I can get the protections for POW's and civilians caught in the crossfire, but trying to prevent serious injury to armed combatants goes against the entire point of warfare, which is to cause extreme harm and injury to the other side's soldiers.  That includes lovely, useful weapons like napalm and explosive and hollow-point rounds.  Hell, the basic FMJ rounds the U.S. military uses aren't exactly nice considering they're designed to penetrate flesh and then curve their trajectory inside the body and carve their way through the target's vital organs.  Yes, those weapons are perfectly legal compared to a quick-killing .45 ACP hollow-point.

I believe that's called "irony".

Very true, 5.56 NATO is designed more-so to mortally wound than to kill. The objective in this is to slow your enemy down; so in the point of victory or defeat their movement will be very slow with the number of devastating injuries they incur. After all, if your hunting a team of 10 and you catch a soldier by himself yet close to his friends it's much more strategic to immobilize and wound the stranded target than to kill him. This way he becomes ineffective in combat, but still must be treated and carried by his squad-mates; thus slowing the overall maneuverability of the opposition and rendering even more soldiers unable to perform combat-oriented tactics as they must carry and observe their wounded; a dirty business indeed!

It is a nastier weapon than just outright killing the poor bastard since it causes painful and probably mortal internal injuries which means he dies slowly, which is the ironic part since weapons that would just kill the s.o.b. quickly are banned as being too harmful.

Yup, so true....

I really doubt dictating what ammunition weapons should use is the intent of the treaty. Napalm, chemical weapons, etc aren't outlawed because they're "too effective" or whatever, but because they're very likely to cause civilian casualties.

In any case, whether or not countries follow the Conventions or not, or the consequences of their choices, is a tangent. I posted it in response to the statement that you can't define what a war crime is, which is quite obviously incorrect since the treaty provides a valid legal definition of a war crime.

People have been successfully tried for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Obviously there aren't an overwhelming amount of cases, and not all breaches of the treaty are war crimes. 

The US was/is on a slippery slope. After news broke of prisoner torture and such, they tried to make a case that the prisoners are "unlawful combatants" since they're not part of an official military force of a country. So regardless of whether or not you think the Geneva Conventions matter or whether or not you'd follow them if you were a dictator of your own country, they do apply in the real world.

Even the US, for all its military technology, would not be stupid enough to commit a blatant war crime, no matter how scared it makes other countries. They don't have to go to war with the US, we're so dependent on foreign trade that all they have to do is cut that off.

Here's a news article on the more practical application of the Conventions: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_%281899_and_1907%29

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

The first Hague Convention outlawed the use of hollow-point and other nasty weaponry against infantry.  That's why U.S. soldiers are told to aim at the enemy's shirt buttons and belt buckles when they fire the big guns like the M2.   That's straight from my brother-in-law who is currently serving in the Army, by the way.

I think I understand what Luciela means by 'war is wrong'. Basically meaning to say that war is not a good thing for either side involved, as it causes loss of human life and often mass destruction of infrastructure, leading to reduced prosperity and stifled advancement towards a better quality of life.

But, to take a real life example, let's examine the situation in Palestine. It was occupied by the British forces, who were put under pressure by governments such as the U.S to cede the land to the Jewish people. The British government then hand-balled the responsibility over to the U.N (who didn't want to assume it all), and the U.N voted on a specific partitioning of Palestine between the Palestinians and the Jewish people. All of this occurred without consulting the Palestinian people. The proposed U.N partitioning never actually took effect, because, as any sensible person might expect, the Palestinians immediately began a resistance against the usurping of their lands and country, and war broke out.

Now, most any patriotic person when asked, 'Would you fight against the invasion and occupation of your country?' would respond in the affirmative. Most any reasonable person in the world when asked 'Would you find this reason for resistance justified?' would answer yes. But despite this basic right of defense and resistance, fast track forward to today and see how many lives have been taken on both sides so far, how many people were seriously or cripplingly injured, how many people had their homes or property damaged or destroyed or taken, how many people have had their rights stripped from them, how many people have had to live in fear, and how many people have had their quality of life drastically diminished.

