Clearing Up Confusion On "Rules Of War".

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ming


That is your "opinion" and not a proven fact.

It's easy to make stuff up to support your point of view when there is NOTHING to base that opinion on

Likewise it is just an "opinion" to say the US wouldn't as it has not been in the condition yet to consider this scenario.

[SlowwHand]

Master Zen, your analogy of the War of 1812 is ludicrous.


Jack, ever hear of the "guilty dog barks first" ?

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Master Zen, your analogy of the War of 1812 is ludicrous.


Jack, ever hear of the "guilty dog barks first" ?

Again you miss what I was trying to say. I think that it is absursed, almost amusing that some think you can get nations at war to follow these rules. Nations at war will follow them weather they want to or not, and no one willl be able to force them to not follow them or follow them. Why cant people understand what I am trying to say??!!??

[SlowwHand]

Sure. A nation's leader can choose to not follow the rules.
And in retaliation they pay the ultimate price themselves.

Simple stuff, easy to understand.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Master Zen
During the war of 1812, the British complained that US frigates were "too large" and that it was not fair. Did that stop the US? Nope. No rational nation will follow any rules, whether signed to or not, if it will impede their ultimate victory. Is any nation willing to risk defeat just because it followed a rule or convention?

The ABM is a perfect example of this. Now that the US faces a threat of a nation like N.Korea launching a nuke against them, considers the treaty too restrictive for the national security of the country and hence, scraps it. It's totally logical.

The US could have just annahiltaded Iraq in half an hour and called it day. We didn't. Obviously state will not do anything they can to win. Most times, specially with prisoners, breaking the rules isn't wrht the problem breaking the rules causes. If the Iraqis showed US prisoners on TV, it was a propaganda stunt to curry favor in the Arab street by showing they are not impotent. The Iraqis could use WMD's to try to survive, though i suspect the probably won't since the political hit would most likely outweight the military gains.

[Master Zen]

Care to point out a better one?

In simple mathematical game theoretic terms:

US = world superpower
Rogue Nation = third world nutcase

Benefits from following conventions = +5
Benefits from winning the war = +10
PR hit from NOT following conventions = -5
Losing the war = -10

Assuming of course that the US can't lose conventionally unless fighting an unconventional foe and the RN can't win conventionally at all:

US fights, and wins conventionally = +15
US fights, and wins unconventionally = +5
US fights, and loses conventioanlly = -5

Rogue nation fights against the rules and wins = +5
Rogue nation fights against the rules and loses = -15
Rogue nation fights conventional syle and loses = -10

As you can see, it is in the best interests of the US to fight conventionally and for the rogue nation to fight guerrilla style.

Now just change Rouge Nation to US and it will also apply. Why is it so hard to understand?

[Master Zen]

And obviously you can take "US fights and wins unconventionally" to mean totally annihilating Baghdad and the rest of Iraq.

If the US can win by the rules, it has no incentive to break them.

[GePap]

Guerrila war is not against the rules of war: the question is on the issue of treatment of prisoners and use of banned weapons.

The Iraqis have yet to suse ban weapon, and have mistreated prisoners. The US has done neither.

[SlowwHand]

GePap, you aren't going to win an argument with a wall.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by GePap
Guerrila war is not against the rules of war: the question is on the issue of treatment of prisoners and use of banned weapons.

The Iraqis have yet to suse ban weapon, and have mistreated prisoners. The US has done neither.

Edited "guerrilla" to "against the rules" (I was kinda thinking of Vietnam...)

The US mistreated many Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, they were filmed, many in embarrassing and humiliating positions, it has also been documented that torture like sleep deprivation was used. We all say it on TV so why is Rumsfield suddenly so uptight about Iraq following conventions when the US has failed to do so too?

There were also pictures of Iraqui prisioners keeling before being tied up, that, as far as these standards go, is also illegal.

Now, if the network stations were so enlightened, and were so knowledgable about these conventions, why did they transmit the images at all? They are just as guilty.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
Wait a minute:

You misunderstood my comment... I'm just saying that SOME aren't following the rules anymore... not that people shouldn't follow the standard conventions.

Nations used to follow the rules because they expected the same in return.

In this case... IMHO, Saddam know we will, so I guess he feels he can do anything he wants. (not that I believe he actually cares what happens to his troops)

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
GePap, you aren't going to win an argument with a wall.

That's the same thing I've been thinking since last thursday.

no one's going to change their mind and I don't expect this to be the aim of discussion. Usually, like in many other threads, they just "fade away..."

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sure. A nation's leader can choose to not follow the rules.
And in retaliation they pay the ultimate price themselves.

Simple stuff, easy to understand.

That is a strange argument.

Why is paying the ultimate price a counter-incentive to breaking the rules of war? A losing nation is going to pay the ultimate price anyway. They would be wanting to avoid that through whatever means they can.

[Ming]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That is a strange argument.

Not strange at all... while yes, you are correct that the losser pays the price no matter what.. it's still a matter of degrees. Breaking the rules may cause the winner to even be more harsh in victory...

The losser rarely gets TOTATLY wiped out... the survivers could be treated EVEN worse.

[Master Zen]

However, some Western nations are bound by their own constituencies so that even if their enemy breaks the rules, the victor will not be TOO harsh.

From Saddam's PoV, I think he realizes he might break the rules a bit and the US might not respond in kind. Imagine the outburst of nuking something or causing massive civilian casualties... that'd be terrible for PR no matter what Saddam did.

Also, government style does come into play. Iraqi civilizans are not directly responsible for the actions of their depot government and thus cannot be held accountable, and should not be made tu suffer in the name of the regime (which is what happened thru the embargo). On the other hand, a democracy does imply that the citizens have a word in the course of action that their government takes and thus can be held resposible to a certain degree (now it's all a question of, did Bush really win?? )