both sides didn't treat the other very well. the western allies treated their prisoners a bit better but nazi's didn't always treat allies better, they experimented on a few of them, the russians well that's a whole different story. stalin would give hitler a run for his money on being "worst person" but he was our "ally" for a bit so he wasn't "all that evil"
depended on the person in charge
Rommel treated his prisoners well as did most Navy commanders - rules of the sea and all.
There are no rules in war, if there would be you'd help the other guy up after you shot/stabbed him and say gg. War brings out the worst in people, the means often don't justify the end. I often hear people bring up the geneva convention, do you honestly think laws will do you much good if some tormented officer holds a gun to your head in the middle of nowhere? The media is biased which is only human, no human writing can be purely objective especially when the topic is something like war. There are good people in war, most likely the ones that don't execute you on the spot. That's more a matter of a persons heart instead of that from a "rules" perspective. In the end human instinct is to survive, in order to survive you need to be more powerfull. In the end no law can hold a person back and he/she will kill in order to survive. If there should be rules I'd rather have one forbidding war in general, isn't that alot more logical?
Damn Dirty Ape: There are no rules in war, if there would be you'd help the other guy up after you shot/stabbed him and say gg. War brings out the worst in people, the means often don't justify the end. I often hear people bring up the geneva convention, do you honestly think laws will do you much good if some tormented officer holds a gun to your head in the middle of nowhere? The media is biased which is only human, no human writing can be purely objective especially when the topic is something like war. There are good people in war, most likely the ones that don't execute you on the spot. That's more a matter of a persons heart instead of that from a "rules" perspective. In the end human instinct is to survive, in order to survive you need to be more powerfull. In the end no law can hold a person back and he/she will kill in order to survive. If there should be rules I'd rather have one forbidding war in general, isn't that alot more logical?
There are actually myriad rules or laws of warfare, ranging from customary rules of war which are vague and require interpretation, to formal treaties such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. These come about primarily because the various nations' militaries realize that the politicians or rulers of their respective countries may start a war. Of course not all these laws are followed all the time; even at the best of times (i.e. when no one is actively trying to kill you) not all laws are followed all the time. But there is a bond between fighting men and women that goes beyond national boundaries and interests. Further, there is an enlightened self interest among soldiers that says certain rules will protect us if captured and make it easier to return to peacetime civilian life afterwards.
These laws and principles are drilled into soldiers precisely because they often run contrary to natural self-interest. If I am manning a checkpoint in Fallujah and a car is speeding towards me, my natural inclination is to kill it at the maximum possible distance. Rules of engagement are there specifically to override this natural human inclination for personal safety, to make some allowance for the possibility that the car might be driven by a man rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital, or an old man who has panicked - or a suicide bomber. Rules of engagement are drafted according to the situation, taking into account the formalized laws of warfare. Soldiers take enormous personal risk to minimmize civilian casualties.
Other laws of warfare are simply ratified agreements between signatory nations. An example of this is the prohibition against exploding or expanding bullets. Each side (well before any conflict) agrees that whomever I am fighting, I will not use bullets designed to cause unnecessary pain or damage. I may shoot you, but it's nothing personal, dude. Captured soldiers in uniform are not to be executed, but are to be provided with safe quarters and reasonable food (to the same standard as is available to their captors) and removed from the battleground as quickly as is practical. These laws emphasize that the struggle is for a nation's interests rather than just a bunch of hate breaking out. There should always be things you are not willing to do, even for your nation's interests. Laws of warfare attempt to define those at a common level for all signatory nations. And that's a good thing.
People would like to said tough and say that we must do anything possible to win. I'm sure they would feel quite different if an enemy of their country arbitrarily killed, tortured, or raped them.
Actually, wouldn't that just make you angrier and thus want to commit similar atrocities against your enemy? I know I'd be rather tweaked if some insurgent went into my neighborhood and started causing mayhem. Also, how would we feel anything if we were killed?
First I meant sound not said (F@#$ing dyexisla)
Second, that was my exact point. No one would say "It's all right. They were only doing everything possible to win (especially if they were killed) It's just business as usual." We all know this is inexcusable mostly because the civilians often have nothing to do with their own government.
