I don't understand why the Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit blinding somebody during a war.  Blinding the enemy is an excellent way to make him stop attacking.  Isn't it better to be blinded than to be gunned down by a machine gun, or blown to bits by a missile?\n\n(This question asked as follow-up to http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am3ayah97Zv4AlciCmOleUfsy6IX?qid=1006042514548)
211292
IIRC, it's not the Geneva convention (which deals with the treatment of Prisoners Of War, as my precedessor has written, also with protection of non-combat personnel, treating the wounded, and protecting cultural assets, among other things).\n\nIn Hague convention there's a passage that prohibits "weapons that produce unnecessary suffering". This was interpreted in many ways. The most common opinion is that weapons that maim aren't allowed.\n\nIt's perfectly okay with the rules if the enemy is maimed as a side effect of your attempt to kill him on the spot, but weapons that are intended to cripple only are considered a big no-no.\n\nAs for blinding - IIRC, flash-bang grenades are okay, for they cause only temporary blindness. It is the weapons that cause permanent blindness that are opposed (they are, AFAIK, based on laser, used to burn victim's retina).\n\nWhile it's a matter of personal judgement whether it's more humanitarian to kill someone on the spot, or render him crippled for life, my call is that I, personally, would prefer to be dead than blind. Not that I'd be likely to have any choice, anyway...
55704
why do "WE", Um I think its more like why do "YOU". because "I" dont believe that. we aren't there to fight a war, we are there to make peace and contain the moronic fruit cakes over there from fighting. we are the peace keeprs not the fighters, if we are under combat yes we will fight back i mean after all would you want someone shooting at you? if I had to be there and I had a gun and someone was shooting or bombing me, darn skippy I would fight back. but again back to your question I dont believe that "WE" think that, only "you" do.
620276
Canadian Tire sells a 1 million candle power flashlight.  It's super super bright and would definitly stun and possibly blind someone.  It's kind of big though.  Another option is a large Mag light.  The beam wouldn't stun anyone, but it would make a great weapon!
611107
your vision does depend on which job you choose.  i'm not too sure on the requirments but i have really bad vision. and i made it in the army because its correctable.  my wife works for an eye doctor and she says military people are being refered for lasik surgery all the time so i don't think it matters.  one thing to remember, any restrictions in the army are waiverable to a certain extent.
668736
A terrorist might be more afraid of the night vision equipment the soldiers wear as it makes them look pretty weird or even the gas masks. At night they are going to look like monsters coming to get you!\nBeing British I would have to say the enemy would be more afraid of the S.A.S as their reputation precedes them. Look at when they saved Norman Kembar his captures ran away when they heard who was coming. And when an S.A.S man was captured by the Iraqi police and handed to a militia leader they tore Basra apart and found him and again his captures did a runner rather than face them.
406837
Simply blindfolding of the eyes won't harm them unless the blindfold is put on so tightly that it actually presses down hard on the eyes rather than just covering them. But consider how often eyes are bandaged and covered for medical reasons to allow them to heal from injuries. There's no harm in simply covering the eyes, as long as care is taken not to press on or compress the eyes themselves.  Many people use a mask over their eyes to sleep, in fact, if they cannot darken their rooms completely.
162272
Read 1984.  It is not a war on terror.  It is a war.  Just a reason to go to war.  It is ambiguous.  It can continue indefinitely.  It has no terminus.  It is an excellent reason to violate rights.  It is an excuse to seize power and not let go.  It tramples constitutional rights.  It is a pseudo-martial law. (I could go on, but I won't)
485918
Your an idiot. We signed a peace of paper years ago saying that we would not torture people. Many countries signed the same piece of paper. We do this for many reasons, but mainly to protect our troops. Do we want others to treat our troops the way we treat them. Their are some grey area's but it is very important that we keep our promises.
