Game Theory - Call of Duty: Modern War Crimes
Are the heroes in the Call of Duty franchise really war criminals? The Red Cross seems to think so and they want them tried for their crimes. Should they be?
angry beaver theme, tcikovsky 1812 overture. yay quizbowl!
Weren't Price and the rest of 141 disavowed therefore separating them from their countries ties to the Geneva Convention and giving them free reign to operate as an independent military power? Food for thought.
No, USA still applies to the Geneva conventions, but when they get a victory they get to decide whether they have to court martial or not, and if they do they get to select who is court martialed. However there has been a international organization working against this idea that you decide about the geneva conventions applying to certain soldier if you win, however the USA has not joined that. The USA still works in the Geneva conventions but when they win they technically dont HAVE to courtmartial anyone, they still dont use outlawed weapons etc. So technically we do, but we always win so we technically never HAVE to court martial anyone. Though all the gas bombs, nukes, etc. are still completely illegal.
but I thought he said that the US didn't have to apply to ghe Geneva conventinos?
The Geneva conventions are international, it applies to ALL countries, not just the USA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Captin Price from England? So wouldn't he have to apply to the Geneva Convention?
Again, American favoritism at play. Plus trying American soldiers was a much less issue back then since it was mainly POLITICS at play at the time, as well as less broader means of information sharing. Today, the War on Terror involves RELIGION, something FAR more touchy than mere politics, and there's the internet as well.
at 3:35 the song is the angry beavers theme song
Well, even though MW1 was good, MW2 was bad and MW3 sucked balls.
wait, we didn't win the vietnam war, though.... :/
In the latter half of the "Call of Duty's Greatest War Crimes", wouldn't those be more considered as acts of terrorism from an ultranationalist party or organization rather than a country as a whole?
and it may very well be a no no in your military, BUT, not due to the Geneva conventions. an example of this is the use of Land mines. they are frowned upon, and there is a convention on them, limiting what type to use. Canada and several other nations signed the Ottawa Treaty. To quote Wiki( Yah i know wiki) "The Ottawa Treaty or the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, officially known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, aims at eliminating anti-personnel landmines (AP-mines) around the world. As of September 2011, there were 159 States Parties to the treaty. Two states have signed but not ratified while 35 UN states are non-signatories, making a total of 37 United Nations states not party." So, in Canada Land Mines are not to be used, but its not exactly strictly forbidden. we just choose that extra limitation placed upon us. I tried that survey link you sent, but the answer page didn't show up =[. and again, always good to meet a fellow serviceman =]. Have a friend who just remusterd to MP
I did not know that Canada was also using .50 BMG sniper rifles. As for Brazil and Argentina (last I checked) it was a big no no. I'm a Military Cop (soo I can use .50 in service nor outside it). Rules of engagement allows us .338, even shooting on site with deadly force suspect (yeah I know seens excessive for a cop to do that, but we can). Last time I talked to my Maj. (I'll ask him again) .50 were considered use of excessive force against infantry. Also I'm not such a vet in military. I only have 4 years wich 3 are of academy.
I am Canadian Military Actually,and we too use a .50 Cal sniper, (and machine guns) and we are signatories of the Geneva convention. Two things to consider. 1) generally war crimes are determined by the victor. By that i mean the Victor of a conflict is generally the body that initiates the war crimes, and rarely in the past would they persecute their own. and 2) there is no mention of caliber size (though it states on ammunition type such as expanding and exploding munitions) in the Geneva conventions. you could make an argument that the weapon is excessive in its damage to a human, but again you would have burden of proof where the person or nation firing said weapon can justify it by saying (it was the only round at the time to end the engagement at a distance safe enough to ensure the safety of their patrol, sniper team, brigade, whatever) and that would be enough. So its one that could be caught under the umbrella of the Geneva conventions, but no, it does not specifically state it is against the Geneva convention, hence why many states use it. and actually yes i did know, bloody brit took the crown from us canucks =p
You are problably american sooo you think it's legal to use .50 cal. Americans use a different term of rules of engagement. Countries signataries of the geneva convention can not use it. Take this quiz http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/quiz.html and read this forum http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread153728/pg2 The only condition when using .50 bmg is allowed it to fire against someone who is at concealment or covering in an armored vehicle or a wall. Of course if you are american (by that I mean serving a military american branch) you can use it in a sniper rifle. Just out of pure curiosity did you know that the .338 Lapua Magnum round has the world record for longest shot fire with confirmed kill in a war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills Making you questioning how really effective is the .50 cal sniper rifle. They are heavy, very heavy. Yet they fail to impress against .338. Another note did you see the barret .50 cal on the list?! Once right?! Yeah CoD likes weapons in a very strange way (more aestethic than factual).
no worries. always good to meet another serviceman. next up, the issuing of nerf weaponry o_O
Sweet, yeah bro I have a M9 bayonet since the 03 invasion and I can't sharpen it anyways, I have butter knives that are sharper I guess is just for stabbing. Either way I apology for thinking you were wrong about the ma deuce. Either way most rules in the Geneva and other war rules are pretty oxymoronic unnecessary suffering can be caused even by .22 round which is one of the smallest round. Other than fighting with balloons you will cause suffering regardless.
None taken, i myself have 10 years in and my bayonet has an edge as issued to me. the closes hing you will find in the conventions is "which prohibits superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering." And it would take one hell of an argument to convince someone that a sharpened edge causes undue suffering vice a blunt edge. that said, it does not specifically mention serrated edges or even triangular spikes, but an argument could be made that it can cause undue suffering, while not really providing a necessity or use outside of causing grievous bodily harm. and for the record i did not say .50 cal was not anti-personnel,i agreed with you that it is. The .50 cal thing is another myth
these fps's as a whole make me and bob do a sad pinky for impact on gaming culture :c ........