However, what if a signatory nation is attacked by a nation refusing to sign the treaty. Should the nation be able to disregard the laws if only to protect itself? Say the aggressor populace responded strongly to acts of terrorism. Isn't it necessary for the signatory nation to disobey the treaties if terrorizing the aggressor would bring the conflict to a quick end and with minimal loss of life?
There are actually myriad rules or laws of warfare, ranging from customary rules of war which are vague and require interpretation, to formal treaties such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
John Galt: However, what if a signatory nation is attacked by a nation refusing to sign the treaty. Should the nation be able to disregard the laws if only to protect itself? Say the aggressor populace responded strongly to acts of terrorism. Isn't it necessary for the signatory nation to disobey the treaties if terrorizing the aggressor would bring the conflict to a quick end and with minimal loss of life?
Actually, at least with the International Criminal Court, an aggressor nation that attacks a signatory nation can be tried under the court, even if the aggressor isn't a signatory.
John Galt: However, what if a signatory nation is attacked by a nation refusing to sign the treaty. Should the nation be able to disregard the laws if only to protect itself? Say the aggressor populace responded strongly to acts of terrorism. Isn't it necessary for the signatory nation to disobey the treaties if terrorizing the aggressor would bring the conflict to a quick end and with minimal loss of life?
A very interesting point if the aggressor/defender signitary roles are reversed.
Simplistically though war is kill or be killed. Therefore defining rules and regulations to govern the treatment of enemy non combatants is the only debatable point.
Take for example Iraq, militarily Iraq is a conquered country, it was taken very quickly, now the troops stationed there are in a peace-keeping role. Which is not war, but something far more complex.
Most soldiers are very good at their jobs, using equipment they are trained to use, but Peace Keeping requires diferent skills. During war time operations civilian casualties were minimised whilst during a counter insergency operation when, literally anyone can be your enemy, complex systems ideal for battlefield use are effectivly useless. Hence friendly and perhaps civilian casualties are higher.
So morally/legally what are the rights of both the civilian population and the foriegn controllers of the region. How would Americans have reacted by a Russion invasion in the mid 1980's, would they have used terrorism tactics against the aggressors after the decleration of a cease-fire?
So what we see today concerning rules and regulations of war, are very different than the rules and regulations that we need to enforce peace. Whether war is pre-emptivly justified should be a major debating point for everyone, as should the peace time projection of force into volatile areas of the world such as the middle east.
I personally think we should be questioning not the rules of war, but the imperative that creates them, we are supposed to be civilised, intelligent and reasonable people. It is a cycle of action/reaction that perpatrates war, unless this cycle can be broken our future will continue with small invasions of far away countries, followed by long peace keeping operations for which we are not equipped.
Surely there must be a batter way for diplomatic and reasoned settlement of the differences in the world than this.
As JFK said, "So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."
My response will always be, "If you want peace in the middle east, you will have to kill everyone who lives there. That is just the way it is..."
Genius! So instead of negotiating a ceasefire and the new parliament in Ireland, Tony Blair should just have killed all the Irish with nukes! We could have solved the 'troubles' decades ago.
In all seriousness though, rockets very rarely solve anything. You can't enforce your hegemony/world view on everyone using rockets, even if you wanted to, because there will always be another country that resents your xenophobic tactics or aggression.
Whiskyjakk: In all seriousness though, rockets very rarely solve anything. You can't enforce your hegemony/world view on everyone using rockets, even if you wanted to, because there will always be another country that resents your xenophobic tactics or aggression.
Darth Mobius: To quote someone from this forum out of context...
"The answer is rockets, the answer is always rockets."
I know, you are probably all screaming at me, "You can't nuke a third world country! They haven't done anything to deserve it!"
My response will always be, "If you want peace in the middle east, you will have to kill everyone who lives there. That is just the way it is..."
I understand that you're trying to make a point, but be a little more subtle about it.