643728
The soldier kills because he is ordered to. that however does not ease the morality issue.\n\nMurder in self defense as well as murder for family or personal honor are not punishable in many countries. \n\nIt is a rather complicated issue that one cannot impose rules.\n\nYou are either against all sorts of killing (as you probably are) or you accept it as a fact of life.
606278
I agree except for the part about how it's a shame that the soldiers died the way they did. I'm sure ya meant it's tragic for them to die over there. But it's always tragic for a soldier to die. The shame would come in if they were shot during a disgraceful act, etc. \n  Semantics, perhaps. But it's such a faux paus that twisted "peacenicks" used to make a soldier out to be a monster, rather than a victim of our government's foreign policy.
276489
At it again are you? I'm not saying that the reasons we are there are right or wrong or any war for that matter but I do realize that someone, somewhere, must try to stop dictators and third rate nations that try to become first rate to fast. When talking fails and turning the other cheek doesn't work... all that is left is war, no matter what scale. So... it takes a lot of dedicated young people to try and straighten things out with weapons and I know of nothing more dangerous in the military's arsenal than a pissed off nineteen(+) year old with a weapon. The sad thing is... someone has to lose. Be it us or them is yet to be determined. One of life's facts is that everybody has to pay. To what cost? I don't know but I've seen enough to know that this is sometimes the only way to deal with zealots and fanatics. Oh, I have my own thoughts(and ways) of dealing with terroists but then the American people would be really taken aback! I'm amazed that most people can't comprehend war or what happens in war. I guess that's why our military does its utmost best to keep it away from our shores. By the way, I've eaten crow(Roasted) Once I got past the worms and maggots and almost cooked it black it's not to bad. I won't recommend it though. Only if you're extremely hungry.I've also talked crow (called them in). That's how I got to eat one. Having a weapon would have made it a lot easier.
571623
Well being in the U.S. ARMY I would help out anyone in any situation where they needed help. whether it was a heated argument or a fist fight or if it were a mugging of 3 on 1. It's just the right thing to do in those situations. Those that walk away and do absolutely nothing, are just as bad as the ones committing the crime!  That's just my opinion though.
33657
Didn't the court martial of Lt. Calley for the My Lai massacre of women and children count for anything.  It prepared the present day commanders in Desert Storm to state to their troops "no My Lais--you hear?"  I say, we learned from history and will try to be as civilized in war as much as possible.  Troops in combat will always behave savagely in the heat of the moment, who are we to judge sitting in our comfortable living rooms, not knowing what they're go thru.  I won't judge them, but pray that we're not as inhumane as the enemy.
575690
Follow the rules of engagement. That is all you can do. War ceased to be battle between two distinctly uniformed forces sometime ago. Now we fight people who discard their uniforms in favor of civilian clothing to give them a  perceived advantage in combat. Yes it makes proper identification almost impossible, so the use of force has to be based on actions, not flags or uniforms.
620103
Let me see, guns don't get up and decided to go rob or shoot someone. They are not possessed and can't think, walk, or see.  So I'm going to go with "b": The people using the guns kill people.\n\nAnd before anyone tries to argue that having a guns makes someone more prone to shoot, that's not so. There are far too man gun owners in the USA that do not misuse their guns. There would be a whole lot more dead people in the country if that were the case. Knives kill more people with more efficiency than guns. Watching TV would leave you to believe otherwise, but it's not the case.
552746
By international law (the Geneva Convention), neither a physician nor a clergyman can assume command of a combat unit - they are official declared "Non-combatants" and may not direct combat activities, be engaged in combat activities or carry any combt weapon. In return, these individuals cannot be specifically targetted by the enemy. Now before everyone starts laughing, I will very quickly acknowledge that what is written in law and what happens on the ground are two very separate things, but legally that is the straight story.
554221
A good number of British and American soldiers were killed by friendly fire in Iraq at the beginning.  Tragic blunders, some of them avoidable, I think.  I only know of 4 Canadian soldiers killed by friendly fire.  Maybe there are more?  That's 4 too many anyway.  But certainly not more than other countries.