Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (27123)	9/14/2001 10:59:38 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

globalpolicy.org Renew the Ambition to Impose Rules on Warfare By Cornelio Sommaruga International Herald Tribune August 12, 1999 Fifty years ago this Thursday, representatives of some 58 countries gathered in Geneva, with the ghastly memories of World War II still vivid, to place their nations' names at the bottom of a new treaty. Like the world around, this treaty, composed of four different ''conventions,'' was born of the flames of war. It reflected the growing realization that war was, unfortunately, not to be confined to the past but was lurking in the future, under many guises. There was the mounting terror of a new weapon, the atom bomb, that was to transform forever the very notion of peace. There were a number of bushfires, which would later become wars of national liberation. In the minds of those who gathered in Geneva in the summer of 1949, there was an awareness that mankind was again slipping into something terrify-ing. Thus the diplomatic conference was devoted to placing limits on war. The delegates, and the International Committee of the Red Cross as the initiator of the new Geneva conventions, understood that the causes of war and the problems of peace are best dealt with on their own. For war to be as merciful as possible - sparing noncombatants and, in particular, civilian populations - it is best if the law that governs the rules of war be distinct from all possible political considerations. This principle - the separation between causes of war and rules of war - became increasingly validated. In 1977, two additional protocols were added to the conventions to reaffirm the sanctity of civilian populations in both international and internal armed conflict. The means at the disposal of the warrior are not to be unlimited. Indiscriminate destruction is not permissible. Targeting civilians is prohibited. The environment must not suffer lasting damage. Of late, though, this fundamental principle has come under attack. Wars, or at least some of them, are now said to be fought for ''humanitarian reasons,'' meaning that one side is humanitarian and the other diabolical. This caricature of war could lead to discrimination against the victims, since there will be the ''good'' victims of the ''humanitarian'' side and the ''bad'' victims among those who oppose the ''humanitarian'' intervention. In strange and unforeseen ways, the conventions are suffering from an overdose of popularity, since it is because the world at large is so disgusted by acts of barbarity that governments and supranational bodies see it as their duty to intervene more and more to try to curb some of the more lurid atrocities that emerge here and there. The intention of the International Committee of the Red Cross is not to say that the international community should refrain from embarking on missions, including military missions, to try to counter acts of terror. The intention is to say that such endeavors must not be wolves in sheep's clothing. War remains war, and humanitarian operations must remain humanitarian missions. A victim of war is a victim of war. The rules of engagement that determine the course of each activity must not become blurred, for if they do, distrust will naturally emerge against the intentions of the humanitarian world, and that would be catastrophic. The 1949 Geneva Conventions do the job, as the saying goes. They protect the victims of war - although, it is true, they have an image problem, being acknowledged by the media only when they have been violated. It is possible to document a massacre, but rarely a massacre that did not take place. There is no doubt that the Geneva conventions are adapted to the future. There is room for improvement, however, and that is our work for the years to come. On this 50th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the essential message should remain: Even wars have limits! (Cornelio Sommaruga is President of the International Committee of the Red Cross)

To: Bill who wrote (27123)	9/14/2001 11:14:49 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

War is not without rules, nor moral considerations, nor prudential calculations. It is brutal due to exigency, but no more than must be. Bombing, or even threatening to bomb, Mecca is wrong and unwise. Only the last gasp of desperation could make it worth consideration.........

To: Bill who wrote (27123)	9/14/2001 1:01:19 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

In war, nothing is taken off the table, be it historical or religious sites like the White House, Mecca, or Bethlehem. Let's hope it doesn't ever go that far. Historical or religious sites can legitimately be targets if the enemy is launching attacks from them, but we shouldn't target them because they are important historical or religious sites, rather that should be a factor that atleast makes us slightly reluctant to attack them. And dropping nukes on millions of innocent civilians should in my opinion only be comptemplated in response to or to prevent an equivalently deadly attack. When the USSR had nukes pointed at New York and DC, we had nukes pointed at Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg, but even an attack like the destruction of the World Trade Center is not like a full scale nuclear attack. Tim