Poll: All's Fair In Love and War?

[cleverlymadeup]

EDIT: Read Sun-Tsu. The concept of hearts and minds goes back a bit farther than the SAS, with all due respect.

yeah the art of war is a great read, i was going thru it and was like "this is what they did wrong"

also the prince helps a bit too

as for al-queda, the americans supplied them, along with sadam and a few others with weapons to fight the soviets, now they gotta clean up the mess they made

A black man wants to rape you. A Mexican is going to shoot you. Yep, I don't believe in the news because it is designed to make you always fear the worst, and hope the Government will DO SOMETHING to save you from all those dirty Blacks and Mexicans... (Just using that as a point, I happen to have at least as many black friends as I do white...)

the funny part is most stats prove, white guys would rape you.

but yes the news is a good fear mongering device, with an under educated populace, it's easy to keep afraid and follow what you say.

as for the crime stuff, if they allowed racial profiling it would change around the news a bit. the funny part about it, is it's NOT racist. it's just badly named, it will actually look at areas and the ethnicity of that area and build probabilities on who would commit said crime. like if a person is found chopped up and stuffed in bags in long island, you'll be looking for a white person, not a black person but if someone got killed by gunfire in the bronx, you have a higher chance it was a black or hispanic person.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Are we talking about the written or un-written rules?

Written - Geneva

Un-written - Things like "Chivalry".

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The point is that war MUST have some degree of rules. Look at world war two- even when the Nazi's thought they were winning, they treated commonwealth soldiers with dignity and respect (mostly) during 1940-41 and beyond that, and likewise the commonwealth did that same for their german prisoners.

But on the eastern front, the germans were barbaric, sadisitc and plain stupid (you do not flatten entire villages just because they look funny)and lo- the russians returned the favor when they were winning.

Soto be short- play by the rules, its to everyones advantage.

 

[Sib]

That was probably one of the few truly well thought out things I've seen on these Internetz, I bow my head to you.

I don't consider the bombing of Nagasaki to have been immoral, but I agree the point is open to discussion. I believe Japan formally surrendered about a week after the second bombing, so it could be argued that had we waited another week after Hiroshima, Japan might well have unconditionally surrendered without the second bomb, thereby sparing 80,000 of what are today some of our strongest allies. We would of course have continued conventional and incendiary bombing so the actual amount of lives saved would have been lower, but almost certainly fewer Japanese would have died had Nagasaki not been nuked.

I'm tempted to argue with you there, because if one of the other posters (sorry i forgot your name) was right about the Japanese still spreading propaganda about "anti-flash" equipment to combat the nuclear weaponry then it is likely the population could burrow in and fight to the last, as happend consistently in the Pacific island warfare, basically if the Americans DID win then it would be like a genocide, except the Japanese would be fighting every step of the way.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

basically if the Americans DID win then it would be like a genocide, except the Japanese would be fighting every step of the way.

to put it simply it was easier to bomb them twice then the amount of ppl both sides would lose. to use a phrase it was the lesser of 2 evils. the japanese would have fought tooth and nail and made what's happening in iraq seem like a nice walk thru the tulips

The point is that war MUST have some degree of rules. Look at world war two- even when the Nazi's thought they were winning, they treated commonwealth soldiers with dignity and respect (mostly) during 1940-41 and beyond that, and likewise the commonwealth did that same for their german prisoners.

But on the eastern front, the germans were barbaric, sadisitc and plain stupid (you do not flatten entire villages just because they look funny)and lo- the russians returned the favor when they were winning.

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"

 

[nightfish]

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.

 

[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?

 

[werepossum]

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.

 

[Pseudonym2]

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.

 

[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?

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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.

before that there was the art of war by sun-tzu

 

[Nugoo]

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.

 

[Haliwali]

As my Government teacher put it "There really is no such thing as international law, only the guy with the biggest stick."

 

[Ellisia]

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."

 

[Whiskyjakk]

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.

 

[Saskwach]

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.

We'll blow them up too.

 

[000Ronald]

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 *****. 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?

 

[Whiskyjakk]

We'll blow them up too.

Hah, we'll have to see what you run out of first, rockets or critics.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

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