Close Topic Options

Rules Of War - Page 3

But should you satisfy the terms of the ceasefire, then you get your fiefdom back. It is written in the agreement. There is a road to freedom and a return loop to war...they choose. Now, the rules cannot be continually rewritten...that just isn't right to the surrendering party.

A long time ago, the rules to war were pretty simple. You line your guys up and I will line my guys up and we will march towards one another, shooting rifles and arrows and when we get too close, we will bayonet each other. That was the honorable way to fight and if required...to die. I dare say you wont find a civilized country that still partakes of this novel idea of rules of engagement. It is just too bloody and over time, life has become more valuable to us. Now we will hide behind a tree or a house, shoot a missile or use a tank and guerilla warfare is rampant and very successful, but might not seem as noble. Our only questions today for what happens in war are did we avoid civilian casualties at all cost, how many people can be killed with one weapon and by what means are they killed.

As said many times in the thread, the treatment of prisoners and civilians of conquered lands are supposedly governed by the Geneva convention, but are more so written by the victor.

War Rules

DOCUMENTS: TROOPS DISREGARD RULES OF WAR

Newly released documents regarding crimes committed by U.S. troops against civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan detail a pattern of troops failing to understand and follow the rules that govern interrogations and deadly actions.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/04/aclu....y.ap/index.html

Rules Of War History & Civil Business Politics

I think it would be wonderful to be able to compare how well our forces are doing now in compliance with the rules of war as opposed to other long-term engagements.

Awfully hard to know how you are doing in a vacuum.

Or the squeakiest wheel. There was an article in the news the other day detailing about how hard it is to change inaccurate public perceptions, e.g. Muslims believing that Arabs did not attack the U.S. on 9/11. Once opinion has been formed it's hard to change, even if it's 100% wrong.

Edited: tortdog on 5th Sep, 2007 - 2:07pm

Page 3 War Rules

It seems to me that the US is the only country today that is held to any standard in matters of rules of war. If the Brits do something (and they do) no one cares, if the French do something in West Africa, again, no one really cares. Then there's the Muslims and their endeavors to create hell on earth, but all of that is beside the point.

Who says there's rules in war? Who enforces them? Where does their authority and legitimacy come from? Where is the standard for rules of war?
The only answer I can come up with to these questions is no one or the country currently at war.

War Rules

Many of the so called rules of war came at the end of WWI at Geniva, Switzerland. The U.S.A. still follows many of those rules of engagement while other countries continue to ignore them. We(the US) are held at a higher standard as we are the so called champions of peace and justice. Just like a police officer is held at a higher standard in enforcing laws the US is held in higher standards of military behavior.

Rules Of War

I think this is the only rule to war that really matters in the end. How you manage to capture the enemy territory matters little. Remember if you lose you are the criminal as you are now in the foreign country you were fighting against and you should expect to be treated as such.

I do not think that liberalism has a place in war. It belongs to the peace times where issues are of a far less then life and death. War has one rule win or die. Sorry I see little point in keeping the enemy alive unless they are important or can be used as a slave to be placed on your front line to be slaughtered by their own or shot in the back for treason.

A rule is only good if all sides recognize it and try to uphold it and punish their members who do not. A difficult task at best and if the other is not abiding you tie up great labor resources and financial funds that could be better used in the war machine.

So I vote one rule kill or die.

I realize the reality if you did this your country is now black balled by the rest of the civilized countries and your economy will greatly suffer.

Rules War - Page 3

You are correct the country that goes by the rule of win or die will not last long in the world. There are certain rules that should always be in place. If one surrenders to you you do not kill them but take them to a holding area to be placed with others who have surrendered. If you kill those that do not want to fight you your going to have to kill every one to include the women and children because they will rise up against you and you will be defeated. IF you treat your enemy as a person you will be much better off in the view of others if you win or lose.

Rules War Politics Business Civil & History - Page 3

Under the fourth Geneva Convention hospitals and places of worship have special protections that restrict the attacking of these facilities.

But how is the status of these building affected if combatants are housed in these places, or if rockets are fired from these buildings. Do they become a legitimate military targets if they are used as military buildings as well as humanitarian buildings?

It also states in the convention that Civilians shall not be intentionally targeted. If combatants are intentionally hiding behind civilians and firing from behind them is it legitimate to kill the combatant with a knowledge that some innocents may be killed? Does this apply to a building with combatants in it (If someone is firing from a window, and their may be civilians in adjoining rooms, is it legitimate to fire a tank shell into the window, knowing that some civilian casualties may occur?)

In my opinion, the Rules of War become clouded when one side refuses to follow them. It further clouds the issue if following them, in some circumstances, may result in your own death. Is losing your life worth not firing at a group of people if a gunman is amongst them, firing at you?

I would not want to be a soldier in today's wars.