A person is smart sometimes; if a-
ah, f*** that, I'm too tired to go off on a metaphorical philosophical rant, so I'll paraphrase; violence doesn't solve anything because all it ever does is piss people off. Tell me, if someone killed your family, you would do everything in your power to make them suffer, wouldn't you? It's the same way when countries fight. Someone you don't know just killed someone you care about, and all you can feel after the grief goes away is rage. This is exactly what the people who run the wars want you to feel, because it impairs the part of you that can think rationally. Since you're not thinking rationally, you go and enlist, just so you can shoot that damned jap or Nazi or what-have-you. Ten minutes later, you're dead, and someone else is pissed off.
What's terrible about this is you can't rationalize with people like this. What my fellow can do is write to your state representative and have them push an anti-war bill. I won't do this (I see serious repercussions if we do) but if you feel the need, do so.
Sadly, if you don't live in America, all you can do is bitch. My deepest sympathies.
Apologies for being so out of character. At least I spell checked the thing first.
P.S: And you can't just nuke Iraq; we aren't fighting Iraq, we're fighting Al Quada, who were being supported by Saddam Hussen, who happened to be in charge of Iraq. Or how about we nuke the place you live, even though you have nothing to do with the war?
P.S: And you can't just nuke Iraq; we aren't fighting Iraq, we're fighting Al Quada, who were being supported by Saddam Hussen, who happened to be in charge of Iraq. Or how about we nuke the place you live, even though you have nothing to do with the war?
actually NO they weren't, that was a lie told to not only the american ppl but also the UN
there was NO evidence he was support al-queada as much as i don't like both of them, they were two separate and distinct things. much like the lie told about weapons of mass destruction.
thing is bush WANTED to invade iraq for revenge because of daddy. even sr was against jr going in there the way he did. sr for all his faults was a smart person and good at strategy.
btw why haven't they found osama? are they even still searching for him? the answer is no, osama was the stepping stone for bush to invade iraq
funnily enough bush is considered a war criminal under the geneva convention because of his invasion of iraq, a group in canada tried to have him arrested when he came to canada and several other places have tried as well
John Galt: However, what if a signatory nation is attacked by a nation refusing to sign the treaty. Should the nation be able to disregard the laws if only to protect itself? Say the aggressor populace responded strongly to acts of terrorism. Isn't it necessary for the signatory nation to disobey the treaties if terrorizing the aggressor would bring the conflict to a quick end and with minimal loss of life?
Actually, at least with the International Criminal Court, an aggressor nation that attacks a signatory nation can be tried under the court, even if the aggressor isn't a signatory.
However, if the signatory nations are conquered due to the unconventional methods used by the aggressor, who won? Their peace time morality led to their demise.
"Political Science", by Randy Newman (1972) --------------------- No one likes us, I don't know why We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try And all around, sometimes even our old friends put us down Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money but are they grateful? No they're spiteful and they're hateful They don't respect us so let's surprise them Let's drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded, Europe's too old Africa is far too hot and Canada's too cold South America stole our name Let's drop the big one, there'll be no-one left to blame us
We'll save Australia Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo We'll build an all-American amusement park there They got surfin' too
So boom goes London and boom Paree More room for you and more room for me And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town Oh, how peaceful it will be! We'll set everybody free! Get a Japanese kimono for you babe, and Italian alligator shoes for me!
They all hate us anyhow So let's drop the big one now Let's drop the big one now ---------------------
j-e-f-f-e-r-s: There should be. America bombing Japan not once but twice during WW2 makes me feel pretty ill. But then again, the stuff that Japan did to POW's during WW2 makes me sick as well. It would be lovely if countries could agree that there are rules to abide by whilst fighting each other. But, as we know, politicians are a desperate bunch, and if nuking an enemy into submission is the easiest way to claim victory, they'll do it. That's human nature for you.
Yes 100,000 Japenese dead is awful but is it not nearly as awful as it would be otherwise? When you have a convential combat invasion and you combine that with their fanatical honor code alot more Japanese civilians and allied soliders would have died.
But why, after the US had already flattened Hiroshima with one bomb, did Truman then decide to flatten Nagasaki as well. He'd already wiped one major city from the face of the earth. Anything more was, for lack of a better word, overkill. Imagine if some evil foreign army bombed New York, then when you Yanks were ready to surrender, they bombed Washington as well. It was a spiteful display of power, that in total caused the death of over 200,000 Japanese during the actual bombing, and thousands more due to the radiation fall-out that happened afterwards. And, of course, most of those casualties were civilians. To me, the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians counts as a war-crime of huge proportions.
