Why does war have rules?

From the religious wars before the Thirty Years War to the World Wars mankind has seen the worst bloodsheds in history. There were no laws, no rules, no restrictions, just tactics and brutality. However, at the beginning of the 20th century, international laws of war sparked from intellectual communities such as the Geneva Convention. I have always wondered the purpose of such rules due to the fact that they are never followed during times of war. Some rules prohibit booby traps and mines which are important in guerilla warfare which is being used by freedom fighters in suppressed countries. No one follows the "International LAWS" because no one gives a damn about anything were they are going to die. So here I stand, speaking against the conventions.

en.wikipedia.org...
Here are some examples:
1899 Hague Conventions consisted of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body


1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006


No blinding weapons? You got to be kinding me. "OMG HES GONNA SHOOT ME! LETS BLIND HIM""WE CAN'T, IT'S AGAINST THE LAWS"

No one can win a war without rules as there is no one left alive. Well, maybe one guy, but most likely not. War without rules everyone dies and no one wins.

Originally posted by Incarnated
No one can win a war without rules as there is no one left alive. Well, maybe one guy, but most likely not. War without rules everyone dies and no one wins.

whos the referee ?
if you got blinded, are you going to cry to the geneva convention saying "sgt. _ _ from the _ _ blinded me" ?

without rules, the whole opposition could still stay alive.

lets not forget the good old 'sporting chance' old boy
and wars in the modern sense only exist to align economies and so that we don't have a surplus from our manufacturing industries and thus continue our economy, rather simple

because if there were no rules you would be dead right now so be happy that there are rules. Some country would have either invaded our country( why do you think our wars are never fought in the U.S) or nuked the # out of us a long time ago. And rules to make difference because if a country is caught committing war crimes it will be a big problem and will be hell for that country.

It's like boxing. You can beat the hell out of your opponent and pop his head open, but no one wants to get busted in the jewels.

But of course there are those who don't follow the rules anyway and pretned like they don't care about their tool time.

From what I'm seeing, even with the rules, it's been hell for Iraq and those African countries.
50(?) caliber banned by Geneva COnvention, used in Iraq.


[edit on 11/14/07 by die_another_day]

That's a rough video there, but thank for posting it.

As I understand it, the .50 cal is only banned from being used in direct fire against non-armored human targets under the Geneva Convention. People in vehicles are fair game, and I believe anyone wearing body-armor as well.

The Barrett .50-cal is a monster.

and the most potent weapon of all.........economic

War have rules because they are games. Wars are profit and only profit.

between the battleing countries the elitary leaders are always friends.

Seriously it's easy as that!

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Paul the seeker]

The way I see it the only ones who win wars are the ones who break the rules.

If someone threatens my life I am taking matters into my own hands, rules be damned!

id say, if we are going to have a war, it shoudl be first to fist. Screw killing people. Knowk everyone the f**k out and whichever side is still standing wins.

Originally posted by THIseNdsnowoldKings
id say, if we are going to have a war, it shoudl be first to fist. Screw killing people. Knowk everyone the f**k out and whichever side is still standing wins.

Yea, we'll just get the whole planet to sign a treaty that becomes offensive if rejected, then every country in the world will mobilize millions of their troops and have a massive 2 day Fist Fight over a desinated plot of land. Which ever soldier is left standing fully conscious wins that plot of land for their country.

Yea, like thats going to happen! lmao, IMO within the next 30-70 years war on any scale will be suicidal and impractical due to the advancement of military weaponry and technology. (have you seen those destroyer turrets? I would probably s&%t on myself if encountered one accidently on the battlefield).

For now War is a game, Until a Dominant Force knocks all opposition under their control. (cause really thats what war is all about)

Originally posted by traderonwallst
The way I see it the only ones who win wars are the ones who break the rules.

If someone threatens my life I am taking matters into my own hands, rules be damned!

DAmn Straight!! --quick tangent-- someone posted above that we would all be nuked if there were no rules, that is so horribly off, no one is going to nuke anyone because of M.A.D. unless they are going to lose a war already, Rules dont prohibit the use of nuclear weapons, thats just dumb, and i suppose the rules were written so if any countries do have to go to war, the death that comes with it wont be so utterly terrible, a more dignified death is better (that of course because i really dont think anyone really likes killing people, unless of course you are completely deranged), because it seems kind of unecessary to completely DESTROY a human body if you can kill them cleanly, like deer hunting, shoot to kill, not maime, however, if i myself ever get backed into a corner, i'm fightin' like a pirate!!! Rules be Damned!!

EDIT to clarify some ideas

[edit on 11-1-2008 by MiRRoR_MuSiC]

I also think its important to point out that our soldiers are the only ones being held accountable to the rules of engagement. Sending a soldier to levanworth because he shot a armed insurgent with M-239 gernade launcher is ridiculus IMO. If I'm on that weapon and somebody's aiming at me, what's a soldier to do, call time out, pick up a rifle then shoot?

War is chaos. The commanders on either side of a conflict want to be able to manage that chaos. Management requires rules.

If you shoot a person with your grenade launcher, you will be in trouble with your commander. Not because of some moralistic notions from Switzerland, but because you are making more work for the tacticians. Now they will have to factor in the likelyhood of the enemy breaking the rules. Not just the one rule that was broken either. Any lateral rules are now in doubt.

G'day folks, long time lurker, this is my first post.

(druuuuunk, but the pubs are closed at half-five, and there's no other place to rant.)

War has rules for some very simple reasons: Starting a war diplomatically. and ending a war in the black.

After the war starts, the rules have no consequence, and there is more than enough distraction for the media to ignore what's broken.

Rules in war are there so each country can say who's fault it is legally. Not that legalities matter, but when it comes to raising the spirits of your nation in wartime, there's nothing better than knowing you're in the right.

It's about paper-thin evidence that lets the government show who's the cowboys and who is the indians.

One other reason for these so called laws is to reward the political and economic winner with free stuff. If America kicked the cr*p out of say, Australia (Yeah, yeah...), the USA would doubtlessly take anything that could have possibly been of value. Because they won (In war, 'winning' is defined by these twisted laws, of course.)

They would have the backing of all their allies because they were 'legally' correct.

I could have used fewer words; I could have simply said, "propaganda" and "FREE STUFF!!!!" , but that would only be one line, against regulations here.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by booblessed]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by booblessed]

reply to post by die_another_day


In anthropology we learned the characteristics that all wars have in common, rules is one of them, without rules a war would simply be violent chaos, there would be no discernible sides and there would be more causalities, a lot more... without rules strategy is thrown out the window and the war becomes chaotic.. Wars have basically always had rules, but it wasn't until the 20th century that those rules were put in writing and expected to be followed...

Originally posted by anthony86
because if there were no rules you would be dead right now so be happy that there are rules. Some country would have either invaded our country( why do you think our wars are never fought in the U.S) or nuked the # out of us a long time ago. And rules to make difference because if a country is caught committing war crimes it will be a big problem and will be hell for that country.

really? so it's only a set of intangible "rules" that protect us from genocide? Please...