Otis Nice Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 the point of the Geneva conventions isn't to redress at the time of war. It is to prevent certain actions during by imposing punishments at the end of the war. Remember all those Nazi's hung at the end of WWII? that was the result of the predecessors to the Geneva Conventions, the treaties of war from 1864, 1906, and 1929. Basically if you don't want to be tried and hung at the end of a conflict don't violate these things (even if you win). Most are pretty simple and meant to protect collateral damage: don't kill medical personal intentionally, don't kill surrendering troops or troops you have already captured without justification, treat your captured enemy humanely, don't purposefully kill civilians without a good reason (i.e. it's ok to drop bombs on military targets that have civilian collateral damage, but don't start targeting schools and orphanages as primary targets) ...etc... Since individuals can be tried all the way up the chain, all a country has to do is put the rules in place, and then any officers can be held personally accountable and the government to which they serve have an obligation to turn them over as well as be responsible for their actions where they were sanctioned. This is one government shooting another government's aircraft down and then a third unaffiliated faction not held to the Geneva convention killing the pilots. Other than carpet bomb the shit out of that part of Syria I can't imagine there would be much Russia could do about the death of the pilots. The downing of the aircraft on the other-hand, Turkey still has to answer for that and NATO and possibly the UN Security Council will review and determine if it was justified. I think you need to sit down and read the actual measures, or at least the wikipedia entries on it and Jus In Bello because you seem to be making some very incorrect blanket statements. Treaties on war are as old as war itself. They are often reactive rather than pro-active as nothing drives new technology like war itself. Humanity had to fight an awful bloddy "World War" with chemical weapons that wiped out the majority of Europe's population before banning chemical weapons was even considered (and then it took years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war They are not outright prohibitions on civilian casualties. I don't think you can have something like that in the theater of war. There are however provisions that deal with Genocide, red cross, doctors, etc... War is won through attrition, that is completely true. And Civilian Casualties are absolutely a part of attrition. And I don't really think there is an expectation of 100% compliance with these treaties for minor incidents - it's a conflict and shit happens, however if you do it a lot or make a policy out of it, the enforcing nations gang up on you and imprison and execute your offending officers and soldiers. I think you would be surprised at how much actually gets followed in conflicts between adhering nations, and how much muscle is flexed post conflict for nations outside the treaties where atrocities happened (Rwanda, Croatia, Serbia, etc....). Again, the treaty's only real measure of power is post conflict punishment so these things happen. However, the only way to keep the enforcing nations from collectively shitting on your head as a country is to not be the next Hitler. The problem with insurgents, people without a country, rebels, whatever you want to call them is it is very hard to punish them. They don't have land you can take away, they don't have a stake in world government that would cause their politicians to hand over their war criminals. They basically have nothing to lose - so they shoot pilots down under canopy, wipe out villages full of civilians for no military advantage, and basically do bad guy stuff. But if Germany started doing that stuff again..... You are doing it wrong. what you need to do is convince them that declaring English as an Official language is a form of socialism and then they will all back away from that position like a hot turd on a lunch counter. I mean technically it would be communism because Socalism is about about economic social ownership and democratic control of the government where as Communism is the one that talks about equality among the classes but socialism seems to be the hot button word these days. It works like this: Don't think it's communist? Then why did the USSR make Russian the "Official language" of their country and gave it priority over all other ethnic languages as a way to assimilate the populace to communism? It is a way of making everyone equal with no social status and leads to the decay of capitalism through language barrier. Let's face it - if you think English should be the official language and the US should recognize no others then you are a communist...er...I mean a socialist. There I said it. come at me bros. They will never understand that English predominance in this country is one of the many way in which we have adopted a form of institutionalized discrimination - I mean I agree with you Orion 100% but it's a hard sell to people who have bough a pretty shitty political party line of God, Guns, and Guts and don't understand how those three things might actually be in opposition. no...a silly proposal requires an equally silly response. I could accuse you of trolling but somehow I don't think you see an "official" language as nearly as silly an idea as I find it. Plus I actually have history on my side where as so far the only argument I have seen in support here is that it inconveniences the ancestors of an immigrant people who committed genocide against the non-English speakers who were already inhabiting this land. What I mean is...is it actually trolling if I am right that standardization of language has been used by fascists, communists, and corrupt politicians to discriminate against a population in their own countries for thousands of years (500bc if we are using Darius the great as the benchmark) under the false guise of equality? How about we look at it another way in the Language of the modern conservative: FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!! remember what that means? no let me help: "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom or in other words "the right to do what you want". Want to be a "Christian" we have "Freedom of