Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree2Thanks
  • 2 Post By BubbaJones
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 1st, 2018, 08:38 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Something Smells Rotten On The Korean Peninsula

The stench emanates from the Geneva Conventions.

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North and South Korea agreed Friday to hold military and Red Cross talks later this month on reducing tensions and resuming reunions of families separated by the 1950-53 Korean War.
Rival Koreas agree to military, Red Cross talks for peace
By KIM TONG-HYUNG , Associated Press

https://www.circa.com/story/2018/06/...alks-for-peace
QUESTION: How much sovereignty will President Trump surrender to the United Nations via the Geneva Conventions if South and North Korea make a deal? ANSWER: A lot when you realize there will be no Trump peace deal unless Kim Jong-un agrees to United Nations inspections. Any peace supervised by the United Nations is not worth one iota of lost independence.
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. Winston Churchill
Slaves to the UNIC (United Nations/International Community.)

The Koreans are not talking about the American Red Cross; so bear with me on this. I will tie the Geneva Conventions to the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) they are talking about.

For some unknown reason the Geneva Conventions are seen as humanitarian civilized rules, while most Americans look at the United Nations with contempt and hatred. In other words it would be easier to withdraw from the United Nations than it would be to renounce the Geneva Conventions. I would dump both.

The first Geneva Convention in 1864 set humanitarian treatment for soldiers wounded in battle. The Red Cross came out of the first Geneva Convention. Other than the aid supplied by the Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions have been an abject failure ignored by brutal governments while humane countries do not need them.

The human race has become more inhumane in spite of the Geneva Conventions. The tens of millions of murders totalitarian governments did to their own citizens in the last century prove my case.

TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly brutal from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864. There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view.

Prior to 1864, governments not at war concentrated on killing ambitious citizens they saw as threatening. After 1864, the GCs gained worldwide attention and respectability. During that time governments added killing everyone those in power do not like. The Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China, along with countless less-known brutal regimes have slaughtered approximately 200 million of their own citizens.

And please do not tell me that an end to war will be an end to government murders. The do-gooders who are driving the world toward a global government seem to think the brutes will admit defeat after the birth of global government. The truth is: The butchers will take control of the machinery the instant it is up and running.

Any International organization with the military muscle to enforce the Geneva Conventions is code talk for worldwide Socialism. That is exactly why Democrats always want our military to fight for Communism. If not fight alongside Communists as in WWII then at least not fight against Communism as in Korea and Vietnam. There is nothing new there. In practice, Democrats have been openly angling towards using the U.S. military as the mechanism that will enforce the Geneva Conventions under the supervision of the anti-America United Nations.

Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the 20th century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history. Mankind cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping the Geneva Conventions.

So long as the GCs remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the Geneva Conventions and see what develops. Re-institute the GCs if things are worse at the end of this century.

Here is some background about the Geneva Conventions taken from my computer almanac. There are two separate entries. The first is about the Red Cross when the Geneva Conventions were in the rudimentary stage. Note that in the beginning there was no mention of torture:


Initiative for founding the Red Cross came from the 19th-century Swiss philanthropist Jean Henri Dunant. Appalled by the almost complete lack of care for wounded soldiers, he appealed to national leaders to establish societies devoted to the aid of the wounded in wartime. Five Swiss citizens formed a committee, which later became the ICRC, and issued a call for an international conference. The first conference was held in Geneva in October 1863.
Before moving on, let me suggest that caring for the wounded in accordance with the Geneva Conventions evolved into “wounding” enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not saying the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the Geneva Conventions. Call it another example of “The highway to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Here is a brief history of the Geneva Conventions:


The Geneva Conventions are 4 international treaties governing the protection of civilians in time of war, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the care of the wounded and sick in the armed forces. The first convention, covering the sick and wounded, was concluded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1864; it was amended and expanded in 1906. A third convention, in 1929, covered prisoners of war. Outrage at the treatment of prisoners and civilians during World War II by some belligerents, notably Germany and Japan, prompted the conclusion, in August 1949, of 4 new conventions. Three of these restated and strengthened the previous conventions, and the fourth codified general principles of international law governing the treatment of civilians in wartime.

