General: Laws of War Cause Lame Wars

SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina--During a speech to students at the University of Sarajevo, General Slobodan Douchebagovich called the Geneva and Hague Conventions anti-peace documents in that the six treaties, substantial parts of the laws of war, limit effective military operations, and cause prolonged wars.

“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”

Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.

“Muslim babies are resilient people.”

He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.

For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .

In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”

Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.

“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”

He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.

“Now that was shock and awe.”