religion" that prevents there from ever being an "official" religion, so you can pray to Christ, or Buddha, or a spaghetti monster, or an abstract theory of time and physical space being a singular point in an otherwise infinite paradigm.....wait sorry I lost you there...where was I? Oh yes FREEDOM!!!!!! Freedom of speech in this country isn't just restricted to content, it includes thing like foreign languages so guess what - my ability to speak Spanish, or French, or Konkani from an obscure village in the western part of India cannot be interfered with by the federal government. I mean, it can't be that hard to understand that by restricting to an "official language" you defacto discriminate against anybody who doesn't speak it - right? That is not freedom of speech - that is penalizing people for exactly their speech and expression. It's unconstitutional. How about this: If you think the US should have an Official Language then you hate freedom. And hating freedom is Un-American. 'Merica Fuck Yeah!!!! http://i.imgur.com/YOYDXEY.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Um...? You must be trolling just to troll now... -Marc English = Merica' But back to Turkey... Seems Vlad is getting antsy via the AP's latest reports... Good to see him speaking out about our great peace keeper in chief for supplying weapons and resources to ISIS, and paying mercs' via channels in the middle east...Lol but here I thought those memes floating around pointed out Reagan was the only r-tard (republican=r duh) who would create the terrorists and supply them... Geeto - I guess I came across as too jingoistic, and maybe read into DJ's post in the wrong manner. Your points are clear, but I look it as more of a market freedom, setting equilibrium of trading, like the dollar. I guess maybe just knowing the market in the USA's language trading corridor is English is fair enough, it can get tugged and pulled on and we can see what happens. It would appear that we get press two for Spanish so far. Additionally we are no more the vikings essentially... so forth and so on, so blame the Europeans for our short comings...well then blame the people before them, and them and we should find our way to volcanic lava bacteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 we can talk about your illiteracy problem later yenner. Aren't we supposed to be talking about jets and thanksgiving turkey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyctsv Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Wow this thread took a stupid turn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 English = white upper and middle class Merica' (because Ebonics, Spanglish, and Appalachian English (Redneck talk) wouldn't be considered "real" english) Fixed it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted December 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Fixed it for you. Appalachian would be hillbilly...not redneck. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 http://news.yahoo.com/russia-building-military-bases-islands-claimed-japan-134635651.html Russia is swinging their dick at will because they know the U.S. or the rest of the world really won't do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHIEF Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Like the great Colonel Sanders once said ; "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Appalachian would be hillbilly...not redneck. Just sayin'. you are right, but there really isn't an over-arching term for language spoken by poor white other than the regional names (hillbilly, redneck, whisky tango, etc...) also it sounds funnier. Point is if a person thinks American should have an official language they are a socialist/fascist/communist who hates the first amendment of the constitution, the constitution in general, freedom, bald eagles, apple pie, mom, Chevrolet, the American flag, and Jesus. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-building-military-bases-islands-claimed-japan-134635651.html Russia is swinging their dick at will because they know the U.S. or the rest of the world really won't do anything. So, here is the thing I wonder about - is Russia really considered a "threat" in this modern age? I remember as a kid when the cold war ended it was widely reported that less than a 1/3 of Russia's arsenal was actually operational during the cold war, and that hurt their credibility as a world military power a lot. I get the Putin is a relic of the cold war himself and a lot of this echos the old saber rattling of the 1960's-1980's but really, are NATO forces not doing anything because there really is a complex power struggle here or do they just know that Russia is a paper tiger and they are just letting Putin dig his own grave so to speak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I honestly think that the right play here might be to just go ahead and LET Putin destroy a lot of things in the middle east and earn the ire of the terrorist groups. If they shift their focus to him and Russia, it's a win for NATO, right? I mean, I wouldn't recommend taking the pressure off of those groups from our side, but perhaps try and be a bit more subtle about it. It's almost like we "tagged" Russia in, so they can fight for a bit. (Off the cuff evaluation. Might be WAY off base, have not invested much time in researching the current situation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 I honestly think that the right play here might be to just go ahead and LET Putin destroy a lot of things in the middle east and earn the ire of the terrorist groups. If they shift their focus to him and Russia, it's a win for NATO, right? I mean, I wouldn't recommend taking the pressure off of those groups from our side, but perhaps try and be a bit more subtle about it. It's almost like we "tagged" Russia in, so they can fight for a bit. (Off the cuff evaluation. Might be WAY off base, have not invested much time in researching the current situation) best thing I read in this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis Nice Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 we can talk about your illiteracy problem later yenner. Aren't we supposed to be talking about jets and thanksgiving turkey? http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/7/8/20/anigif_enhanced-buzz-22687-1373328958-15.gif 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.