The problem is, what constitutes a "war crime" and a "crime against humanity".

Because, to tell you the truth, I really see nothing about war that could be called a war crime. Whether the application of debilitating torture techniques on POWs, chemical warfare, or even nuclear weapons deployment, none of it is nice.

The problem with the idea of war crimes is that somewhere along the line, people decided that there should be some kind of honorable action in war. War itself is a nasty business. The reasons and motivations for warfare can very well be honorable, but the action(s) of warfare are not pretty, and they never will be.

What he said.

And war as a means of propaganda, which it most certainly has been in modern times, is terrorism.  The US has not engaged in a true war since the Civil War.

BTW I think this a great topic of discussion for supposed "Pearl Harbor Day."  Just another false flag op by the good old US of A.

Again, just words. The focus should be on the meaning. The U.S government takes part in unjustified killing, torture, rights deprivation, etc., or if you like, a whole bunch of very bad naughty things that they don't actually need to do to protect their country. In actuality, the actions of the government tends to create ever increasing animosity against them, fueling the fires of hate, vengeance and terrorism, thereby placing their soldiers, people and country in dangers of their own making. The wars themselves are unjustified, and so all actions in said wars are a crime.

Even if the initiation of a war is justified, there is still such a thing as excess or unnecessary violence and killing. The Iraq war is a good example of soldiers and operatives doing things that are well outside the parameters of what they are allegedly there for. There is just so much unnecessary evil that the U.S government is partisan to, that to defend their actions as a whole and to defend the confidentiality of their indiscretions becomes a very dangerous form of extremism.

You bring a very good point that I would like to bring up. There are justified wars, unjustified wars, formally declared wars, and informally declared wars. But in the end wouldn't you say it doesn't really matter? It's all wrong? Whether a war is justified or not, war is war. You can have a completely justified war where two nations are using chemical weapons and radioactive armaments, and you can have an unjustified war where two nations are using conventional equipment to achieve their goals. War is wrong, not matter how you look at it. The scale of it as well can be incomprehensible. While I do agree that the validity of wars should be present, it really matters nil to the big equation. War is always wrong. "If war breaks out, then both parties are at fault." (though obviously this is not always the case) 

There's a difference between something that's right and something wrong. I find it hard to believe that you would say that war is not wrong. The truth is war is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. I have no problem going to war; it's human nature and sometimes is the only course of action available. But i'm also aware that it's never right. But just because a war is wrong, doesn't mean it can't be just.

About the Geneva Convention; when or if a large-scale war breaks out between major powers i'll be very surprised if any of the nations involved actually follow those rules.

I believe that's called "irony".

It is a nastier weapon than just outright killing the poor bastard since it causes painful and probably mortal internal injuries which means he dies slowly, which is the ironic part since weapons that would just kill the s.o.b. quickly are banned as being too harmful.

I really doubt dictating what ammunition weapons should use is the intent of the treaty. Napalm, chemical weapons, etc aren't outlawed because they're "too effective" or whatever, but because they're very likely to cause civilian casualties.

In any case, whether or not countries follow the Conventions or not, or the consequences of their choices, is a tangent. I posted it in response to the statement that you can't define what a war crime is, which is quite obviously incorrect since the treaty provides a valid legal definition of a war crime.

People have been successfully tried for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Obviously there aren't an overwhelming amount of cases, and not all breaches of the treaty are war crimes. 

The US was/is on a slippery slope. After news broke of prisoner torture and such, they tried to make a case that the prisoners are "unlawful combatants" since they're not part of an official military force of a country. So regardless of whether or not you think the Geneva Conventions matter or whether or not you'd follow them if you were a dictator of your own country, they do apply in the real world.

Even the US, for all its military technology, would not be stupid enough to commit a blatant war crime, no matter how scared it makes other countries. They don't have to go to war with the US, we're so dependent on foreign trade that all they have to do is cut that off.

Here's a news article on the more practical application of the Conventions: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html

I think I understand what Luciela means by 'war is wrong'. Basically meaning to say that war is not a good thing for either side involved, as it causes loss of human life and often mass destruction of infrastructure, leading to reduced prosperity and stifled advancement towards a better quality of life.

But, to take a real life example, let's examine the situation in Palestine. It was occupied by the British forces, who were put under pressure by governments such as the U.S to cede the land to the Jewish people. The British government then hand-balled the responsibility over to the U.N (who didn't want to assume it all), and the U.N voted on a specific partitioning of Palestine between the Palestinians and the Jewish people. All of this occurred without consulting the Palestinian people. The proposed U.N partitioning never actually took effect, because, as any sensible person might expect, the Palestinians immediately began a resistance against the usurping of their lands and country, and war broke out.