The 1949 convention for civilians provided for special safeguards for the wounded, children under 15, pregnant women, and the elderly. Discrimination was forbidden on racial, religious, national, or political grounds. Torture, collective punishment, reprisals, the unwarranted destruction of property, and the forced use of civilians for an occupier’s armed forces were also prohibited.

Also included in the new 1949 treaties was a pledge to treat prisoners humanely, feed them adequately, and deliver relief supplies to them. They were not to be forced to disclose more than minimal information.

Most countries have formally accepted all or most of the humanitarian conventions as binding. A nation is not free to withdraw its ratification of the conventions during wartime. However, there is no permanent machinery in place to apprehend, try, or punish violators.
Somewhere along the way the United Nations set itself up as the authority on the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions tell Americans how to behave while enemies ignore “International law” with impunity. Countries that signed onto the Geneva Conventions often engage in the most brutal forms of torture. Not every country is a signatory —— countries that did not sign have no “legal” obligation to comply. Proponents of the Geneva Conventions seem to be saying that America should avoid war against the non-signers. It would be wonderful if all wars were fought by gentlemen.

There is also a touch of the charity hustle in the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee for the Red Cross (not to be confused with the American Red Cross) was founded in 1863 prior to the first Geneva Convention in 1864. In a 155 years the ICRC has grown into a well-funded organization dedicated to self-aggrandizement. Committee membership is restricted to Swiss citizens. Aside from making cheese with holes in it those Swiss know a good thing when they see it.

The day the GCs will be universally enforced is a pipe dream. The Geneva Conventions is nothing more than a fairy tale told by the touchy-feely crowd. Americans dictate their own conduct in war. So long as Americans provide humane treatment to captured enemy combatants, I see no point in giving the Geneva Conventions legitimacy.

Notice how the original mandate grew:

The First Convention covered care for wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field.

The Second Convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims.

The Third Convention covered prisoners of the war.

The Fourth Convention covered civilians in times of war.

When the inevitable Fifth Convention convenes guess what will be added? You guessed right if you said enemy combatants being tried in civilian courts. It will all be made to appear that GI Joe is being protected, but the new additions will include protections for the people who give the orders as well as the people who carry them out. There will be no more War Crimes Trials where Nazi and Japanese leaders were executed by military tribunals. There will be no more hanging dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Parenthetically, I agree that the Rule of Law, rather than the GCs, should provide legal safeguards for butchers of every stripe. First give them a trial then hang them.

The New World Order crowd repeatedly invoking the Geneva Conventions at every opportunity is a scam designed to send “violators” to the U.N.’s International Criminal Court (ICC). Indeed, the first Geneva Convention is the foundation for the first tenet of International law. Regardless of all of the references to International law one hears and reads about there is no such thing. That is how it should remain.

Americans treat prisoners of war in a civilized manner. Americans can, and do, punish military personnel for cruel acts. That gives many in the world the false impression that humane treatment at the hands of Americans only exists because of the Geneva Conventions.

NOTE: Those who were punished for rough horseplay at Abu Ghraib got the shaft. The punishment did not fit the offense.

Do not confuse military personnel with intelligence community personnel and the techniques they use to get information. Even in that area it makes no sense to distrust their judgement and replace it with the judgement of global government members of Congress and MSM liberals.

WW II torture, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the executions of Americans by the enemy shows that the Geneva Conventions are as big a joke as is the U.N. Flying planes into skyscrapers in violation of the Fourth Convention is a no-no, but that did not stop it from happening.

Liberals married International law to the Geneva Conventions. Hardly a day passes without some talking head citing International law.

America should not be bound by non-existent International law. That is where Supreme Court internationalists are pushing this country. Americans will always dictate their own conduct in war. So I see no reason to give the Geneva Conventions legitimacy irrespective of what dirty little moralists wearing black robes say.

The Geneva Conventions in action


Out of the nearly 91,000 German prisoners captured in Stalingrad, only about 5,000 returned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...grad#Aftermath
Before Socialism’s defenders jump me, I know that Nazi Germany treated Soviet Communists just as badly; however, there was no excuse for killing 22,000 Polish officers. In light of the Katyn Massacre Russia’s newfound conscience offered a bit of comic relief:

In Moscow, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that the Geneva Conventions had been breached with the killing of Colonel Gaddafi.

