ForumGarden

The problem I have with countries going to war with each other is that people get killed. Soldiers get killed, bystanders, civilians, all sorts of people die simply because they've come between one of the countries involved and victory.

Well, not any longer. I have a cunning plan and we shall call it the ForumGarden Protocol to the Hague Convention.

It's a simple enough process. Those countries with humanitarian objections to industrialized death may sign up to the Protocol. When a war breaks out between countries who are already signatories, the new rules apply instead of the old ones. The new rule is quite simple. Ordinary criminal law applies not only during peacetime but extends for the first time to the battlefield during war. If you kill or maim one of the opposing forces or their citizenry you'll be taken by Military Police, tried, and held accountable for the offence. Be you grunt or headquarters staff you may no longer cause death or injury in the opposing camp. Conspiracy to injure will be just as illegal in war as it is in the Bronx.

Does this mean coutries won't go to war any longer? By no means. Warfare is a long-established means whereby countries settle a diplomatic impasse. What it does mean is that there will be fewer loud bangs, less call for large field hospitals, and the opportunity for go-ahead subalterns to develop winning strategies more suited to the revised treaty obligation. Just as battlefields have seen fewer and fewer drifting clouds of chlorine and mustard gas thanks to the Geneva Protocol, so now they will see fewer and fewer applications of high explosive ordnance in close proximity to human flesh.

Have we any dissenters, before I contact the appropriate War Departments?

they could also draw straws, play eenie meenie minie mo. guess a number between 1 and 50... closest one without going over wins.

spot;658114 wrote: The problem I have with countries going to war with each other is that people get killed. Soldiers get killed, bystanders, civilians, all sorts of people die simply because they've come between one of the countries involved and victory.



Well, not any longer. I have a cunning plan and we shall call it the ForumGarden Protocol to the Hague Convention.



It's a simple enough process. Those countries with humanitarian objections to industrialized death may sign up to the Protocol. When a war breaks out between countries who are already signatories, the new rules apply instead of the old ones. The new rule is quite simple. Ordinary criminal law applies not only during peacetime but extends for the first time to the battlefield during war. If you kill or maim one of the opposing forces or their citizenry you'll be taken by Military Police, tried, and held accountable for the offence. Be you grunt or headquarters staff you may no longer cause death or injury in the opposing camp. Conspiracy to injure will be just as illegal in war as it is in the Bronx.



Does this mean coutries won't go to war any longer? By no means. Warfare is a long-established means whereby countries settle a diplomatic impasse. What it does mean is that there will be fewer loud bangs, less call for large field hospitals, and the opportunity for go-ahead subalterns to develop winning strategies more suited to the revised treaty obligation. Just as battlefields have seen fewer and fewer drifting clouds of chlorine and mustard gas thanks to the Geneva Protocol, so now they will see fewer and fewer applications of high explosive ordnance in close proximity to human flesh.



Have we any dissenters, before I contact the appropriate War Departments?
Will thumb wrestling still be a legal means of settling disputes?

An alternative?

The war will be waged on a fixed field of battle in a mutually agree unpopulated area.

Any and every weapon short of chemical, biological or nuclear to be allowed.

The only cambattants allowed of the fields of war to be the politicians of the respective countries

Bryn Mawr;658257 wrote: An alternative?

The war will be waged on a fixed field of battle in a mutually agree unpopulated area.

Any and every weapon short of chemical, biological or nuclear to be allowed.

The only cambattants allowed of the fields of war to be the politicians of the respective countries


I second that

YZGI;658212 wrote: Will thumb wrestling still be a legal means of settling disputes?


:wah: :wah: :wah: :wah:

YZGI;658212 wrote: Will thumb wrestling still be a legal means of settling disputes?Anything which would not give rise to prosecution and yet might be met with of a Friday night in the Denver Nuggets, Newark NJ (than which, I understand, there is no lower dive in the New World) is allowed. War can still be hell.

Bryn Mawr;658257 wrote: An alternative?

The war will be waged on a fixed field of battle in a mutually agree unpopulated area.

Any and every weapon short of chemical, biological or nuclear to be allowed.

The only cambattants allowed of the fields of war to be the politicians of the respective countriesAh. We need an exclusion here. Impossible though it appears, I'm sure the Americans would find a way to vote the Governor of California into the White House if those terms were offered. An unlikely end for a movie actor, I hear you cry, but single combat has been his forté since birth.

