Laws Of War

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Ah yes, we should all take lessons from McNamera, you know the guy responsible for all those firebombings and the guy responsible for losing Vietnam. Great role model.

McNamera knew we were going to be f*cke, he said that to LBJ before the war escalated. LBJ escalated the conflict because he didn't what to look "Soft on Communism", even tough both knew it war wouldn't go well (at least according to an NPR report last weekend).

Politicians sending people to war because of partisan politics:

[Berzerker]

I voted archaic then saw its 24-2

I dont think you need a uniform to be protected by any rules of war. Not everyone in a war wears a uniform, I wouldn't be wearing one if we were invaded. Then there's spies and agents sent in to look like the enemy. It isn't unethical to trick people who are trying to kill you. It is if your side started the war though.

[Patroklos]

Not everyone in a war wears a uniform

Verry true, and they are divided into two classes.

Civilians, and spies.

Nor are those two hard to distiguish in most cases. There are a few hundred hangings in order at least, if we follow the Geneva Conventions. Not that anyone in the opposition here is seriously advocating that

[Berzerker]

How about militia? I'm sure there were plenty of Americans fighting the Revolution without any uniforms. And if, lets say, China invaded us, there would be millions of former civilians fighting the invaders and a uniform wouldn't be high on their list of necessities.

[Patroklos]

The treaty says you have to be idenified as a combatant, and under such rule alot of 1770's militia would be classified as trators/spies and liable to be executed as such (and were). However, most militia contingents did in fact have unit colors, though the movies and pop history like to leave that out. Most also carried colony issied belts/webbing with official markers, courtesy of the local armory.

Irrelevant anywyays, the American militia rebellion is a myth.

[Berzerker]

The laws of war were made up by Europeans in the day of line formations walking into muskets and cannonfire and still practiced after machine guns were invented. Taking their advice on how to fight a war

Or did the laws originate with chivalry?

Anyway, it would be nice if everyone played by the same rules. But someone trying to kill me has already violated my rules, so I'm not too concerned with their welfare.

[Berzerker]

Irrelevant anywyays, the American militia rebellion is a myth.

There were no militia in the American Revolution?

The treaty says you have to be idenified as a combatant, and under such rule alot of 1770's militia would be classified as trators/spies and liable to be executed as such (and were).

Great, so another country invades my country and the rules say I'm a traitor or spy for resisting?

Laws of war? BRILLIANT!!!

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The treaty says you have to be idenified as a combatant, and under such rule alot of 1770's militia would be classified as trators/spies and liable to be executed as such (and were). However, most militia contingents did in fact have unit colors, though the movies and pop history like to leave that out. Most also carried colony issied belts/webbing with official markers, courtesy of the local armory.

Irrelevant anywyays, the American militia rebellion is a myth.

You cannot equate the UK FSR or QR of the time with todays LOW, the laws are fundamentaly different.

Who and what are combatants is vastly different, its worth pointing out 13 singners of the DOI were hung or shot for treason, civilians got hung, mil were shot. the popint is ALL were committing treason, not that some were legal combatants because of the uniform code.

It would not be correct to apply todays rules onto past events, today a pilot cannot shoot another pilot in his downward path, but if that pilot pulls out a ide arm, you can shoot him with anything he likes. Not a very good example, but you get my meaning i hope.

Treason was an act a citizen of the crown partook, taking up arms against the crown was treason.

laws of war are wonderfull things, we have always had them and will will have them, attempts to limit the extent of loss is a trully great endeavor, problem is that it depends who your fighting, loseing to the US today in a war is not like Poland loseing to the nazis, of the Poles loseing to the Mongols, hell anyone loseing to the Mongols for that matter!.

So yes laws are both necessary and desirable, but when circamstances dicate otherwise, they go right out the window and the law of neccissity comes in, and that law says in some circmastances the need to win at any cost outweighs all.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The treaty says you have to be idenified as a combatant, and under such rule alot of 1770's militia would be classified as trators/spies and liable to be executed as such (and were). However, most militia contingents did in fact have unit colors, though the movies and pop history like to leave that out. Most also carried colony issied belts/webbing with official markers, courtesy of the local armory.

