05:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

One nation can't be the judge on whether the Geneva Conventions should be irrelevant or not. Lets leave it up to the rest of the world whether they want them there or not.

The Geneva Conventions are owned and shared by the global community not just the US alone.

2006-10-15 17:01:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Read HR 6166 EH or the senate version. At the wave of a hand in Washington not only does the Geneva Convention cease to exist, so do your rights as an American, and you may be subject to torture. This is what our children have been sent overseas to die for?

There's your comment and question. Now for the snide remark you seem to crave, let's hope you end up the first to experience having their bones scraped with the ends of nails poked through their flesh which is now legal 8-|

2006-10-15 17:02:18 · answer #4 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1 3

Terrorists should also observe the Geneva Convention by not killing innocent civilians and children.

2006-10-15 16:57:47 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2 0

The Geneva Convention cover was between humans. That applies to terrorists, but not to terror.

2006-10-15 16:57:55 · answer #6 · answered by Travbot the Observer 2 · 1 3

I believe the Geneva Convention does not afford any rights or recognition to partisans, which is what terrorists are

2006-10-15 16:57:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Since the "terrorists" do not abide by any known set of international rules of warfare, then they should be treated with the same brutality which they use on others whom they capture or kidnap. This means any terrorist should be subjected to any form of torture, violence, beheading, or any other method they use themselves on their victims. They should have the same rights they give their victims, which is the right to die a horrible, painful death. They should not be given rights which they do not respect; give them what they give with the full force that can be brought to bear as this is the only thing they understand.

2006-10-15 17:02:56 · answer #8 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 3 2

There's no such thing as governed warfare or civilized combat. The Geneva Convetions are a waste of time and should be completely scrapped.

If a nation claims limits for its own behavior based on right and wrong, let them enforce their own rules. But in a world where the balance of power is so one-sided, it's stupid to expect that a third-world military force would have any choice but to resort to "uncivilized tactics." It becomes an issue of survival, and in survival, there are no rules.

2006-10-15 17:00:32 · answer #9 · answered by Privratnik 5 · 0 6

Yes it should.

The Geneva Convention applies to all armed conflicts. That includes the war on terror.

2006-10-15 16:57:49 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers