Originally posted by spalind:
the Geneva convention has NOTHING to do with how you conduct a war...only with how you treat prisoners and unarmed /surrendering/defenseless combatents...it says nothig about the use of weapons against legitimate targets...otherwise we couldnt have firebombed Japan---which by the way killed more innocents than the two Nukes combined, nor could we have bombed the hell out of Berlin...Now who should be reading up on the Geneva convention?? Eh...don't bother...kind of a useless piece of shit anyway...the only ones who pay attention to it are the good guys...bad guys dont really care if its against the Geneva convention to hack your arm off or not...
oh--Isreal can drop them on Syria??--Damn that'd be a shame...
Russia can drop them on Chechnya??--again..what a pity...
China on Taiwan?? OK here you have a point...that would be bad...however they never will as the economic impact on china would be too bad...
Pakistan on India and vice versa?? hmm...the region is overpopulated anyway...could probly use a "downsizing" or severe natural disaster anyway seeing as their efforts at birth control have failed miserably...
You really bring up zero valid points as to why it wouldnt be more beneficial to the US to have gotten this war over swiftly and severly and therefore I have to assume that your ability to properly analyze a conflict is on par with your skills at rudimentary mathematics...
Ok, so it's the Hague Convention. FYI: dropping bombs from aircraft is also inviolation.
Previous Topic
Index
