Jump to content

Screw the Geneva


Eddo36

Should the Geneva (as a whole) be forsaken?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Geneva (as a whole) be forsaken?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      17


Recommended Posts

Yup.

 

The best way to win a war is to do so without ever firing a shot. The bloodless win is best.

 

But if you do have to fight, it must be decisive and complete, and your commitment total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're prepared to use any means, then we've already lost. The Geneva Convention exists to protect those who would perpetrate torture as much as those who might be subjected to it.

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're prepared to use any means, then we've already lost.  The Geneva Convention exists to protect those who would perpetrate torture as much as those who might be subjected to it.

 

 

Please.

 

The Geneva convention exists to mask the efforts of those who would do it behind closed doors. As was proven during the current situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Afghanistan, or Guantanamo, or extraordinary rendition in Europe. The Geneva Convention makes it harder for governments to commit abuses by forcing them to do it under the cover of secrecy and lies and shame. Or is it better to do it openly? If we're to have torture in Guantanamo, why not in the town square as well?

"An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darque is right. We live in the pretense of civility but in truth we are savages. We do torture and kill, and there is a small amount of pleasure when we do so. It doesn't matter if we do it in secret or out in the public known to all. The fact that it is done at all shows that we are just beasts, hiding behind the viel of righteousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you think that sounded really deep, but in fact, it was quite lame.

 

Anyway, it seems to me that you need to revise your definition of "civilized".

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't think anything that i type here or anywhere else as deep. In fact I don't care if it sounds deep or not. That is for others to decide. What other people think is deep or not is irrelevant to me. I just type out what I feel at the moment on the subject matter currently at hand. No more and no less.

 

As for the definition of civilized person I define it as a person who knows when to interere and when to mind his or her own business. A civilized person would act benign to others without judging or bringing harm unless it is self defense. A civilized person would seek justice if such justice is wanted by those who are victimized by others, and such justice is swift and fits the crime done without malice.

 

There is no such thing as a civilized person in this world and humans, by their very nature, will never become truly civilized.

Edited by Judge Hades
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point?

you obviously have never read the geneva convention, yet somehow you think we should be following it. a soldier is not "just a soldier" out of uniform. they need to be clearly marked that they are soldiers. duh.

 

dang hades, sometimes...

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...