what are the rules of war/are there rules in war?

some pretty good info here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/

one of the more important things often ignored:

"Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab, or irrational motives, such as revenge or ethnic hatred, are ruled out. The only right intention allowed is to see the just cause for resorting to war secured and consolidated. If another intention crowds in, moral corruption sets in. International law does not include this rule, probably because of the evidentiary difficulties involved in determining a state's intent."

Probably can't be much help to you here but what the hey, in for a penny, in for a pound. YES the Laws of Land Warfare and the Rules of Engagement are followed. But, and there's always a but. There are the exigencies of war and the press of battle. No one, and especially an American fighting man wants to kill civilians but in the heat of battle that could easily happen. Sitting in your air conditioned or heated living rooms discussing or arguing over it cannot in the least come up with an answer. Your adrenilin is pumping, you're scared out of your mind and someone (anyone) pops up where no one is supposed to be and sort of looks like to you he has an AK in his his hands and what do you do? Well unfortunately some would squeeze the trigger and let loose a three round burst. Who would your friend rather have go home after this one, Private John Doe or Ishmale Achjmed? Sometimes things get away from you and the 'rules' don't cover it. What to do? Court martial Pvt John Doe or chalk it up to the exigencies of war. You decide, I'm through. OH, just one more thing. If you haven't been there and gone through it you aren't really in a position to judge the actions of others who were there and experienced that fear. That's why our Constitution guarantees us a jury of our peers, even in the armed forces. What exactly does the phrase 'our peers' mean? Does it mean people from the same socio economic group or does it mean people who have gone through similar mind numbing fear? You and your buddy figure that one out. Should lead to endless hours of comfortable repartee in the living room over some suitable vintage wine or brandy. Good luck to you pardner.

There is only one rule:

There are no rules.

There are some agreed upon conventions, like the Geneva Convention, but the Geneva Convention is quite clear that it only applies to those that have signed it, and protection is revoked for anyone that doesn't follow it.

There are some unwritten rules that are often followed, like not attacking civilians, which doesn't always happen, either by choice or by accident.

Their are moral incentives against overly barbaric warfare. It's hard to claim you're the good guy doing the right thing if you are exclusively butchering and targeting civilians. All of this is gray area, none of it can be strictly defined, it's not black and white.

There are no rules in war.

There are customs. There are traditions. There are laws.

But when it comes down to a difference between winning and losing a war, is the one at greater risk of losing going to care about customs, traditions and laws?

I either break the law, or I die. What do you think I am going to do in warfare?

You have to remember that not every enemy shares your values. Just because you follow a set of rules is no guarantee that your enemy will also follow a set of rules.

Did you know that wars have been temporarily suspended during common holidays and celebrations? The enemies shared something in common. But do not count on it.

You are not supposed to kill beyond the military necessity. If not, then you commit a crime of war and a crime against humanity.

There is also to that, not killing people in parachutes; if a pilot ejects, you are not allowed to kill him.

You're not allowed to use a blade that has more than two sides - that's to avoid people using those triangle blades they used to have during WWI. It would leave an open wound that is hard to fix and this would result in a very painful and lengthily agonized death.

All trials must be fair, even against your enemies.

A person becomes a prisoner at the instant it lay down the arms. At that moment, he's no longer a target and if you kill him, you're committing a murder.

Number of them have been very loosely applied. We have video evidences and testimonies of soldiers showing how the US military killed civilians in all knowledge of the danger of the maneuvers they commanded. They also personally tortured and commanded torture against civilians and POW. They failed to grant all of these people a fair trial. They have taken down people who were no longer potential threat.

All of that in Afghanistan and nearby... how did they sold that? As a war that would bring peace and ensure the security of people? I don't see any logic in destroying other nations to save your own.

The fundamental fact of war is force; the valued elements of civilized behavior are subverted to force the destruction of the other.

The rhetoric about rules and accords either will or won't change the mind of the one with his finger on the trigger.

When you give soldiers permission, expect the worst.

Well, by the the Geneva convention, they're supposed to exist. However, we can't prove them not existing nor can we prove them existing.

One must face war to realize such a thing.

They are supposed to. They're called the Geneva Convention rules on warfare.

There are rules but not everyone follows them. There is an old saying "all is fair in love and war".

Yes, thy exist today. And Machiavelli had horribly different practises re war.