War Convention: have a purpose?

[HeliArmy]

One problem I often found with global War Convention, like the Geneva Convention, is that, the basic principle of wars is going out of rules. You can't really apply rules when the whole government intended to apply it is no longer there.

Sure, the United Nations is here and have a really, really complicated task to do that job of checking and prosecuting the one who does not respect the Convention, but, can we really expect nations to respect this convention, when we're in a so bad situation you involve yourself in a costly war instead of staying back? I feel like meanwhile the idea is nice, that it can't be easily applicable, especially when you fight against some countries with horrible principles.

 

[Susimi]

It's a difficult question to ask.

I mean with have the Geneva Convention which applies rules countries should abide by, but then as you say when a war happens those rules go out of the window and I can't really see countries abiding by those rules when lets say they are being overrun by an enemy force.

"Sarge, they are about to cross the frontier. Use the cluster bombs o-...scratch that, we're not allowed to use them"

It's a rubbish analogy but I hope it puts forward what I'm trying to get at.

 

[missbishi]

I totally get your analogy @Susimi. In the realistic situation you describe, you're going to do whatever it takes to survive and protect your troops. And indeed, your country.

 

[Corzhens]

Even if the rules of war are taken lightly, I still believe that a convention on wars is still beneficial to mankind. Just the topic alone gives the delegates the idea of what war is all about. Participants have an insight not only on the politics involved but also on the use of weaponry. In short, the convention is focused on the killing so those people inside the convention room should be thinking differently than us.

 

[Redheart]

All is fair in war . . .

An attempt can be made to define the rights of civilians, prisoners of war and those who are wounded but in war all this can, and usually is disregarded because the nations fighting each other will do anything it takes to win the war. The treaties look good only on paper IMHO.

 

[HeliArmy]

Even if the rules of war are taken lightly, I still believe that a convention on wars is still beneficial to mankind. Just the topic alone gives the delegates the idea of what war is all about. Participants have an insight not only on the politics involved but also on the use of weaponry. In short, the convention is focused on the killing so those people inside the convention room should be thinking differently than us.

Meanwhile it makes the thing different, if you really want to be different, you have to find another solution than doing war. And if you want to regulate war, you want to make war look like enforcement laws, if you want to try to put fairness inside it, because law enforcement is already designed that way, after all. And it is known militaries hates the law enforcement agencies, and vice-versa. So you're going to have hard time.

All is fair in war . . .

An attempt can be made to define the rights of civilians, prisoners of war and those who are wounded but in war all this can, and usually is disregarded because the nations fighting each other will do anything it takes to win the war. The treaties look good only on paper IMHO.

The thing is, I understand some hopes and does the attempt. In reality, about Geneva Convention, there's no judges, it appears that the sanction is done straight away, but I wonder what sanction you can get.

 

[Danephy]

Conventional wars are indeed beneficial because of its straight forward rules ans such but let's take in a different context, the truth is, we cannot predict whatever will happen during wars, so technically this conventional means will be disregarded for the fact that everyone will try their best to be alive, survive and to win. People tend to do everything in their power just to protect themselves and most especially their countries, that's why these conventional means, though there are sanctions if they are disregarded, are taken lightly mostly when the war itself is happening.

 

[Redheart]

How many war crimes have the U.S and Israel committed? And they got away with it?

See the US War crimes on Iraq

US, NATO war crimes against thousands of Afghan civilians ignored - Amnesty — RT News
Apparent war crimes committed by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan have gone uninvestigated, leaving the families of thousands of the victims without justice, Amnesty International said in a new report.

How the BBC whitewashes mass murder and war crimes in Iraq

Was the U.S ever sanctioned for committing these war crimes? IMHO the UN is like a yapping puppy — all bark and no bite.