But I digress. To expound on my earlier point- human nature means we'll always play dirty. Whether it's fabricating reasons for us to go to war, using weapons that cause frightening amounts of destruction, assassinations, infiltrations... to use a lewd phrase, we're all fucking each other from behind.
Well, to remind (or inform if you hadn't heard before) the 2nd bomb was dropped because the Japanese advisors to the Emperor still refused to surrender after the first bomb. Even after #2 they didn't want to, the Emperor himself had to make that call. Those decisions were made based on the responses received from the Japanese government, not just because it was fun to make cities glow in the dark.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was a "good" decision. I believe it's impossible for anyone who isn't in that situation to make the call. Also, as they saying goes, hindsight is 20/20; we've had a ton of time to analyze details that weren't available when the order to drop the bomb was given. The only hope I have is that no modern world leader is placed in the same situation now.
The actual reason for utilising the atom bomb was to stop the red army from taking part of Japan. This is not bullshit- the russians had taken manchuria and had the resources and the plans to take the northern end of Japan. If it hadn't been so crucial to truman to thumb his nose at Stalin (as Stalin took berlin and all that, mainly due to Eisenhower) then the allies could have just sat back and waited for Japan to starve/coup etc.
But Harry truman wanted to make a point to his counterpart- so he showed Stalin just what the west was capable of, and got Japan in the baragin.
Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.
So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.
Also- if you are going to break the rules then you better be sure your going to win. Because if you shell that hospital, and it dosen't win the war then not only are your enemies going to fight much harder (propagnda war) but also they will start reciprocating in savagery.
So there are rules.
As for love- the main rules are:
'No' means 'no'. 'Not there' means 'not there'. Romance is better than cheap sex. There may be more fish in the sea, but these fish talk to one another.... Parents and friends are important. get them on your side.
Damn Dirty Ape: There are no rules in war, if there would be you'd help the other guy up after you shot/stabbed him and say gg. War brings out the worst in people, the means often don't justify the end. I often hear people bring up the geneva convention, do you honestly think laws will do you much good if some tormented officer holds a gun to your head in the middle of nowhere? The media is biased which is only human, no human writing can be purely objective especially when the topic is something like war. There are good people in war, most likely the ones that don't execute you on the spot. That's more a matter of a persons heart instead of that from a "rules" perspective. In the end human instinct is to survive, in order to survive you need to be more powerfull. In the end no law can hold a person back and he/she will kill in order to survive. If there should be rules I'd rather have one forbidding war in general, isn't that alot more logical?
There are actually myriad rules or laws of warfare, ranging from customary rules of war which are vague and require interpretation, to formal treaties such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. These come about primarily because the various nations' militaries realize that the politicians or rulers of their respective countries may start a war. Of course not all these laws are followed all the time; even at the best of times (i.e. when no one is actively trying to kill you) not all laws are followed all the time. But there is a bond between fighting men and women that goes beyond national boundaries and interests. Further, there is an enlightened self interest among soldiers that says certain rules will protect us if captured and make it easier to return to peacetime civilian life afterwards.
These laws and principles are drilled into soldiers precisely because they often run contrary to natural self-interest. If I am manning a checkpoint in Fallujah and a car is speeding towards me, my natural inclination is to kill it at the maximum possible distance. Rules of engagement are there specifically to override this natural human inclination for personal safety, to make some allowance for the possibility that the car might be driven by a man rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital, or an old man who has panicked - or a suicide bomber. Rules of engagement are drafted according to the situation, taking into account the formalized laws of warfare. Soldiers take enormous personal risk to minimmize civilian casualties.
Other laws of warfare are simply ratified agreements between signatory nations. An example of this is the prohibition against exploding or expanding bullets. Each side (well before any conflict) agrees that whomever I am fighting, I will not use bullets designed to cause unnecessary pain or damage. I may shoot you, but it's nothing personal, dude. Captured soldiers in uniform are not to be executed, but are to be provided with safe quarters and reasonable food (to the same standard as is available to their captors) and removed from the battleground as quickly as is practical. These laws emphasize that the struggle is for a nation's interests rather than just a bunch of hate breaking out. There should always be things you are not willing to do, even for your nation's interests. Laws of warfare attempt to define those at a common level for all signatory nations. And that's a good thing.