Now, most any patriotic person when asked, 'Would you fight against the invasion and occupation of your country?' would respond in the affirmative. Most any reasonable person in the world when asked 'Would you find this reason for resistance justified?' would answer yes. But despite this basic right of defense and resistance, fast track forward to today and see how many lives have been taken on both sides so far, how many people were seriously or cripplingly injured, how many people had their homes or property damaged or destroyed or taken, how many people have had their rights stripped from them, how many people have had to live in fear, and how many people have had their quality of life drastically diminished.

The salient point here is that even a war that has a justified party is still a horrible hell. There is a verse that says 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and the instigator is the guilty party.' This I think should be a serious consideration when trying to account for responsibility of criminal actions in warfare.

It does appear though that Whiskey144 is treating this issue like he would any 4X civ-style strategy game where he is in the position of the dictator or ruler, rather than looking to the humaneness, fairness or justice in these scenarios. I don't know how serious he's being (he might just be having a laugh), but I recommend to anyone to look at these situations with the consideration of how they would like to be treated, and the quality of life, safety and security they would like to have in their own country. Then you can consider how you would feel on the other side of a butchering policy that you would otherwise support.

Whiskey isn't proposing random butchering.  He is proposing to do whatever necessary to protect his "independent nation", and I'm pretty sure he's only intending military forces as his targets, and as a weapon of last (or quite possibly first to end it quickly) resort.  I'm quite sure his intent is to end the war as fast as possible to avoid prolonged bloodshed on both sides.

That is the position most commonly taken by people who want to commit foul acts and be protected from the repercussions. By all means, build up a massive military might and showcase it to the world to show everyone that it would be a very bad idea to attack you. But on the other side, how about as a government, dealing fairly with your own people and the international community, and not giving the world a million reasons to want you destroyed to begin with? But of course, this would drastically hinder your profitability and world domination agenda, as it would mean that you no longer simply walk into a country and take/do what you want.

Like the U.S never belonged to the British and their descendants to begin with? Like Australia never belonged to the British/Irish and their descendants to begin with? Well I'm sure you'd be quite happy to relinquish the land and home you have worked hard to purchase and keep when the Native Americans come to take what started out as the land of their ancestors up until a few centuries ago. It's only fair after all.

While the exile of the Jews from their homeland in Palestine by the Roman empire was clearly unjust, it occurred so long ago in history that there was time for a completely new civilization to rise up in that country (after other conquests as well), and make their homes and towns and way of life there. So in effect, Palestine is for the Palestinians. To say that because the ancestors of Jewish people used to govern the place, that now it is justified to remove the current civilization there by force and replace them, is preposterously ignorant and evil.

I was actually referring to the position of the U.S government. I don't presume to know exactly what type of country you would run. My point was that the idea that should be created is, "Why should we attack this country when there is so much mutual benefit between us, and there dealings with us and other nations have been fair and decent? Also, they have a big military."

As the Jews lost to the overwhelming power of the Roman Empire.

I wasn't comparing or referring to the U.S rebellion against the British, only to the U.S usurping of the rights and lands and lives of the native Americans, as was done to the Jews by the Romans. Or should we say, the Jews lost, and the Romans won, end of story? Perhaps it would be better to say that it was an atrocious act that should not be repeated, such as what Israel is doing to Palestine.

The position you are attempting to put across here is that 'Might is Right'. A very old viewpoint, but no less immoral for its age. You also seem to subconsciously ignore or deflect the causal point in any given scenario. The position of Israel is that by it's actions, it has created enemies out of not only its neighbours, but even countries and people all across the world. You say the Palestinians don't belong in Palestine and that the land will always be for Israel. You make a statement and a prediction, but then you don't actually support it with any reason.

Israel is known very well for its consistent policy of double standards. They support UN resolutions against countries they don't like, but disregard the numerous UN resolutions against them. They have a nuclear weapon arsenal, but speak and act against countries they don't like even having nuclear power, even when the IAEA inspects and finds nothing suspicious. They launch reckless attacks that kill women and children, but cry foul when a frustrated suicide bomber blows themselves up amongst civilians. They take away the lives, homes, land, freedoms and rights of a people, but claim self defense when they kill those people for resisting occupation.

In other words, weak pathetic arguments that would only settle in the psyche of mindless sheep or inherently unjust individuals.

People are evil only to the extent to which they do evil. People are good only to the extent to which they do good. No one is perfect. However, it is inherently evil to justify evil. Some people might do evil and know they shouldn't. They might even regret it, and try not to do so again. When you do evil and then say it should be so, you are typically scum.

People tend to judge others through comparison with themselves. If you believe that people are mostly evil, and none have the capacity for true good, it probably says a good deal more about your person. This is not by necessity though, just a common thing.

The ignorance I was referring to is your tendency to ignore the cause and focus on what might seem to you a necessity after the fact. In other words, don't be excessively violent, brutal, unfair, unjust, reckless, murderous, deceitful, etc., and you'll find you won't be as likely to see a need to take such drastic measures that involve bloodshed and intemperance, to counter the repercussions against your folly.