The salient point here is that even a war that has a justified party is still a horrible hell. There is a verse that says 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and the instigator is the guilty party.' This I think should be a serious consideration when trying to account for responsibility of criminal actions in warfare.

It does appear though that Whiskey144 is treating this issue like he would any 4X civ-style strategy game where he is in the position of the dictator or ruler, rather than looking to the humaneness, fairness or justice in these scenarios. I don't know how serious he's being (he might just be having a laugh), but I recommend to anyone to look at these situations with the consideration of how they would like to be treated, and the quality of life, safety and security they would like to have in their own country. Then you can consider how you would feel on the other side of a butchering policy that you would otherwise support.

And then you come into the problem of the fact that those who have no compunction against the commitment of devastating acts will commit them. And will rightly be feared.

That is the driving point of my opinion. By creating a massive fear response, and the notion that to attack my country would be to invite utter destruction, I thereby create a safe, comfortable environment for my citizens.

The problem with the Palestine comparison/example is that the "country" of Palestine started out as Israeli land. It was never the Palestinians to begin with.

Whiskey isn't proposing random butchering.  He is proposing to do whatever necessary to protect his "independent nation", and I'm pretty sure he's only intending military forces as his targets, and as a weapon of last (or quite possibly first to end it quickly) resort.  I'm quite sure his intent is to end the war as fast as possible to avoid prolonged bloodshed on both sides.

That's actually quite right Sparda. In a nutshell, "Shock & Awe" sums up the idea quite nicely.

That is the position most commonly taken by people who want to commit foul acts and be protected from the repercussions. By all means, build up a massive military might and showcase it to the world to show everyone that it would be a very bad idea to attack you. But on the other side, how about as a government, dealing fairly with your own people and the international community, and not giving the world a million reasons to want you destroyed to begin with? But of course, this would drastically hinder your profitability and world domination agenda, as it would mean that you no longer simply walk into a country and take/do what you want.

Like the U.S never belonged to the British and their descendants to begin with? Like Australia never belonged to the British/Irish and their descendants to begin with? Well I'm sure you'd be quite happy to relinquish the land and home you have worked hard to purchase and keep when the Native Americans come to take what started out as the land of their ancestors up until a few centuries ago. It's only fair after all.

While the exile of the Jews from their homeland in Palestine by the Roman empire was clearly unjust, it occurred so long ago in history that there was time for a completely new civilization to rise up in that country (after other conquests as well), and make their homes and towns and way of life there. So in effect, Palestine is for the Palestinians. To say that because the ancestors of Jewish people used to govern the place, that now it is justified to remove the current civilization there by force and replace them, is preposterously ignorant and evil.

World domination? I'd hate having that job. No, what you fail to realize is that the loss of a handful of lives can easily prevent the massacre of millions. Besides, you also forget the entire basis of my opinion; that is, even if the nations of the world have a million&one reasons to destroy my country, they wouldn't dare move against it for fear of the response.

I believe the term would be "disproportionate response". What it boils down to is that the overwhelming use of force, to create the idea of "sure, we could probably all band together and wipe this country off the map, but it would cost us so much that it's simply better to let them be".

After all, a nation I controlled would be more interested in the usage of resources towards space development, in all honesty. But the creation of weapons of such power that they would render any potential attacker a non-threat would be a useful tool.

Deterrence is a powerful tool, but it only goes so far. You have to be able to back up the threat of force with force.

You fail to realize the position of Israel. You also fail to realize the facts of history; i.e., the Native Americans lost due to superior technology on the part of the US. They lost, we won. End of story.

The example of the US you provide also doesn't apply; you actually nullify it quite nicely in that you use the Jewish exile by the Roman empire (which happened nearly 2 millennia ago) to compare to the US rebellion against the British. Which was for completely different reasons BTW.