"We have to lean on facts and international laws," Mr Lavrov said. "They say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."
Gaddafi's death breached the law, says Russia
World Reaction
By Shaun Walker in Moscow
Saturday 22 October 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-2374250.html
Finally, Colonel Saito got it right:

Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 1st, 2018, 11:41 AM   #2
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Probably the scent of the millions who died in North Korea's last drought is wafting over the border again....
GluteusMaximus is offline  
Old June 1st, 2018, 11:54 AM   #3
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,340
That is why I thank goodness Trump is negotiating with him and Not C.O.Jonesless Obama. Nor Bush or Clinton

Trump has the gonads to walk away from a bad deal.

The others are politicians that would make a deal just to make a deal and do the Little Jack Horner act
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old June 1st, 2018, 12:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,759
That's one hell of long diatribe on how much YOU hate the Geneva Conventions, the UN and the IRC. But WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA ??
Thanks from Camelot and Hollywood
BubbaJones is online now  
Old June 5th, 2018, 11:37 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
bump

Quote:
Originally Posted by flanders111 View Post
the stench emanates from the geneva conventions.

seoul, south korea (ap) — north and south korea agreed friday to hold military and red cross talks later this month on reducing tensions and resuming reunions of families separated by the 1950-53 korean war.
rival koreas agree to military, red cross talks for peace
by kim tong-hyung , associated press

https://www.circa.com/story/2018/06/...alks-for-peace
question: How much sovereignty will president trump surrender to the united nations via the geneva conventions if south and north korea make a deal? Answer: A lot when you realize there will be no trump peace deal unless kim jong-un agrees to united nations inspections. Any peace supervised by the united nations is not worth one iota of lost independence.
if you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. winston churchill
slaves to the unic (united nations/international community.)

the koreans are not talking about the american red cross; so bear with me on this. I will tie the geneva conventions to the international committee for the red cross (icrc) they are talking about.

For some unknown reason the geneva conventions are seen as humanitarian civilized rules, while most americans look at the united nations with contempt and hatred. In other words it would be easier to withdraw from the united nations than it would be to renounce the geneva conventions. I would dump both.

The first geneva convention in 1864 set humanitarian treatment for soldiers wounded in battle. The red cross came out of the first geneva convention. Other than the aid supplied by the red cross, the geneva conventions have been an abject failure ignored by brutal governments while humane countries do not need them.

The human race has become more inhumane in spite of the geneva conventions. The tens of millions of murders totalitarian governments did to their own citizens in the last century prove my case.

Totalitarian governments have become increasingly brutal from the outset of the geneva conventions in 1864. There is no evidence to support the claim that says the geneva conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view.

Prior to 1864, governments not at war concentrated on killing ambitious citizens they saw as threatening. After 1864, the gcs gained worldwide attention and respectability. During that time governments added killing everyone those in power do not like. The ottoman empire, nazi germany, the soviet union, and communist china, along with countless less-known brutal regimes have slaughtered approximately 200 million of their own citizens.

And please do not tell me that an end to war will be an end to government murders. The do-gooders who are driving the world toward a global government seem to think the brutes will admit defeat after the birth of global government. The truth is: The butchers will take control of the machinery the instant it is up and running.

Any international organization with the military muscle to enforce the geneva conventions is code talk for worldwide socialism. That is exactly why democrats always want our military to fight for communism. If not fight alongside communists as in wwii then at least not fight against communism as in korea and vietnam. There is nothing new there. In practice, democrats have been openly angling towards using the u.s. Military as the mechanism that will enforce the geneva conventions under the supervision of the anti-america united nations.

Brutality strengthened by new technology will always outpace good intentions. In the hands of the politically powerful, technology developed in the 20th century alone made it the most murderously efficient century in history. Mankind cannot possibly be worse off after scrapping the geneva conventions.

So long as the gcs remain a political force nothing else will be tried. Scrap the geneva conventions and see what develops. Re-institute the gcs if things are worse at the end of this century.

