No, everything is fair game. |
 |
25.4% (29) |
Yes, but current rules impede the function of war. |
|
5.3% (6) |
Yes, I think we have enough rules. |
|
8.8% (10) |
Yes, but we need to better define them or make more. |
|
25.4% (29) |
There are rules in war? |
|
29.8% (34) |
No Opinion |
|
5.3% (6) |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) | |
| 106) | |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 361 Joined: 7 Nov 2007 | |
| 107) | |
Beat Writer Posts: 165 Joined: 10 Oct 2007 | 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. |
| 108) | |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 698 Joined: 12 Sep 2007 |
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. |
| 109) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 74 Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
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. |
| 110) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | 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? |
| 111) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1141 Joined: 7 Mar 2008 |
before that there was the art of war by sun-tzu |
| 112) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 247 Joined: 25 Jan 2008 |
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. |
| 113) | |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 543 Joined: 29 Jan 2008 | As my Government teacher put it "There really is no such thing as international law, only the guy with the biggest stick." |
| 114) | |
Paperboy  Posts: 30 Joined: 17 Mar 2008 |
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, |
| 115) | |
PROBATION  Posts: 2449 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | 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..." User was put on probation for: HowTo: Talk to Girls. (3 days) |
| 116) | |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 71 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 |
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. |
| 117) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1379 Joined: 4 Nov 2007 |
We'll blow them up too. |
| 118) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 292 Joined: 7 Mar 2008 |
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? |
| 119) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 71 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 |
Hah, we'll have to see what you run out of first, rockets or critics. |
| 120) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1141 Joined: 7 Mar 2008 |
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 |
| 121) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
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. |
| 122) | |
Beat Writer  Posts: 206 Joined: 12 Sep 2007 | "Political Science", by Randy Newman (1972) We give them money but are they grateful? Asia's crowded, Europe's too old We'll save Australia So boom goes London and boom Paree They all hate us anyhow There's your rules of war. |
| 123) | |
Anonymous Source Posts: 1 Joined: 8 May 2008 |
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. |
| 124) | |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 422 Joined: 23 Dec 2007 | 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'. |
| 125) | |
Beat Writer Posts: 165 Joined: 10 Oct 2007 |
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. |
| 126) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 |
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. |
| 127) | |
Muckraker  Posts: 339 Joined: 21 Feb 2008 |
Except Stalin probably already knew the US had the bomb. |
| 128) | |
Press Junketeer Posts: 422 Joined: 23 Dec 2007 | Knew about it- but knewof it's destructive power? Doubtful. Not even the Yanks knew that much about it. |
| 129) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | Who needs test sites when you've got other countries? |
| 130) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 71 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 |
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. |
| 131) | |
PROBATION Posts: 2449 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | Except that it has... Mustard gas is illegal because it kills indiscriminately among all sectors and remains virulent for a long time, much as other chemical weapons do. Their use can quickly kill many of the enemy combatants, but will more likely kill ALL nearby civilians, and destroy the local ecosystem that you need functioning to make fighting for the area worthwhile... Nukes and my personal favorite, the Nuetron Bomb, have made this even more likely, because their destructive power is so much more than ANYTHING that has ever been used before. Nagasaki is like a firecracker compared to modern Hydrogen weapons... User was put on probation for: HowTo: Talk to Girls. (3 days) |
| 132) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 71 Joined: 10 Apr 2008 | Ok, so we can kill large amounts of people quicker and with less effort. However, this just means that the actual rules of war have to change from the oldschool 'don't attack other countries without declaring a state of war first' to more modern rules such as 'don't use weapons of mass destruction'. The question of whether we should have rules of war at all is completely independent from how easy it is to commit an atrocity. |
| 133) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | I think that having no restrictions on weapon use can, in some cases, actually make a country safer. Who in their right mind would attack a nation who's got a gas that will make you eat your own face? However, once more people get the "Face Eating Gas" then you've got a problem and will then require rules to ease the minds of the civilians. |
| 134) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1716 Joined: 18 Dec 2007 |
That works untill one country produces a better face eating gas. The country with the better gas will see the other countries as weaker and hence attack, with their face eating gasses. Where as if no countries had face eating gas then there will be no gasses to attack with. So then no war and less faces being eaten. |
| 135) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | Note that I said it makes a country safer. The Land of Face Eating Gases is pretty safe from invasion, the rest of the world is screwed however. Still, if TLoFEG is able to conquer the other countries, they'll all join TLoFEG and it'll be a sort of Pax Faceeata. |
| 136) | |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 659 Joined: 3 Apr 2008 | if they carry weapons they go boom in my opinion, if the red cross medics have a pistol i wouldnt be above sniping them |
| 137) | |
Copy Clerk Posts: 62 Joined: 13 Mar 2008 | Thank you kitten for forgetting that the red cross is an aid organization i can only assume you mean the arm band worn by second world war soldiers. |
| 138) | |
PROBATION Posts: 2449 Joined: 26 Feb 2008 | Kitten, you are truly fucked in the head. I am all for the use of Nuclear Weapons in Strategic situations, but even I know better than to shoot medics.... You are one sick fuck... User was put on probation for: HowTo: Talk to Girls. (3 days) |
| 139) | |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1010 Joined: 29 Dec 2007 | Well, if the medic had the gun pointed at me, I'd shoot too. Those philanthropists can be pretty assertive. Also, wouldn't a nuclear weapon kill at least one medic? I mean come on, the odds that any body of soldiers would gather without medical personnel are pretty slim. |
| 140) | |
Infamous Scribbler Posts: 698 Joined: 12 Sep 2007 |
Iraq isn't falling apart; it's largely peaceful and being rebuilt from war damage plus decades of neglect. Certainly you can argue that in any Arab Moslem nation a certan number of people WILL be murdered each year, whether by the state or by terrorists. And certainly you can argue that the ultra-controlled, informant-rich state of Hussein's Iraq is less conducive an environment for al-Qaeda than democracy, especially today's weak fledgeling democracy with American and British occupiers enforcing the peace. I choose to believe that on average all men, no matter racial background or religion, prefer peace, freedom, and democracy. Even though a large number of Moslems hate democracy and freedom, preferring an unfree theocracy for religious reasons, I think the majority would prefer freedom of religion (at least within Islam) and freedom to choose their own leaders and to make their own laws. Of course, time may prove me wrong. Factional fighting in Iraq has largely ended, other than al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Today's enemy in Iraq are mostly terrorists, funded and supplied by Iran, who are as likely to drop a few mortar bombs in a market as to take out a Stryker with a roadside bomb. That's a clear a difference between terrorist and freemdom fighter as you're ever likely to find. |
depended on the person in charge
Rommel treated his prisoners well as did most Navy commanders - rules of the sea and all.