Just a brief war-related rant
As an organised procrastination activity today, I was reading up briefly on the Geneva convention, my interest in which was piqued yesterday during watching "Kelly's Heroes", which was coincidentally another organised procrastination activity.
The scene which incited me to briefly research said convention involves Clint Eastwood, in cold-as-ice, hard-as-stone, emotionless-as-both-of-these-and-for-that-matter-any-other-non-human-entities mode (unlike all his other acting roles PS I love you Clint) interrogating a German colonel who has been taken hostage, the latter of which frequently asserts "Under the Geneva convention-" before he is cut off by Clint saying some really cool, really tough one-liner only without wearing a poncho and talking to Mexican bandits, which is usually the context of such dialogue.
Anyway, reading up on it, it really makes me think about how stupid war really is. I mean they set down these guidelines so that people don't 'mistreat' prisoners of war, or in some circumstances don't even take prisoners of war at all, and all such drivel. But the fact is, when these guidelines are broken, what difference does it make? One side won't go to the other and say "Hey, that was really shitty how you applied thumbscrews to all our boys until they kissed each other. I think I'm going to give you a right jolly spanking for that"
I mean that's what warcrimes are about right? But what's a warcrime anyway? I mean as far as I understand it, the rules of war are:
1) You need at least two parties
2) Said two parties must disagree on at least one issue (He stole my cupcake, he assassinated the Arch-Duke of Austral-Hungary eg.)
3) Said two parties must then proceed to try and kill as many of the opposing party as possible.
Now given that the point of this game is to kill and debilitate the opposition as much as possible, realistically who gives a shit about added subrules like those imposed by the Convention? I mean, if I were a Nazi colonel and I had an American intelligence officer in captivity, I wouldn't think "Hmm, I'd really love to know when the next invasion is planned, but oh damn I can't torture him or get him drunk, that wouldn't be playing fair. And then America might not invite me to their next birthday party, and call me a smellypants in the playground". No, I'd strap them down and beat the crap out of them until I knew absolutely everything, including what colour underwear the head of the joint chiefs of staff was wearing... But then maybe that's just me.
I mean realistically all I'm saying is it's just a stupid concept, war in general. In essence all it is is just a bunch of people trying to kill each other. But it's synthesised into this structured, glorified, and almost civilised concept - we can't just have people running around killing each other whenever a conflict arises? No, that would be childish and illegal. Instead, let's set up these guidelines and structures and tactics so we can kill as many people as we want and claim it as justified.
Mah, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe I should just sit on a beanbag and play the bongos, everything else seems freaky and how now, brown bureaucratic to me...
The scene which incited me to briefly research said convention involves Clint Eastwood, in cold-as-ice, hard-as-stone, emotionless-as-both-of-these-and-for-that-matter-any-other-non-human-entities mode (unlike all his other acting roles PS I love you Clint) interrogating a German colonel who has been taken hostage, the latter of which frequently asserts "Under the Geneva convention-" before he is cut off by Clint saying some really cool, really tough one-liner only without wearing a poncho and talking to Mexican bandits, which is usually the context of such dialogue.
Anyway, reading up on it, it really makes me think about how stupid war really is. I mean they set down these guidelines so that people don't 'mistreat' prisoners of war, or in some circumstances don't even take prisoners of war at all, and all such drivel. But the fact is, when these guidelines are broken, what difference does it make? One side won't go to the other and say "Hey, that was really shitty how you applied thumbscrews to all our boys until they kissed each other. I think I'm going to give you a right jolly spanking for that"
I mean that's what warcrimes are about right? But what's a warcrime anyway? I mean as far as I understand it, the rules of war are:
1) You need at least two parties
2) Said two parties must disagree on at least one issue (He stole my cupcake, he assassinated the Arch-Duke of Austral-Hungary eg.)
3) Said two parties must then proceed to try and kill as many of the opposing party as possible.
Now given that the point of this game is to kill and debilitate the opposition as much as possible, realistically who gives a shit about added subrules like those imposed by the Convention? I mean, if I were a Nazi colonel and I had an American intelligence officer in captivity, I wouldn't think "Hmm, I'd really love to know when the next invasion is planned, but oh damn I can't torture him or get him drunk, that wouldn't be playing fair. And then America might not invite me to their next birthday party, and call me a smellypants in the playground". No, I'd strap them down and beat the crap out of them until I knew absolutely everything, including what colour underwear the head of the joint chiefs of staff was wearing... But then maybe that's just me.
I mean realistically all I'm saying is it's just a stupid concept, war in general. In essence all it is is just a bunch of people trying to kill each other. But it's synthesised into this structured, glorified, and almost civilised concept - we can't just have people running around killing each other whenever a conflict arises? No, that would be childish and illegal. Instead, let's set up these guidelines and structures and tactics so we can kill as many people as we want and claim it as justified.
Mah, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe I should just sit on a beanbag and play the bongos, everything else seems freaky and how now, brown bureaucratic to me...
posted by Sean's Beard at 3:02 PM
8 Comments:
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
Oh, you are so right.
The idea of "war-crimes" is a joke, when the idea of war is to commit as much murder as possible. Everything is a war crime, no matter how much they try to civilize the art of war.
That guy who tried to place his local member under citizen's arrest for war crimes had it right. If my local member wasn't a cuddly leftie, dreadlock-smoking, bongo wearing, peaced-out bureaunik I'd be arresting him too.
On other hand, if people are going to be shooting at you, at least there are rules that say that they didn't ought to torture you as well. Less torture is always good.
yay for less torture! the geneva convention has its good points after all...
Somewhat unrelated, but did anyone watch "Truth, Lies and Intelligence" on SBS tonight? It was a really fascinating look at the reasons behind the war in Iraq.
It included a great interview with Andrew Wilkie, too. Man, he's a champ.
Nup, I only watch the dodgy, shameful shows where I must know what happens next, during Stuvac. And then I ritually feel guilty about them, but don't actually feel guilty or stop.
...plus you don't get sbs reception. damn, what a shame etc.
Why watch SBS when you've got a really cool American version of The Office to enjoy on Channel Advert.
Post a Comment
<< Home