Of course, but in theory rules don't mean much. When you can do the most damage with bombing from above, you don't ignore that missile because there is a rule that makes it unfair. You use it because you have it, as long as there are weapons and the thought of killing to accomplish a goal there will be war. I sometimes wonder how it would be like if we still fought by the ancient Bushido, there is no honor to be gained by shooting at a civilian car loaded with possible explosives. War has never been something to be proud off but it's in our blood, with the invention of gunpower rules quickly went out the backdoor. I'm not a soldier, but I can understand the respect a soldier has for another soldier. And yes, I agree it's a good thing that there are official rules to prohibit chemical weapons for instance. But in the end these do nothing, laws only work if you abide by them. A terrorist, freedomfighter, or whatever you call it may use that weapon anyway if it accomplishes his goal. The side that doesn't will be at a disadvantage, which is most likely the case now with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end both sides will have to get their hands dirty, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is the only way to win. In the end the people you saved by not following that instinct might be bombed in much large numbers by the same car that did contain explosives. There are no rules in war, just casualties and political ideals. I don't mean to offend any troops here btw, I have great respect for armed forces and what they're doing. But I think we can all agree here that trying to bring peace with ideals and rules of conduct in countries that have been torn by war for centuries isn't going to work. Iraq is falling apart, cruel his methods might be Saddam did manage to keep his country together. For me it just seems the western philosophy has turned into: we're trying to help, don't you want democracy? Only to be puzzled why the enemy didn't follow the rules and are trying to play dirty with bombs, chemical weapons and possible nuclear means.
Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.
So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.
However, a situation might arise in which in order to prevent major loss of life, it would be better to use an atrocity to end the conflict. You might be able to provoke a surrender if you're able to effectively wipe out their capital city via using a WMD or terror campaign. This would result in significant psychological damage to the country while only killing a fraction of the population. You could achieve a better effect by killing a small amount of people in a publicized and brutal manner instead of conventionally killing a large amount of people. However, care must be taken not to galvanize resistance by giving them an Alamo, you've got to be able to get it done in one move or else you've opened yourself up to grueling war with no restrictions.
Fondant: The actual reason for utilising the atom bomb was to stop the red army from taking part of Japan. This is not bullshit- the russians had taken manchuria and had the resources and the plans to take the northern end of Japan. If it hadn't been so crucial to truman to thumb his nose at Stalin (as Stalin took berlin and all that, mainly due to Eisenhower) then the allies could have just sat back and waited for Japan to starve/coup etc.
But Harry truman wanted to make a point to his counterpart- so he showed Stalin just what the west was capable of, and got Japan in the baragin.
Another point- there must be certain rules of engagement, becasue if not war simply becomes a Hunnic holocaust- if you break the rules of war, so will your enemy (see-the eastern front). This means massive carnage, devestation, genocide and fighting to the death. This is good for neither man nor beast- a country is no good if half of its scorched earth.
So not playing by the rules dosen't get you anywhere.
Also- if you are going to break the rules then you better be sure your going to win. Because if you shell that hospital, and it dosen't win the war then not only are your enemies going to fight much harder (propagnda war) but also they will start reciprocating in savagery.
So there are rules.
As for love- the main rules are:
'No' means 'no'. 'Not there' means 'not there'. Romance is better than cheap sex. There may be more fish in the sea, but these fish talk to one another.... Parents and friends are important. get them on your side.
Except Stalin probably already knew the US had the bomb.
Damn Dirty Ape: War has never been something to be proud off but it's in our blood, with the invention of gunpower rules quickly went out the backdoor.
What's so special about gunpowder that makes war become ruleless? You just have to read Machiavelli to see that there were plenty of ways to fight 'dishonourably' in early modern and medieval times e.g. killing the enemy high command during the peace negotiations or besieging a town full of civilians. The debate about whether there should be rules in warfare has probably gone on for centuries, changing the weapons shouldn't really change anything.
depended on the person in charge
Rommel treated his prisoners well as did most Navy commanders - rules of the sea and all.