Clearing Up Confusion On "Rules Of War".

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ming


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.

From the losers' point of view, they are going to pay the ultimate price - the highest possible. By this I'm talking about the people who're making the decisions - the political and military leaders who will, without doubt, be facing a war crimes court and a noose when they lose. Hence, no matter what they do at this point, they're going to face that anyways - so wouldn't they try whatever means they can to end the war?


(Besides, if the winners take out their anger out on the entire losing nation a la Versailles, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot anyway.)

[Ming]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Besides, if the winners take out their anger out on the entire losing nation a la Versailles, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot anyway.

While that is true... it doesn't change what could happen.

If they start shooting more POW's, and showing it on TV, that could lead to some nasty retaliations later. I'm not saying that it is right... on the contrary, that's as bad as the events that might cause the behavior... but that's the point, you don't know what might happen. You don't want to really piss off the winners any more than war usually does.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ming


While that is true... it doesn't change what could happen.

If they start shooting more POW's, and showing it on TV, that could lead to some nasty retaliations later. I'm not saying that it is right... on the contrary, that's as bad as the events that might cause the behavior... but that's the point, you don't know what might happen. You don't want to really piss off the winners any more than war usually does.

The losing leaders, who will face a war crimes court, wouldn't be directly affected by these retaliatory measures.

It is only the winners who would be shooting themselves in the foot. Why then would the losing leaders want to prevent this?

[Ming]

One would think that the leaders would be doing what's best for their people... OH, never mind, we are talking about Saddam... silly me.

[SlowwHand]

You know what?

Ranskaldan and Master Zen make a pretty fine argument for why the Coalition are the good guys.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Ming
One would think that the leaders would be doing what's best for their people...

That's the idealistic case. If leaders really did that we would right now be living in a communist utopia.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You know what?

Ranskaldan and Master Zen make a pretty fine argument for why the Coalition are the good guys.

Sad how some people here blindly believe that their leaders are doing the best for them because they say so.

[Ming]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Sad how some people here blindly believe that their leaders are doing the best for them because they say so.

It's just a matter of one person's opinon vs anothers...
I'm sure they think you are blind as well...

So let's not resort to trying to insult other people, lets stick to the discussion.

[GePap]

I think another thing geenrally ignored is that military vicotry coupled with political defeaf equal defeat.

To revise Master Zens' chart:

US conventional victory instantly (had the "decapitation worked)= +50

[sliding scale of positive values as the timespan of US conventional victory lengthens]

US conventional victory in 6+ months= +1
_________________________

US unconventional win (as desbriced) = -50
US conventional defeat = -50
[those are the same thing: the US would only revert to pure brute force if its conventional strategy failed]

US unconventional defeat= -100

We came in saying we are angels of liberty for Iraqis: to do anyting that would rmove this self-protrayal would be defeat.

[SlowwHand]

Here's why I think what I think.

I maintain that this session of war ia continuance of the initial Gulf War, where fighting ended via a cease fire.
I've already put in many places the difference of cease fire and surrender.

I didn't vote for Bush, Sr. the 2nd time around, almost exclusively over the way that turned out.

Following the cease fire, Hussein murdered a vast number of his people, which prompted the USA and Britain to institute the No Fly Zone.

Hussein doesn't like it? Too bad, and fine then.
Which brings us to present day.

I don't blindly follow Bush, or any damned body.
I agree with Bush. My only sore spot in foregn affairs being that since the U.S. and Britain brokered the cease fire, we never should have burned daylight waiting on the likes of France.

As I've also said, that was a dollar waiting on a dime.


Get it now? I'm voicing my own belief and knowledge.
Much different than alleged "parroting", which is what the radical liberals are doing.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, no one has always followed those rules completely, which is why, for example, they Doenitz wan't convicted of more at nuemberg for ordering his subs to sink merchants without warning. His lawyer brought in American Admirals to explain that they had done the same to Japanese shipping as the germans had to allied shipping.

how much longer would you have liked Doenitz to serve? what happenned to him was a travesty(sp)

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by reds4ever


how much longer would you have liked Doenitz to serve? what happenned to him was a travesty(sp)

nothing that any other US admiral didn't do... and he still got convicted. And Jodl! He got hanged for no other reason than being one of the head honchos at HQ...

To the victors the spoils, and the truth.

Under even WW2 standards, Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May were even greater criminals than anyone... LeMay was a nutcase, he was an advocate of starting a nuclear war during the cuban missile crisis. To think people like him end up in high places is sickening