Jean Claude van Damme would run for the French Presidency, Vin Diesel for that of somewhere suitably ominous in Central America. None of them, of course, would stand a chance against President Putin even with the Russian's right hand tied behind his back.

Bryn Mawr;658257 wrote: An alternative?



The war will be waged on a fixed field of battle in a mutually agree unpopulated area.



Any and every weapon short of chemical, biological or nuclear to be allowed.



The only cambattants allowed of the fields of war to be the politicians of the respective countries


I fully concur. Also the only soldiers that can take part are to be Officers, Majors and above.... Lets see then just how much they decide that this hill needs to be taken, or that valley needs defending. Oh it is so easy to wage a war when you stand on the sidelines, issuing the orders....

Reallistically, Could you imagine the total confusion that would arise? Polliticians running around, trying to hide behind sheaves of paper, berating their secretaries because they weren't told that the paper didn't stop bullets. Generals having a go at the lesser ranks because they didn't know that rifles could hit targets 800yds away... Having a pop at the lesser ranks because breakfast was a semi warm can of chicken Korma curry....Because that was all that was left in the ration pack...... OOOOOooohh I can just imagine it.... Now if this was broadcast as "fly on the wall, livetime telly, a la "big Brother"" I bet the viewing figures would be fantastic...... Not to mention the competitions that the TV companies could run.... "The last general has been shot.. Vote for the next person to be made up to General"... WOW... This could be a total cleanup on the viewing figures......:wah:

Hugh Janus wrote: The last general has been shot.. Vote for the next person to be made up to GeneralI've no more desire to see generals or politicians actually die than I have for the infantryman, stabsfeldwebel or non-commissioned cook. Eliminating deliberate death or harm from the battlefield and its environs is the aim here. You think I'm joking, but battlefield protocol changes over time just like other aspects of life. A new Protocol seems a feasible approach to eliminating the current spirit of slaughter which we deplore.

There was a time when the defeated soldiery of either side was simply slaughtered after the battle. Who would go to the expense of imprisoning them? Treaty obligations and the initial stirrings of International Law put an end to that. Bacteriological warfare became a thing of the past eventually. To seek the prohibition of deliberate killing or injury seems a reasonable step to attempt.

Here's the document, anyway. Email it to your congresspersons and members of parliament and we'll see what stirs within the seamy bowels of government.A Protocol for the Prohibition of Lethal or Permanently Disabling Force as a Method of Warfare. This English official text communicated by spot, acting junior moderator of the ForumGarden Bulletin Board. The registration of this Protocol took place July 12, 2007.

THE UNDERSIGNED PLENIPOTENTIARIES, in the name of their respective Governments, state that:

• Whereas the use in war of lethal or permanently disabling force has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world; andWhereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties; andTo the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of International Law, binding alike the conscience and the practice of nations;they consequently DECLARE:
  • That the High Contracting Parties, so far as they are not already Parties to Treaties prohibiting such use, accept this prohibition, agree to work toward extending this prohibition to include the infliction of disabling or moderate pain or distress as a method of warfare and agree to be bound as between themselves according to the terms of this declaration.The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol. Such accession will be notified to the Administrator of the ForumGarden Bulletin Board, and by the latter to all signatory and acceding Powers, and will take effect on the date of the notification by the ForumGarden Bulletin Board.The present Protocol, of which only the English text is authentic, shall be ratified as soon as possible. It shall bear today's date.The ratification of the present Protocol shall be addressed to the ForumGarden Bulletin Board, which will at once notify the deposit of such ratification to each of the signatory and acceding Powers.The instruments of ratification of and accession to the present Protocol will remain deposited in the archives of the Administrator of the ForumGarden Bulletin Board.The present Protocol will come into force for each signatory Power as from the date of deposit of its ratification, and, from that moment, each Power will be bound as regards other Powers which have already deposited their ratifications.It's so simple, drafting international treaties. I'm surprised more bulletin boards don't give it a shot.

Bumped for AF (rather unkindly, cause she hasn't a clue what I'm bumping).

I'm considering a variation to the wording of the key sentence on killing, to emphasise that the prohibition protects everyone in a battle zone so long as they're not a lethal threat in themselves. How to engage in warfare under these terms will be an interesting concept but civilized nations have managed without genocide and WMD for a while now and still got what they were after. Total war has to be reined in somehow.