Just to be clear I am against war unless we're attacked. If there is a war though, isn't the object to eliminate the enemy, not worry about violating some international law? Isn't war with rules more like a deadly (or not deadly) sport?
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
I've always wondered that as well. People who want to argue over what is allowed in war, and what is not, really don't understand war.
If you're worried about "what's legal and what's not" in war, its just a matter of time before you get crushed by someone who actually understands what war is all about.
Anonymous
There are a few no, no's that are usually adhered to, such as the use of mustard gas, yet Saddam used it against both the Iranians and the Kurds. The treatment of prisoners of war is another hot button. This one, the red cross monitors when the opportunity arises.
The use of napalm is another concern of the bleeding hearts who like to monitor this sort of thing.
Most rules are violated when nobody's looking. Finger pointing becomes common place, especially among the Islamists who use every cowardly concept possible, including fighting in heavily occupied civilian areas. preventing civilians from leaving war zones, throwing grenades in areas where people seek out protection, only to blame the enemy of collateral damage.
The rules are used as an advantage for people who will use them for propaganda, this makes them pretty useless. The only solution to war is to win. If that takes the destruction of all the enemy, so be it. Sort out the violations later, when cooler heads prevail. Who really gives a fu*k about holding some terrorist under water to get him to talk? I sure the hell do not !
Turd Ferguson
War has changed over the years. War is more of a sport among nations sadly to say. If you Remember back in Napoleonic time where soliders stood in lines and fired, it was very disgraceful that anyone used another tactic on the battlefield, plus it fit the technology at the time. But war has been civilized since then, it is universal that no one uses chemical agents in war because the harm it really can do. Plus we're America, we're not a low nasty bunch of criminals, fighting a war civilized is much better than winning a war.
Sarah
Many years ago, everyone was the 'enemy'...as our wars were fought in formation on a battlefield, not in cities and communities where innocent people live. Obviously, the 'enemy' are the people who caused us to enter into that war. I don't recall any Iraqi being involved in any reasoning for war. But, moreover, Iraqi and Afghan citizens have more often been victims of their own leadership.....not 'enemies' at all, but victims who simply happen to be born into a region and nation. Some choose to believe the best option is to simply 'nuke' everything and call it a day, but most reasonable people prefer to give a crap about innocent lives, and support international laws meant to protect the innocent victims of war.
ICH8TE
Umm because there are rules that two or more countries agreed upon and signed their John Hancock to. Like the 'Geneva Convention'' rule that America didn't follow and broke the agreement a few times although it lied and said that it would abide by it. If it didn't intend on following the "rules of war", it should have never signed and agree to anything.