How does /k/ feel about the Geneva Conventions. What about the Hague Protocols?
>>29773572
Considering that we haven't fought anyone who followed them in sixty years, they are currently more of a burden than a protection.
The idea that dropping a 155mm shell on a man is just while shooting him with a spire point bullet is poor form strikes me as somewhat divorced from reality.
>>29773572
as long as the enemy follows them, fine by me. if not, oh well... get the spark plugs!
>war
>rules
Pick one
I completely support them. They separate us from our enemies which we are better than. Then again, Uncle Sam has brainwashed ROE and shit into me so I'm biased.
>>29773572
>war
>rules
It's dumb and we should never have signed it. Life would be so much easier if we could just gas the sand niggers.
Should probably only be followed against enemies that have also ratified them.
>>29773572
There are no rules in a war anyone thinking otherwise is stupid.
>>29776780
Thats just the point. The rules are to be used by parties that signed the documents. Both of them. If only one side did, fuck em, go all out.
>>29773572
They're fine since they only apply to parties that signed them. However, I find the Hague convention ban on softpoints and hollowpoints stupid
>>29773618
>>29775547
>>29775760
>>29776782
>>29773618
We fought them because they weren't following them. Wouldn't have had the ok without it
>>29777601
Don't you have children to strap bombs to Ahmed?
>>29773572
I think this is something many don't understand about non-interventionists (re: lolbertarians). War is a last resort but when it is necessary...fuck the rules. Win through attrition, spoils of war, all the shit that made war terrible will be back.
>>29775760
We already could since they're not a uniformed army.
>>29777627
>>29775760
>we should never had signed them
>we
kys
