Franz Von Dietrich Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 What's your opinion on it? Here goes mine; Geneva Convention's are quite useless and unneeded. These so called "Rules of war" are nothing more than something to ensure both side "plays fair" such as not using chemical weapons, or Bio-weapons. But, since when is war fair? If a enemy wants to win/end a war fast as they can, they must use tools needed for it. But, the Geneva Convention has banned this type of warfare. In most cases it just causes a war to be longer and more descruction down the road in the war length. Now, I do agree with the Geneva's rules for POW's treatment, as they've surrendered and did not put up a fight, which they deserve fair treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Bob Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Well, most of it is rules about attacking non-combatants, such as members of the clergy, medics, etc.. Also about POW treatment. Very little of the GC deal with actual rules of combat. It did not ban chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare. Those were banned by later treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livius Clades Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I'm a Corpsman, I like the Geneva convention. 1 Quote Fire is nice eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 What's your opinion on it? Here goes mine; Geneva Convention's are quite useless and unneeded. These so called "Rules of war" are nothing more than something to ensure both side "plays fair" such as not using chemical weapons, or Bio-weapons. But, since when is war fair? If a enemy wants to win/end a war fast as they can, they must use tools needed for it. But, the Geneva Convention has banned this type of warfare. In most cases it just causes a war to be longer and more descruction down the road in the war length. Now, I do agree with the Geneva's rules for POW's treatment, as they've surrendered and did not put up a fight, which they deserve fair treatment. Allowing bio weapons into a war is not going to lessen the level of destruction on a nation's military or civilian population, it will increase it exponentially more than any form of conventional combat could accomplish. And not only that, but said biological weapons can (Will, thanks to Globalization) easily spread into non-combatant nations all across the globe. Using a bio-weapon is not just indiscriminate it is designed in it's very nature to spread and kill without ever stopping. 2 Quote If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll. There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 FFS, go look at the horrors of 'The Great War'. Let's totally go back to mustard gas and free-for-all chemical weapons attacks.That worked out great the last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 No thank you Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I find it good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.