As to the position of Israel: Israel is SURROUNDED by nations that desire its downfall. Australia is not. The US is powerful enough (for the moment) that it doesn't have the same problem, all while Israel's neighbors desire for nothing more than for that nation to be destroyed. The Palestinians don't belong there. They never will. The land will always be Israeli land, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

As for your statement that me saying that makes me ignorant and evil, well, look at the human race. People ARE evil, even if they seem good. Every single human being has the capacity for evil deeds. And I'd easily say no capacity for truly "good" deeds.

As to ignorance, well, I'd expect you to be more ignorant than myself, considering the more severe censorship of your nation.

I was actually referring to the position of the U.S government. I don't presume to know exactly what type of country you would run. My point was that the idea that should be created is, "Why should we attack this country when there is so much mutual benefit between us, and there dealings with us and other nations have been fair and decent? Also, they have a big military."

As the Jews lost to the overwhelming power of the Roman Empire.

I wasn't comparing or referring to the U.S rebellion against the British, only to the U.S usurping of the rights and lands and lives of the native Americans, as was done to the Jews by the Romans. Or should we say, the Jews lost, and the Romans won, end of story? Perhaps it would be better to say that it was an atrocious act that should not be repeated, such as what Israel is doing to Palestine.

The position you are attempting to put across here is that 'Might is Right'. A very old viewpoint, but no less immoral for its age. You also seem to subconsciously ignore or deflect the causal point in any given scenario. The position of Israel is that by it's actions, it has created enemies out of not only its neighbours, but even countries and people all across the world. You say the Palestinians don't belong in Palestine and that the land will always be for Israel. You make a statement and a prediction, but then you don't actually support it with any reason.

Israel is known very well for its consistent policy of double standards. They support UN resolutions against countries they don't like, but disregard the numerous UN resolutions against them. They have a nuclear weapon arsenal, but speak and act against countries they don't like even having nuclear power, even when the IAEA inspects and finds nothing suspicious. They launch reckless attacks that kill women and children, but cry foul when a frustrated suicide bomber blows themselves up amongst civilians. They take away the lives, homes, land, freedoms and rights of a people, but claim self defense when they kill those people for resisting occupation.

In other words, weak pathetic arguments that would only settle in the psyche of mindless sheep or inherently unjust individuals.

People are evil only to the extent to which they do evil. People are good only to the extent to which they do good. No one is perfect. However, it is inherently evil to justify evil. Some people might do evil and know they shouldn't. They might even regret it, and try not to do so again. When you do evil and then say it should be so, you are typically scum.

People tend to judge others through comparison with themselves. If you believe that people are mostly evil, and none have the capacity for true good, it probably says a good deal more about your person. This is not by necessity though, just a common thing.

The ignorance I was referring to is your tendency to ignore the cause and focus on what might seem to you a necessity after the fact. In other words, don't be excessively violent, brutal, unfair, unjust, reckless, murderous, deceitful, etc., and you'll find you won't be as likely to see a need to take such drastic measures that involve bloodshed and intemperance, to counter the repercussions against your folly.

What you fail to realize is that the UN is a useless organization. There's also the problem that excessive violence isn't what I advocate, as "excessive" violence indicates an unrelenting torrent of escalating destruction.

What I advocate is disproportionate response. Ex: Nation A has a small outpost attacked by Nation B. Nation A retaliates by bombing a large number of high-value military targets within the borders of Nation B.

Do you think that Nation B is going to attack Nation A again anytime soon? I don't, because if Nation B escalates the force used, then by extension the disproportionate response that is used by Nation A will likely cripple Nation B.

The fact is that while I believe that people have unlimited capacity for evil, and nill capacity for good, I believe that God, who saves all by His grace, can instill His own righteousness in someone who accepts Christ as Lord and Saviour. Which means that that person is capable of truly good actions. A man alone cannot do good. A man who has accepted Christ can do all through Him.

By extension, I believe that the land is, and always will be, Israel's because that is the land that God has appointed for the nation (by which I really mean the PEOPLE) of Israel. Which doesn't include the Palestinians.