[Safe-Keeper]

I'm happy as long as they model me.

- - - - - - - - - - -

War is criminal, war is hell, war is barbaric, war is everything awful you can think of.

I again find myself utterly at a loss to understand the "war crimes happen all the time and as such are OK"-rhetoric.

In all wars the winners are the victors and the losers are the war criminals.

Sadly, yes. Until we can get a system that succeeds in punishing all war criminals, not just those of the victors, the winning side needs not fear punishment for breaking the law.

Crimes are committed on both sides, and the side that commits fewer crimes is usually the side that loses.

Even if that was true, correlation does not equal to causation.

Sure the Nazis were absolutely awful in every respect. But do realise that the Allies killed just as many civilians in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, culminating with the wholesale eradication of Hiroshima. So technically you can say that the Allies commited more crimes than the Axis and consequently they won.

The Allies, to my knowledge, did not committ more war crimes than the Axis. And it's certainly not the war crimes that won them the war.

We all know what would have been if the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands. The Hiroshima death toll would pale in comparison.

Indeed. But to state that all war crime is justified because of Hiroshima is a non-sequitur fallacy.

It should also be mentioned that the USA could perfectly well have first demonstrated the fire-power of the atomic bomb by dropping it over an unpopulated area, and then dropped the next bomb or bombs on military installations. It was, quite frankly, totally unjustified to go straight to a big city.

Fast forward thirty years after Vietnam and you have good ol' Iraq. Once again, America finds herself losing more people and staying longer in a conflict than she should since the mission is not to vanquish the enemy, rather to win "hearts and minds". Yes that vanquishing requires civilian casualties. Do you think civilian casualties were considered when Gen. LeMay planned the firebombing of Tokyo?

You truly have no understanding whatsoever as to why the people in Iraq are fighting. To think that totally disregarding civilian deaths is going to lead to an earlier peace is utter poppycock.

In conclusion, am I advocating war crimes? I an a way, yes. However, am I also advocating war? NO! My advocation of war crimes is only for the greater good of ending the conflict as soon as possible. Ironically humanity is served with far fewer deaths.

Utilitarianism and the year 2006 don't go well together in my eyes.

OK, let's assume for a second that following the rules equals a shorter fight. It's a black-and-white statement, but let's just assume it's true in this scenario. Is it then justified to go out and kill civilians if it means less soldiers will die? No, it's not. Civilians are not part of the conflict, and to kill them in order for less soldiers to be killed is just not justified.

If politicians today do not have the stomach for war crimes, than they have no business going to war in the first place. Someone should have told MR. BUSH that...

Last time I checked, Bush and his party did have the stomach for war crimes. Remember the White Phosphorous over Fallujah? Have you heard of the torture of internees at Abu Grahib, Guantánamo and whatever secret camps there are out there? Did it ever reach your ears that the very invasion of Iraq flies right in the face of the UN, International Law, and the majority of world opinion?

I'm sure Dubya needs no further encouragement to committ his heinous acts of terrorism. No worries, buddy.

The PWs were a mistake in combat, but the GC allows for mistakes too - you aren't required to check the personal ID of every man you fire upon in combat.

What a lovely philosophy.

Just as it is lawful to shoot paratroopers who jump from a burning plane, it is lawful to shoot soldiers in boats who could go into combat ashore.

Try reading the Geneva conventions before you quote them.

OK, let me make one thing very, very clear: I have no idea of where this fad of quoting non-existant Geneva Conventions rules comes from, but as an active and paying Red Cross member, I do not approve of it.

I admittedly did not know what the 'Conventions had to say on parachutists, but my buddy Google led me to http://www.genevaconventions.org/, which let me search the conventions for "parachutists". This revealed:

Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1)

Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2).

I advise you to also read what they have to say on lifeboats. You'd be surprised.

Put yourself in their place. If you were escaping a hostage situation, would appreciate it if the SWAT team gave you a chance to surrender, or would it be OK to you if they just took you out because you were a potential "Tango"? You know, "to end the hostage situation faster"?