Here is some background about the geneva conventions taken from my computer almanac. There are two separate entries. The first is about the red cross when the geneva conventions were in the rudimentary stage. Note that in the beginning there was no mention of torture:


initiative for founding the red cross came from the 19th-century swiss philanthropist jean henri dunant. Appalled by the almost complete lack of care for wounded soldiers, he appealed to national leaders to establish societies devoted to the aid of the wounded in wartime. Five swiss citizens formed a committee, which later became the icrc, and issued a call for an international conference. The first conference was held in geneva in october 1863.
before moving on, let me suggest that caring for the wounded in accordance with the geneva conventions evolved into “wounding” enemy combatants. Professional soldiers in every modern army know that a wounded enemy soldier ties up more resources and manpower than does a dead enemy. I am not saying the wounded should be treated as they were treated in long-forgotten wars. I am simply pointing out one result of the geneva conventions. Call it another example of “the highway to hell is paved with good intentions.”

here is a brief history of the geneva conventions:


the geneva conventions are 4 international treaties governing the protection of civilians in time of war, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the care of the wounded and sick in the armed forces. The first convention, covering the sick and wounded, was concluded in geneva, switzerland, in 1864; it was amended and expanded in 1906. A third convention, in 1929, covered prisoners of war. Outrage at the treatment of prisoners and civilians during world war ii by some belligerents, notably germany and japan, prompted the conclusion, in august 1949, of 4 new conventions. Three of these restated and strengthened the previous conventions, and the fourth codified general principles of international law governing the treatment of civilians in wartime.

The 1949 convention for civilians provided for special safeguards for the wounded, children under 15, pregnant women, and the elderly. Discrimination was forbidden on racial, religious, national, or political grounds. Torture, collective punishment, reprisals, the unwarranted destruction of property, and the forced use of civilians for an occupier’s armed forces were also prohibited.

Also included in the new 1949 treaties was a pledge to treat prisoners humanely, feed them adequately, and deliver relief supplies to them. They were not to be forced to disclose more than minimal information.

Most countries have formally accepted all or most of the humanitarian conventions as binding. A nation is not free to withdraw its ratification of the conventions during wartime. However, there is no permanent machinery in place to apprehend, try, or punish violators.
somewhere along the way the united nations set itself up as the authority on the geneva conventions. The geneva conventions tell americans how to behave while enemies ignore “international law” with impunity. Countries that signed onto the geneva conventions often engage in the most brutal forms of torture. Not every country is a signatory —— countries that did not sign have no “legal” obligation to comply. Proponents of the geneva conventions seem to be saying that america should avoid war against the non-signers. It would be wonderful if all wars were fought by gentlemen.

There is also a touch of the charity hustle in the geneva conventions. The international committee for the red cross (not to be confused with the american red cross) was founded in 1863 prior to the first geneva convention in 1864. In a 155 years the icrc has grown into a well-funded organization dedicated to self-aggrandizement. Committee membership is restricted to swiss citizens. Aside from making cheese with holes in it those swiss know a good thing when they see it.

The day the gcs will be universally enforced is a pipe dream. The geneva conventions is nothing more than a fairy tale told by the touchy-feely crowd. Americans dictate their own conduct in war. So long as americans provide humane treatment to captured enemy combatants, i see no point in giving the geneva conventions legitimacy.

Notice how the original mandate grew:

The first convention covered care for wounded and sick members of the armed forces in the field.

The second convention covered care for the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea as well as shipwreck victims.

The third convention covered prisoners of the war.

The fourth convention covered civilians in times of war.

When the inevitable fifth convention convenes guess what will be added? You guessed right if you said enemy combatants being tried in civilian courts. It will all be made to appear that gi joe is being protected, but the new additions will include protections for the people who give the orders as well as the people who carry them out. There will be no more war crimes trials where nazi and japanese leaders were executed by military tribunals. There will be no more hanging dictators like saddam hussein.

Parenthetically, i agree that the rule of law, rather than the gcs, should provide legal safeguards for butchers of every stripe. First give them a trial then hang them.

The new world order crowd repeatedly invoking the geneva conventions at every opportunity is a scam designed to send “violators” to the u.n.’s international criminal court (icc). Indeed, the first geneva convention is the foundation for the first tenet of international law. Regardless of all of the references to international law one hears and reads about there is no such thing. That is how it should remain.

