Why does war have rules?

Yep, good question title.

If we wanted to kill off terrorists, we should've nuked them already long time ago.

Wars without rules are quick, unprofitable, and a horror beyond belief.
Used to be, to the victor so the spoils--the land, the people, the resources.
Now we have long drawn out confrontations, in which the victor gets nothing besides the cost of rebuilding, and then gives the country back to the defeated. A massive boon to the military-industrial complexes.
Those that don't follow the basic rules--- kill humanely only those in uniform, capture, feed, house and guard those preferrably, and use only approved forcable methods, always win in the end.

Return to the old ways, and wars will be less frequent, go on a shorter time, and remove the incentives for governments and big business to create them.

We have people here talking about big businesses and governent imposing about laws of war, when at the same time you got ATS members here aka common people telling the U.S. military they can't do this and that because it hurts others. Wouldn't surprise me if you impose the same kind of rules. Seriously this is hypocritical.

Remember the 40,000 lbs of ordance dropped thread?
Some people there sounded outrage.

Lets all prohibit dropping bombs of more than 2,000 lbs on a target. Can't cause more injury than that.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by deltaboy]

My AP Euro teacher did explain to us about Limited Objective Warfare, which is what diminished the death toll. Like retreating and give up when you know you're not going to win, it's a lesson learned and passed down by Napoleon and the French.
These new rules takes out some tactics which in my oppinion are less brutal than dropping 40000lb of bombs as described in the other thread.

Wars have rules that are to be followed to prevent the violence turning into just rape, pillage, genocide and murder. Not saying that the rules prevent that behaviour all the time, but they do go a long way, especially in the treatment of POW's and innocent civilians.
Without any rules, things do get rather wicked.

BTW, a 50 cal sniper rifle is one mean gun, as the video shows.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by pavil]

War has rules so that when the war has ended, people can point the finger at all the minor players and have them punished so they can feel better knowing that justice was served. It tends to draw attention away from the people who started the war and why they started it.
It's like the whole Saddam execution. What were his crimes? Because the US didn't particularly like him? It was done to justify the war and satisfy the warmongers. Notice too they had to add controversy to the execution due to that cell phone video. But it helped to justify their oil stealing mission in a foreign land.

reply to post by jackinthebox


No where in the Geneva Convention calls for restricting the use of .50 against exposed personnel. Where this you get this info from?

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

No where in the Geneva Convention calls for restricting the use of .50 against exposed personnel. Where this you get this info from?

Yeah, I don't believe it's there either. If that were the case, I would assume they would restrict the use of any caliber weapon above 12.7mm on exposed personel, which they don't. After all, there are videos all over the internet of exposed insurgent personel in a field getting turned into hamburger by 30mm cannons from Apaches.

A 'nam tanker told me they weren't allowed to use the fifty except against protected targets, but he also added that they did it all the time. There was some squabble over the .50-cal handgun too back a few years ago when those went into production. I'm no expert on the Geneva Convention. IF there is a rule regarding the .50-cal then it would be easy enough to get around these days anyhow, since the hajis even wear body armor a lot of the time.

Originally posted by metaldemon2000
It's like the whole Saddam execution. What were his crimes?

I don't know why don't you tell us in your opinion what they were.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by die_another_day

 

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...

Exactly right; in the good old days of the Greeks, Romans, etc. Generals would meet in the middle of the battlefield before battle and discuss and agree upon the rules of the battle (which were pretty much always the same).

Back then, and contrary to popular belief, a lot less people died from wars. In order for a general to have a triumph in Rome, his troops had to have made 5,000 provable kills in a whole campaign. Emperor Claudius was 12 short in his invasion of England. The reason is simple to understand; hand to hand combat is exhausting. You didn't need to kill an enemy soldier, if he was knocked out, he couldn't fight and that was good enough.

It's only with the invention of gunpowder and modern killing machines that wars have become so vicious and have needed written rules agreed upon before hand.

reply to post by pavil

I don't know why don't you tell us in your opinion what they were.

Well one things for sure, he didnt have any WMDs. Also he really didnt do anything to the US. He was compliant with UN inspectors when they were searching for WMDs and bio weapons. Plus when Iraq was invaded the US faced very little resistance. Saddam was not prepared to fight a war of any kind.

The US invasion on the other hand has destroyed the only solid leadership the country really had, displaced thousands of Iraqi citizens, injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians, ignited old religious hatreds, the list goes on.

Sure Saddam seemed to be a tyrant but do you think at this current time the Iraqi people are any better off than they were before? I dont think so.

i say applying the geneva convention against extremist such as Al Qaeda. they dont play by the rules constantly using innocent civillians as targets and meat shields. yes meat shields. Why not just put the whole Iraq or Afghanistan population in camps which would provide better security for the population then for them wondering around the streets when bombs are blowing up. If we got the rules of war out of the way and NATO know how to keep a huge population in camp then success in Iraq would be much faster as there wouldnt be civillians in the way. taking out terrorist strong hold would be a breeze.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by a-stupid-dvd-case]

Originally posted by Paul the seeker
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]

It is that simple, agreed, The difficult part is convincing the participants that there is some reason or ideology that condones killing other humans

Ultimately, the agenda is executed by the people who are at the front line of the killing.

They alone have the power to stop the war.

Each man must make his own choice.

Rules are control mechanisms .

Look into your heart for the answers

Originally posted by die_another_day
My AP Euro teacher did explain to us about Limited Objective Warfare, which is what diminished the death toll. Like retreating and give up when you know you're not going to win, it's a lesson learned and passed down by Napoleon and the French.

Lesson learned by who? Certainly not the US...

reply to post by a-stupid-dvd-case


Why not just put everyone in concentration camps and bring about the global fascist NWO right now?

“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” -George (Dubya) Bush

[edit on 1/12/0808 by jackinthebox]