Why doesn't USA oppose the starving of civilians during war? (Iran, Iraq)

[Ericthebean]

Quoting from wikipedia article

Scorched earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It says ....
"The strategy of destroying the food supply of the civilian population in an area of conflict has been banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions. The relevant passage says:"

'It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.[2]'

Despite being prohibited, it is still a common military practice. The protocol only applies to those countries that have ratified it; notable countries that have not ratified it are Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, and the United States .[3]

Why don't we join the nations that ratified this?

Edit:
Actually...
I would reword the protocol to make an exception that says this protocol does not apply if the civilians in question are willfully harboring, in captivity of, or placed or coerced into use as human shields by, a militant enemy entity be it a terrorist group, mob, coup, or enemy nation, if it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the harming of these civilians is non-preventable in taking on the strategy with the objective being to accomplish the mission at hand."

That exception would make me agree USA must then ratify the protocol

So 2 parts to the exception
1) Are the civilians playing a role in the enemy's war strategy? If not, then apply protocol.... Otherwise, see 2 below

2) U.S. cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that touching these civilians will have negligible direct objectively demonstratable impacts on increasing the likelihood of achieving the mission (mission being resolving a land dispute, improving the well being of civilians, improving the safety and security of the United States, enforcing human rights)...then protocol doesn't apply

Else protocol applies
....

2 cases where protocol applies under the exception rules I propose above:

1) The more common one would be if say North Korean civilians are not even aware of kim Jong Il's military strategies in a Korean war....then burning the rice paddies in North Korean pastures should violate protocol

2) The less common one. If kim Jong recruited civilians to serve as human shields to protect karyoke machines that the dear leader stole from South Korea...but there are no civilian Human shields affecting any particular battle concerning the U.S. and its role in a Korean war, then eventhough civilians are working with Kim Jong, in this case there would be no objectively demonstrateble US military gain from scorching those civilians and protocol would apply.

[burdell]

Do you think we should ratify it?

It sounds good on paper but what happens when the facilities that are supplying civilians are also supplying the opposing military? How does one go about only affecting the military supplies and what prevent the opposing military from commandeering the protected civilian supplies? What about the civilian population producing the tools of war? Should they be protected or not?

I agree with policies on treating POWs and restrictions on bio/chemical weapons but sometimes have to wonder just how much can war, by its very nature chaos, be controlled by rules?

[CAllenDoudna]

I will not quote the Original Post but only ask the OP: How exactly do you propose determining all this? Wars are not fought in courtrooms, but in very chaotic conditions--with people shooting at you to kill you. Starvation is often the most humane way to end a conflict. [MOD CUT/off topic]


Should a new American Civil War break out, this is approximately how the map will look. Without firing a shot, the Rednecks have already got the Liberals broken up, cut off, and surrounded. The Rednecks are strong believers in the 2nd Ammendment and also have the Liberals greatly out-gunned. But Liberal strong-holds are mostly in the cities. The Rednecks could go in guns blazing. But suppose the Rednecks merely set up blockades. Within two weeks food will disappear from the grocery store shelves. A week later the Liberals will surrender. Wouldn't that be better than bloodshed?

[workingclasshero]

uhm

we already do


you have heard of the term: sanctions

the bush1/Clinton santions against Iraq....500,000 children died

[legalsea]

Remember, wikipedia is not considered a 'source' for thoughtful people. Who wrote this article? Why is there the warning that there are 'issues' with the article? Did YOU write the article?

Recall the famous example of Wikipedia fraud: an aide to a Member of Parliament (UK) was listening to his Member make a speech. Aide was rather horrified to hear said Member make an assertion of fact, which the aide knew was false.

Aide exits Parliament, gets on his computer, goes to Wikipedia, and changes the 'fact' to correlate to the Members assertion.

Hilarity ensues.