Americans treat prisoners of war in a civilized manner. Americans can, and do, punish military personnel for cruel acts. That gives many in the world the false impression that humane treatment at the hands of americans only exists because of the geneva conventions.

note: those who were punished for rough horseplay at abu ghraib got the shaft. The punishment did not fit the offense.

Do not confuse military personnel with intelligence community personnel and the techniques they use to get information. Even in that area it makes no sense to distrust their judgement and replace it with the judgement of global government members of congress and msm liberals.

Ww ii torture, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and the executions of americans by the enemy shows that the geneva conventions are as big a joke as is the u.n. Flying planes into skyscrapers in violation of the fourth convention is a no-no, but that did not stop it from happening.

Liberals married international law to the geneva conventions. Hardly a day passes without some talking head citing international law.

America should not be bound by non-existent international law. That is where supreme court internationalists are pushing this country. Americans will always dictate their own conduct in war. So i see no reason to give the geneva conventions legitimacy irrespective of what dirty little moralists wearing black robes say.

The geneva conventions in action


out of the nearly 91,000 german prisoners captured in stalingrad, only about 5,000 returned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battle...grad#aftermath
before socialism’s defenders jump me, i know that nazi germany treated soviet communists just as badly; however, there was no excuse for killing 22,000 polish officers. In light of the katyn massacre russia’s newfound conscience offered a bit of comic relief:

in moscow, foreign minister sergei lavrov said that the geneva conventions had been breached with the killing of colonel gaddafi.

"we have to lean on facts and international laws," mr lavrov said. "they say that a captured participant of an armed conflict should be treated in a certain way. And in any case, a prisoner of war should not be killed."
gaddafi's death breached the law, says russia
world reaction
by shaun walker in moscow
saturday 22 october 2011

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a-2374250.html
finally, colonel saito got it right:

Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 5th, 2018, 01:38 PM   #6
Not Fade Away
 
Peter the Roman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The heart of darkness
Posts: 567
What’s your argument here? That great powers only care about international law when it suits them? This was true then and remains true and will always be true. Not a single Air Force officer in the service any Allied country was condemned for war crimes by the indiscriminate bombing campaigns during the War, and yet those same countries threw Luftwaffe officers who did much the same thing. The only difference is that the Allied countries won the war and have the right to dictate, as conquerors, the terms of the peace.

There’s a big difference, however, between the Geneva Conventions and some of the more ludicrous aspects of the United Nations. The Geneva Conventions are mainly dealing with conduct in war, and not necessarily anything else.
Peter the Roman is offline  
Old June 5th, 2018, 02:09 PM   #7
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,340
President trump cannot surrender ANY sovereignty


the US is sovereign to no international body
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old June 5th, 2018, 03:53 PM   #8
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
President trump cannot surrender ANY sovereignty


the US is sovereign to no international body
Except Russia that is.
Camelot is offline  
Old June 6th, 2018, 12:39 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter the Roman View Post
What’s your argument here?
To Peter the Roman: I thought my argument was clear throughout the OP. If not, this alone should be enough:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENTS have become increasingly brutal from the outset of the Geneva Conventions in 1864. There is no evidence to support the claim that says the Geneva Conventions made the world a better place. There is much evidence to support the opposite view.
Incidentally, I never reported a message to moderators on any message board. Now that I want to report dozens in a foreign language I cannot find the “report” function!
Flanders111 is offline  
Old June 6th, 2018, 04:40 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
Incidentally, I never reported a message to moderators on any message board. Now that I want to report dozens in a foreign language I cannot find the “report” function!
I found the "report button" and reported them as spam.

It occurred to me that the little fat guy with the bad haircut is doing the spamming.
Flanders111 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
korean, peninsula, rotten, smells



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Rotten Apple Doesn't Fall From a Rotten Tree tristanrobin Current Events 2 October 14th, 2016 10:06 AM
McDonald's, Yum Apologize For Rotten Meat Scandal LongWinded Current Events 22 July 22nd, 2014 03:12 PM
China Boosts Naval Presence Near Korean Peninsula ilovekorea Current Events 1 March 12th, 2012 07:14 AM
North Korean missile attack on South Korean warship threatens to re ignite Korean War Martin Timothy Warfare 2 May 7th, 2010 03:42 PM
Smells like fries tyreay Environment 5 March 13th, 2007 06:42 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.