Just a few day's ago my brother in-law and I where talking he is very PC. We the topic came up about the Geneva convention and the CALF woman how was the only one to vote no.

He was trying to tell me that right now the U.S. is going braking the laws of the the Geneva convention buy using missiles on a country that can't defend themselves from it. Now I think this is funny because we dropped a $hit load of bombs in NAM and all the other war or conflicts we where in.

Next he told me the lady from Calf was a brave woman for standing up and saying and doing for what she did. He told me that the vote was for giving the president of the U.S.A. absolute power over everything and he would not have to ask anyone before he did anything.

Now I thought the vote was for if we should retaliate and/or find these guy's who did it and kick there a$$.

Now I'm not the type to argue about something unless I have some info on it so I don't look and feel like an A$$ when every they have something to prove there point. So if anyone could help me that would be great. He also thinks we should send ground troops in there because if we belive in something so much we should be willing to die for it.

First of all, the Geneva Conventions (all four of them plus earlier evolutions beginning in 1864) have nothing to do with weapons or means and methods of warfare.  They are for the protection of victims of war -- the sick and wounded, POWs and civilians.

The means and methods of warfare are regulated by the various Hague Conventions (begining in 1899) and by the customary law of war (i.e., the "common law" of the international law of war).  There is no "law" prohibiting the use of missles on personnel.  Oddly enough, there [b]is[/b] a ban on the use of high explosive antipersonnel projectiles weighing [b]less[/b] than 400 grams. So as long as the missles weigh more than a pound we're legal.  [:D]

Besides, I doubt that the Taliban regime signed any of the Hague Pacts so it really doesn't matter.  These rules only apply when all sides in a conflict agree to them.  For more information, check out the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

http://[url]http://www.sipri.se/[/url]

Is he willing to die for it? Brother-in-laws are a topic I know, I got one, complete idiot, my dog knows more about what is going on in the world. However my little sister likes him, so I put up with him. In my world he would have been cannon fodder. I find it is best to ignor them.

Steel_Rat has hit it on the head.

Geneva conventions have nothing to do with the waging of war.Print this link off and make him spend an hour making his eyes bleed with all the legaleze. [url]http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html[/url] Tell him here it is right here show me.

Edited to say I'm lucky my bro in law owns weapons and is one of my range buds.

The funniest part is that he was in the Air force for 4 years and right now he is finishing up his 4 non active years.

He has less then a year but is put on hold right now do to this conflict. He got that letter in the mail saying make sure your uniform fits and your military I'D is up to date.

I don't know if anyone else has gotten one but he did,. I'd love to see him tell people his beliefs in the military. As he told me"I would never go back in because every job you do in the military has a small part in getting someone killed."

He is right there, most of what we did was to get people killed. Thats what the militery does
"kill people and brake things". I dought I will be called back in, I am 45 and retired, but if I am, send him my way, Army not Air force and infantry not? whatever, but he will have a good first Sgt.[:D]

As the ads by the defense contractor say, "there is no section of the geneva convention titled 'unfair use of technology'".