This is the first in a multi-part item concerning the 'Laws' or 'Rules' of warfare.
Believe it or not, there ARE rules for war. There are written and implied rules. The rules were made and adopted by the majority of 'civilzied' countries throughout the world. They originally date back over 100 years.
The days of "All is fair in love and war" are gone. This does not imply, however that the days of "To the victor go the spoils" are gone as well.
The Hague laws and Geneva Conventions (yes, there are more than one version of it*) are some of the most popular of these International "treaties" as they are called.
These laws deal with the participants of war, the victims of war, occupation by hostile forces and the status of cultural and civil property.
Here's some examples of broken rules... In the Iraqi war, in 2003, a number of Iraqi troops showed a white flag to US troops and then opened fire on them as they approached to accept their surrender.
That is prohibited under the Hague laws.
In WWII, the Germans did medical experiments on civilians. That is also prohibited by almost ALL treaties, especially the Geneva Conventions.
*There are four accepted Geneva Conventions, covering:
I. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
II. Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
III. Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
IV. Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
There are about 190 countries that have adopted the 1949 version of the Geneva Convention.
IMNSHO, the current rules are inadequate and too wide ranged to be functional. They've become a weapon used by terrorists to murder women and children instead of a shield to protect them.
| Quote: |
| Whenever a civilian is accidentally killed or an ambulance is held up at a checkpoint, the terrorist leaders, and those who support them, have exploited the post-World War II laws of warfare to condemn the democracies for violating the letter of the law. Some human rights groups, international organizations and churches have joined this chorus of condemnation, equating the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians by terrorists with the unintended consequences of trying to combat terrorism -- unintended by the democracies, but quite specifically intended, indeed provoked by, the terrorists. This only encourages more terrorism, since the terrorists receive a double benefit from their actions. First they benefit from killing "enemy" civilians. Second, they benefit from the condemnation heaped on their enemies. Human rights are thus being used to promote human wrongs. |
@S3 - You should give the source of that quote.
Where to start? I'm amazed to see that some people didnt know that they are rules on warfare.
However, I personally think they are a good thing and don't know what you'd propose as changes. I think as a country in the position we are in, we need to observe them as carefully as possible. Gross infractions on our side need to be handled publicly and promptly. We can't control what the other side does, just hold them responsible when it all over. I think it is very dangerous to lower ourselves to the level of terrorists. I think that only creates future enemies.
Rambling to start things off. What do you propose S3?
Rules of war, that laughable. Its a nice idea and looks good on paper, but it dosen;t apply to the real world.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Rules of war, that laughable. Its a nice idea and looks good on paper, but it dosen;t apply to the real world. |
Glad you made it, Conspirator.
Equate it to theft. Laws don't stop it so should we throw the law out? Do you disagree that in theory it is a good thing?Yes, well, I suppose all rules are made to be broken. Does anybody follow the rules of war? Probably only the U.S. People get on our case when civilians in the middle of war accidentally die, yet they are perfectly fine with terrorists killing thousands of civilians intentionally every year.
I think that the rules should be refined a bit, and of course - not everyone will follow them, it's naive to think that.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Rules of war, that laughable. Its a nice idea and looks good on paper, but it dosen;t apply to the real world. |
Glad you made it, Conspirator.
Equate it to theft. Laws don't stop it so should we throw the law out? Do you disagree that in theory it is a good thing? |
It is better to try and fail than to not try at all so it is better to have the rules even if they are not fallowed. | The Conspirator wrote: |
It is better to try and fail than to not try at all so it is better to have the rules even if they are not fallowed. |
Yeah, I heard that. I think most countries would (and have) abided by these laws for the most part. It affects both side equally, so it would be to both sides benefit. The problem seems to come when there is a large disparity between the two (or more) sides. When you are dwarved by the resources of your opponent, you will likely do whatever you have to to gain an advantage. How do you fight against those tactics without becoming as bad as they are?I once heard a professor in international law (whatever that means) on the radio.
He said that ever since the days of Napoleon "preemptive warfare" has been forbidden.
This law was formed after continental Europe was all but destroyed by those preemptive wars.
If anyone knows anything more about this law i would like to know what it's called, and where i can read up on it.
Interestingly enough, this is the law George W Bush (supposably) violated when he invaded Iraq without any valid UN resolution.
| Quote: |
| Interestingly enough, this is the law George W Bush (supposably) violated when he invaded Iraq without any valid UN resolution. |
It's not required of a nation to have UN approval when going to war, the UN does not rule over nations. At least, that is to my knowledge (how we learned it in History class). | Soulfire wrote: |
It's not required of a nation to have UN approval when going to war, the UN does not rule over nations. At least, that is to my knowledge (how we learned it in History class). |
I think it is if you belong to the UN. You'd have a hard time arguing that we are defending ouselves from an attack by Iraq.
This from Wiki
| Quote: |
The United Nations Charter admits two circumstances in which one country is free to use military force against another {{Citation needed}} :
When a country must defend itself against an attack from another country {{Citation needed}} ;
When the Security Council authorizes the use of military force against a country that is in violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter {{unreferenced}} . |
Edit to add link
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression>Hmm, could be, but then again - who follows U.N. rules anymore these days? It's becoming rapidly a very inefficient way to handle the problems of the world, and clearly it's not stopping anyone from war.
