Screw the Geneva

[Eddo36]

Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule

The Pentagon's move to omit a ban on prisoner humiliation from the basic guide to soldier conduct faces strong State Dept. opposition.

By Julian E. Barnes

Times Staff Writer

 

June 5, 2006

 

WASHINGTON

[Judge Hades]

Yes, we should follow the Geneva Convention. If we resort to the tactics of terrorists, then that is what we will become.

[alanschu]

Weren't you all about "killing them all?" Preferrably with weapons that have prefixes before "-tons?"

[Judge Hades]

Alan, you seem to forget that I have multiple whims that are in constant battlle.

[LoneWolf16]

Isn't this sort of self defeating...a little bit?

[Judge Hades]

Humans killing and maltreating other humans. Of course it is self defeating. Its our design flaw.

[LoneWolf16]

Not what I meant, but I won't deny that. It's our one inherent flaw, that being the ability, and seemingly primary purpose, to harm one another.

 

Then again, we've also the capacity for startlingly compassionate, kind acts as well......so is the flaw not that we're capable of atrocity, but that we're capable of extremes?

 

 

 

...I have no clue what I'm talking about, but I meant that it's sort of self-defeating when you give a country nuclear technology when you're trying to prevent them from acquiring the means to create weaponry with that very same technology. We're basically going to give them years of research for free, giving them a giant leap toward that dream of nuclear arms...if that's the road they're going down.

 

Then again.....nukes are pretty much useless, since, if even one of those damn things gets fired, you can bet that hundreds more will be airborne within the hour, from all over the world...instant-armageddon and a few more species to tack onto that endangered list (If we're lucky. At worst, we'd be as good as extinct.).

 

Unless you've got a death wish, you don't push that shiny button. Which is why there's cause for concern with these religious types...they think there will be a nice big reward waiting for them once they purge the world of the "infidels".

Edited June 8, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Judge Hades]

Religion: Mankind's stupidest invention.

[213374U]

Humans killing and maltreating other humans.  Of course it is self defeating.  Its our design flaw.

Warfare has been one of the most important drives of progress throughout history, if not the single most important one. So, no. Sorry, but it's not self-defeating at all.

 

Yeah, I know it's not pretty. But you know the alternative.

 

 

Then again.....nukes are pretty much useless, since, if even one of those damn things gets fired, you can bet that hundreds more will be airborne within the hour, from all over the world...instant-armageddon and a few more species to tack onto that endangered list (If we're lucky. At worst, we'd be as good as extinct.).

Not really. The chances of a nuclear power using nuclear ordnance against another nuclear power have been diminishing steadily since the end of the Cold War... and that's all that matters.

[alanschu]

If everybody had nukes, would there be wars?

[Judge Hades]

What have we really achieved number man? More efficient ways to kill ourselves and destroying the environment. That is pretty much it. There are days that I think it would have been better if we never climbed out of the trees and learned to stand up right.

[LoneWolf16]

Then again.....nukes are pretty much useless, since, if even one of those damn things gets fired, you can bet that hundreds more will be airborne within the hour, from all over the world...instant-armageddon and a few more species to tack onto that endangered list (If we're lucky. At worst, we'd be as good as extinct.).

Not really. The chances of a nuclear power using nuclear ordnance against another nuclear power have been diminishing steadily since the end of the Cold War... and that's all that matters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sort of what I meant. It's diminishing because for a country to fire the things with the intent to kill, as opposed to testing out in the ocean or something, is sort of akin to a death sentence...what with national disapproval, declarations of war, nukes being fired at them, sanctions, diplomatic and economic isolation.......or maybe I'm thinking the world would react differently than it actually would.

[213374U]

What have we really achieved number man?  More efficient ways to kill ourselves and destroying the environment.  That is pretty much it.  There are days that I think it would have been better if we never climbed out of the trees and learned to stand up right.

You are welcome to go live under a rock if you hate mankind and society so much. You wouldn't be the first.

 

Denying progress is as realistic as denying gravity.

