The rules of war

[Hooahguy]

"the victors make the rules"

in reality, i think the geneva convention should be thrown away, and world leaders meet to make new "rules."
like being allowed to blow up a car speeding towards you, even though you dont know his intentions.
the restrictive ROE is whats causing our troops deaths in iraq/afganistan.

[CountArach]

"the victors make the rules"

in reality, i think the geneva convention should be thrown away, and world leaders meet to make new "rules."
like being allowed to blow up a car speeding towards you, even though you dont know his intentions.
the restrictive ROE is whats causing our troops deaths in iraq/afganistan.

The Geneva Convention is what are keeping many Iraqi and Afghan civilians alive. The number of soldiers who die pale in comparison to the number of civilians who are protected.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If diplomacy fails, then I do not see the problem in two sides agreeing on rules for their engagement.

Also IA I do not see anything funny or pathetic about it. We could have won the war in Iraq much more easily if we didn't stick to the rules - there just wouldn't be many Iraqis left.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Rules of war are developed because, appalling though war is, it does not have to descend to barbarism. The recent discussion on German versus Allied atrocity should provide evidence of that.

In the West, German forces tended to follow the Geneva Conventions. In the East, they treated their foes with malice and wickedness, as sub-humans undeserving of law. They reaped a terrible whirlwind in turn.

Rules of war are less there for the war - much more in the hope of a lasting peace.

[InsaneApache]

If diplomacy fails, then I do not see the problem in two sides agreeing on rules for their engagement.

Also IA I do not see anything funny or pathetic about it. We could have won the war in Iraq much more easily if we didn't stick to the rules - there just wouldn't be many Iraqis left.

Let's have a quick look at some of the current 'rules'.

It's OK to bayonet, shoot, stab, nuke, blow up, strangle people.

It's not OK to use landmines, gas, lasers(to blind), starve people.

Either way you're dead. Why does it matter if you get bayonetted (good) but not blinded by a laser (bad)?

Thats why it's ridiculous.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

From my perspective, the rules of war are used to punish the loser, not necessarily to apply actual justice.

[Fragony]

Let's have a quick look at some of the current 'rules'.

It's OK to bayonet, shoot, stab, nuke, blow up, strangle people.

It's not OK to use landmines, gas, lasers(to blind), starve people.

Either way you're dead. Why does it matter if you get bayonetted (good) but not blinded by a laser (bad)?

Thats why it's ridiculous.

When it comes to the weaponry and tactics I agree, but there is also such a thing such as civilians and prisoners of war, it's a good thing that there are rules of conduct when it comes to dealing with them. Safety of the soldiers should come first, but everything that is humanly possible should be done to keep civilian casualty's at it's minimum.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not every war is total war. Nor one of attrition. Not every war decends into total barbarism. For what little they're worth, and however soon they'll be abandoned once the circle of bitterness, revenge, fear is set in motion, it is still good to have some sort of rules governing war, trying to limit barbarism.

[CountArach]

Let's have a quick look at some of the current 'rules'.

It's OK to bayonet, shoot, stab, nuke, blow up, strangle people.

It's not OK to use landmines, gas, lasers(to blind), starve people.

Either way you're dead. Why does it matter if you get bayonetted (good) but not blinded by a laser (bad)?

Thats why it's ridiculous.

All of the second list that you have there have far larger civilian repercussions. The first list (Baring Nuclear Weapons, which IMO should be in the second list seeing as there are treaties which have attempted to remove them and public opinion is almost entirely against thie ruse in warfare) almost always only kill a single person - mostly a soldier.

To take Landmines as an example of why we need treaties to stop the use of inhumane weapons. My grandmother and grandfather do a lot of charity work in south-east Asia. They brought back video footage of them in a camp where many civilians who had had limbs blown off by landmines lived in a colony. There were children there with only 1 leg, or 1 arm. This is wrong and there is no way that people can continue to justify the use of weapons with potential civilian effects after seeing stuff like that. I watched the video and I could not help but think just how unjust the use of such weapons are. THAT is why they need to be banned.

However, if that isn't enough then just look at the statistics:

• In 2006 a total 5,751 casualties from mines, ERW and victim-activated IEDs were recorded in 68 countries and areas, including 1,367 people killed and 4,296 injured (88 were unknown).
• The actual total number of mine/ERW/victim-activated IED casualties is unknown but certainly higher than 5,751, as data collection is inadequate or non-existent in 64 of 68 countries with recorded casualties.
• As in previous years, in 2006 civilians accounted for three-quarters of recorded casualties and children were 34 percent of civilian casualties, nearly all boys.
• Some 24 percent of casualties were military; this increase from 2005 (19 percent) is due to one country, Colombia, which accounts for 57 percent of all military casualties. Excluding Colombia, 12 percent of casualties would be military.

[KarlXII]

"the victors make the rules"

in reality, i think the geneva convention should be thrown away, and world leaders meet to make new "rules."

What's so bad about Geneva that it needs to be thrown away?

the restrictive ROE is whats causing our troops deaths in iraq/afganistan.

It's also what's causing the low civilian deaths.