So, our intelligence (whether it was right or wrong I am not saying) suggested that there were weapons of mass descruction in Iraq. Is that a violation of the U.N. Charter?
When I say our intelligence reported WMD's in Iraq, please note that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with it and I am not talking about anything related to Bush's actions.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Hmm, could be, but then again - who follows U.N. rules anymore these days? It's becoming rapidly a very inefficient way to handle the problems of the world, and clearly it's not stopping anyone from war.
So, our intelligence (whether it was right or wrong I am not saying) suggested that there were weapons of mass descruction in Iraq. Is that a violation of the U.N. Charter?
When I say our intelligence reported WMD's in Iraq, please note that I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with it and I am not talking about anything related to Bush's actions. |
I understand your question. I really don't know if the belief of WMDs would satisfy that condition or not. I suppose international lawyers will make a fortune over that issue. Personally, I don't think it qualifies. If it did any country that had an issue with the US could use that excuse to attack us at any time and in any way. I think a stronger indication of attack is needed. Just me, though.
And as far as the UN, I think the biggest problem there is that WE are ignoring it except when it is to our benefit. If we sign up, we need to abide by its rules until we publicly remove ourselves from. If you are in, you're in.These quotes may be found in Bartlebys, and other online sources. Perhaps they did not deal with terrorists as defined by the Bush administration, but it seems their wisdom is timeless.
Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. B. Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. B. Franklin
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. G. Washington
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
M. Twain
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Rules of war, that laughable. Its a nice idea and looks good on paper, but it dosen;t apply to the real world. |
I figured I'd get a response like that from you. 
Source for quote in first post....
http://www.maccabiusa.com/PDF/SolidarityMayJune2004.pdfThe only people who fallow rules of war are the powerful who only do it to make them selves feel morely superior, those who fallow them cause of there morel beliefs, those who are forced to fallow them (in other words no one) and those who practise ritual warfare.
Other than those, trying to impose rules of war is like trying to put out a fairest fire by spiting on it.
| Quote: |
| So, our intelligence (whether it was right or wrong I am not saying) suggested that there were weapons of mass descruction in Iraq. Is that a violation of the U.N. Charter? |
Yes. The US would have required a resolution authorizing the use of force to make the invasion legal. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN charter. To quote Kofi Anan:
| BBC wrote: |
Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stm | The Conspirator wrote: |
The only people who fallow rules of war are the powerful who only do it to make them selves feel morely superior, those who fallow them cause of there morel beliefs, those who are forced to fallow them (in other words no one) and those who practise ritual warfare.
Other than those, trying to impose rules of war is like trying to put out a fairest fire by spiting on it. |
I gotta say you are completely wrong here, Con. Morally superior? Sounds more like you feel morally inferior in some way. The rules have a purpose that is beneicial to those fighting. THAT is why they are followed, mostly, by civilized countries.
Why are you so insistent that war must be barbaric and that any attempt to minimize wars effects on non-combatants is a bad thing (or simply impossible). Countries HAVE fought wars where these principles were followed for the most part. WHY do feel so strongly that these are bad things? | HoboPelican wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | The only people who fallow rules of war are the powerful who only do it to make them selves feel morely superior, those who fallow them cause of there morel beliefs, those who are forced to fallow them (in other words no one) and those who practise ritual warfare.
Other than those, trying to impose rules of war is like trying to put out a fairest fire by spiting on it. |
I gotta say you are completely wrong here, Con. Morally superior? Sounds more like you feel morally inferior in some way. The rules have a purpose that is beneicial to those fighting. THAT is why they are followed, mostly, by civilized countries.
Why are you so insistent that war must be barbaric and that any attempt to minimize wars effects on non-combatants is a bad thing (or simply impossible). Countries HAVE fought wars where these principles were followed for the most part. WHY do feel so strongly that these are bad things? |
You misunderstood what I was saying, I was saying that those who fallow the rules of war, do it for those reasons. For instance we in the US obey (or are supposed to) the "rules of war" based on morel ground, we feel that it is immoral to attack civilian targets.
I didn't say war has to be barbaric, there is more than one way to fight and win a war. You don't even have to literately fight a war, you can fight a war with out suing any violence against other (see Mahatma Gandhi).
I am mearly saying that those who do obey the rules of war do so cause they are ether forced by a more powerful nation or nations (which has never worked by the way), they do so on morel grounds, to make them look and selfs feel morel superior to there enemy or in cases of ritualistic warfare. It is good to have rules of war and to try and enforce those rules but in the end if the choose to ignore them, its extremely hard to make them obey them. | The Conspirator wrote: |
You misunderstood what I was saying, ...to make them look and selfs feel morel superior to there enemy or in cases of ritualistic warfare. It is good to have rules of war and to try and enforce those rules but in the end if the choose to ignore them, its extremely hard to make them obey them. |
I pretty much understood what you said. I'll be shorter. I don't think we follow them out of a sense of moral superiority. We follow them because it is a better way. Pragmatic vs morality.
Glad to see you that you recognize value in them. I did misunderstood your stance there, apparently. Yeah, it is hard to enforce. All you can do is to hold violators responsible for they acts afterwards.