[LoneWolf16]

What have we really achieved number man?  More efficient ways to kill ourselves and destroying the environment.  That is pretty much it.  There are days that I think it would have been better if we never climbed out of the trees and learned to stand up right.

You are welcome to go live under a rock if you hate mankind and society so much. You wouldn't be the first.

 

Denying progress is as realistic as denying gravity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only slightly more futile.

[213374U]

Sort of what I meant. It's diminishing because for a country to fire the things with the intent to kill, as opposed to testing out in the ocean or something, is sort of akin to a death sentence...what with national disapproval, declarations of war, nukes being fired at them, sanctions, diplomatic and economic isolation.......or maybe I'm thinking the world would react differently than it actually would.

All you need to do is get the wheels of the media machine rolling, and you can pull just about anything.

 

Declaring war on a nuclear power or isolating it economically is suicide either way, what with global economy and all. No nuclear power would start a nuclear war because a third party had been glassed, either. That's what the UN is for, you know.

 

Also, what do you need nukes for? Thermobaric weapons can deliver similar yields to that of small nuclear devices without the nasty radiation and added negative publicity, so...

[LoneWolf16]

Answered my question. I am thinking they'd react differently.

 

Call it naivety, hopefulness...or, you know, ignorance.

[Judge Hades]

Denying progress is as realistic as denying gravity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just don't see it as real progress. If we achieved real progress war wouldn't be a necessity.

[alanschu]

Well, you don't mind using a tool that was created in large part from military funding (the Internet).

 

Does nothing good come from the Internet?

Edited June 8, 2006 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

No, not really.

[LoneWolf16]

Porn! (w00t)

[alanschu]

No, not really.

 

You can't even think of one good use of the Internet?

 

 

Nothing useful coming from SONAR? RADAR? Jet/Rocket Technology?

 

Not even in fields that weren't necessarily invented as a direct result of the military but still influenced, such as computers, metallurgy, chemistry (the understanding of it). Or technical processes such as interchangeable parts (originally designed to make the creation of firearms simpler), but now is used in pretty much everything.

 

You'd rather the computer you use be created uniquely, from scratch? Or that EKG heart monitor? So that if there's a problem, you have to get the original maker to either fix it, or replace it altogether?

[213374U]

I just don't see it as real progress.  If we achieved real progress war wouldn't be a necessity.

Well, you don't see it as real progress, but billions of people do, including some folks much smarter than yourself.

 

Chances are, you are just bitter.

[Azarkon]

Billions of people forget that they live in a passing moment of enlightenment within eons of ignorance. People born today cannot possibly comprehend just how miraculous civilization is: humans have been on this earth for dozens of times longer than the length of recorded history. Civilization is hardly inevitable, and progress, if not treated with care, can easily lead humanity back into the stone ages..

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, not war. When a people is threatened with extinction, they will innovate. But the next great threat will not come from an outside enemy. That's my guess.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Azarkon

[Judge Hades]

Chances are, you are just bitter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, pretty much.

[213374U]

Billions of people forget that they live in a passing moment of enlightenment within eons of ignorance.  People born today cannot possibly comprehend just how miraculous civilization is: humans have been on this earth for dozens of times longer than the length of recorded history.  Civilization is hardly inevitable, and progress, if not treated with care, can easily lead humanity back into the stone ages.

Civilization predates recorded history, as the roots of civilization are usually assumed to be the discovery and spread of agriculture, about 11,000 years ago. We've enjoyed a rather steady rythm of progress ever since. I'd hardly call that "passing". And while nuclear warfare can most certainly set us back several hundred years (provided mankind is not outright annihilated) it is just not too likely. Fear of what the future may bring is no reason to halt or slow progress down, either.

 

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, not war.  When a people is threatened with extinction, they will innovate.

Yeah, yeah. And gravity isn't the reason why stuff falls down. It's Earth's mass that causes that effect. The point is that warfare has always been the most demanding factor for human creativity. War creates the greatest necessities, as failure to put up with those necessities means death.