Irrelevant anywyays, the American militia rebellion is a myth.

You cannot equate the UK FSR or QR of the time with todays LOW, the laws are fundamentaly different.

Who and what are combatants is vastly different, its worth pointing out 13 singners of the DOI were hung or shot for treason, civilians got hung, mil were shot. the popint is ALL were committing treason, not that some were legal combatants because of the uniform code.

It would not be correct to apply todays rules onto past events, today a pilot cannot shoot another pilot in his downward path, but if that pilot pulls out a ide arm, you can shoot him with anything he likes. Not a very good example, but you get my meaning i hope.

Treason was an act a citizen of the crown partook, taking up arms against the crown was treason.

laws of war are wonderfull things, we have always had them and will will have them, attempts to limit the extent of loss is a trully great endeavor, problem is that it depends who your fighting, loseing to the US today in a war is not like Poland loseing to the nazis, of the Poles loseing to the Mongols, hell anyone loseing to the Mongols for that matter!.

So yes laws are both necessary and desirable, but when circamstances dicate otherwise, they go right out the window and the law of neccissity comes in, and that law says in some circmastances the need to win at any cost outweighs all.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The laws of war were made up by Europeans in the day of line formations walking into muskets and cannonfire and still practiced after machine guns were invented. Taking their advice on how to fight a war

Or did the laws originate with chivalry?

Anyway, it would be nice if everyone played by the same rules. But someone trying to kill me has already violated my rules, so I'm not too concerned with their welfare.

Well that why the rules of engagement are drawn up by those who dont then prosecute the action, this detatchment form a better grasp of what level of force is deemed suffiecent to complet the task from botha mil need and political desireable effect pov.

perfect?, nope...but better than what has existed before.

AH saw war as not winners and losers, but survivors and exterminated, insect war.

TheGreeks saw war as a game of Kings, you invade fight a battle or two and the winner is top dog for a while, untill a nother set of battles repalce one city state with another as thye Top dog.

Rome came along and invented a new concept, winning by attrition or total war as we today undersatnd the concept. Sometimes they applied the rules of war, because that enemy was going to still be around afterwards and you need to intercat with them, sometimes the policy was that they would not be around, or be a transiant tyrbal gropup that would disapear of thr radar, and in those cases no rules applied and the full reign of mans inhumanity could be brought to bear.

laws of war are not perfect, but they are so, so much better than thge alternative, insect war, no winners and losers, only survors and extermionated.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Odin


McNamera knew we were going to be f*cke, he said that to LBJ before the war escalated. LBJ escalated the conflict because he didn't what to look "Soft on Communism", even tough both knew it war wouldn't go well (at least according to an NPR report last weekend).

Politicians sending people to war because of partisan politics:

Well, in McNamera's own words, he does regret the whole bombing and "adherence to statistical warfare" thing that supposedly worked so great in WW2 but was a miserable failure in Vietname

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Are you talking about that nonexistent firebombombig of Hanoi in 68', or the nuetron bombing of Hanoi on 81', because both never happened.

I'm talking about the bombing of Hanoi and Hai Phong, which were indisuputably bombed like crazy. Okay, let's replace "firebombing" with "strategic bombing," instead of dying in good old fashioned firestorms, people died the old fashioned way, you know through getting blown up.

Besides obligingly slaughtering them wholesale by their own initiative during the Tet Offensive, I honesty can't think of a better tactic. Unless you think forcing the primary aggressor into a desperate plea for mercy is a bad thing.

And they eventually won, so I'd say that was a pretty good tactic. No, it was those damn hippies back home that lost for us, right?

Because they like me, and unlike you, are aware of the truth of the original statement like the rest of the thinking world. Do you care to object?

Except when such adherence might leave a bad taste in you mouth, not that you have any remote connection to any action in support of them.

Good view from you armchair?

Like you do either?? LOL!!!

My armchair is about as comfortable as the one on your boat. You certainly have ample time away from the action to be here and commentate on all the action though.

And second, many of my friends are Marines, so they've already been through this crap before.

Nice try in playing the "I'm in the action" card but it doesn't work for you. And secondly it doesn't work because any General with brains will tell you not following the rules causes more trouble than it's actually worth.