"Rules of War"?

[ProUser]

Maybe I am out of the loop, or am just "missing" something when it comes to this whole concept of war. However, "Rules of War" is something I don't quite understand, and no matter where you turn that phrase keeps getting spit out. I understand formal agreements to "not use chemical weapons" or what have you between nations and such...but...let's get down to basics here..

The way I see it is, person A is trying to kill person B and vice versa.

If I'm person A, and person B is coming to kill me. Screw any thoughts of rules of war. This isn't a backyard fight where you don't kick your opponent in the nads or throw dirt in their eyes because it's dirty - this is for your life. If you are trying to kill me, I'm going to do whatever it takes, using whatever methods I have at my disposal to make sure that if one of us isn't going to make it - it's going to be you. This is even greater if you are coming after me, especially to my home.

If two people trying to kill me corner me, and I know I'm dead unless I do something drastic so I throw my hands up in a sign of "I give up" only to pull a concealed gun out of my pocket as the two try and take me.. why on earth is that breaking some "rule" of war?

I don't condone any such actions, fighting dirty, using chemical weapons, pretending to surrender, or what have you. And this doesn't even relate to today's war except for the fact that it keeps being brought up in the media..

But if someone is trying to kill me.. how could someone judge me for doing whatever I have to do to stay alive? (As long as nobody other then my attackers were harmed).

---

Not so much a rant.. just more of a "I don't get it."

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: ProUser
Maybe I am out of the loop, or am just "missing" something when it comes to this whole concept of war. However, "Rules of War" is something I don't quite understand, and no matter where you turn that phrase keeps getting spit out. I understand formal agreements to "not use chemical weapons" or what have you between nations and such...but...let's get down to basics here..

The way I see it is, person A is trying to kill person B and vice versa.

If I'm person A, and person B is coming to kill me. Screw any thoughts of rules of war. This isn't a backyard fight where you don't kick your opponent in the nads or throw dirt in their eyes because it's dirty - this is for your life. If you are trying to kill me, I'm going to do whatever it takes, using whatever methods I have at my disposal to make sure that if one of us isn't going to make it - it's going to be you. This is even greater if you are coming after me, especially to my home.

If two people trying to kill me corner me, and I know I'm dead unless I do something drastic so I throw my hands up in a sign of "I give up" only to pull a concealed gun out of my pocket as the two try and take me.. why on earth is that breaking some "rule" of war?

I don't condone any such actions, fighting dirty, using chemical weapons, pretending to surrender, or what have you. And this doesn't even relate to today's war except for the fact that it keeps being brought up in the media..

But if someone is trying to kill me.. how could someone judge me for doing whatever I have to do to stay alive? (As long as nobody other then my attackers were harmed).

---

Not so much a rant.. just more of a "I don't get it."

I'm not sure that pretending to surrender is a "rule of war" as you put it. There are certain voluntary conventions that most have signed up to.

The Geneva Convention
The Vienna Protocol (laser weapons)
Something to do with Biological weapons
Something to do with Chemical weapons

All spring to mind.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ProUser
Maybe I am out of the loop, or am just "missing" something when it comes to this whole concept of war. However, "Rules of War" is something I don't quite understand, and no matter where you turn that phrase keeps getting spit out. I understand formal agreements to "not use chemical weapons" or what have you between nations and such...but...let's get down to basics here..

The way I see it is, person A is trying to kill person B and vice versa.

If I'm person A, and person B is coming to kill me. Screw any thoughts of rules of war. This isn't a backyard fight where you don't kick your opponent in the nads or throw dirt in their eyes because it's dirty - this is for your life. If you are trying to kill me, I'm going to do whatever it takes, using whatever methods I have at my disposal to make sure that if one of us isn't going to make it - it's going to be you. This is even greater if you are coming after me, especially to my home.

If two people trying to kill me corner me, and I know I'm dead unless I do something drastic so I throw my hands up in a sign of "I give up" only to pull a concealed gun out of my pocket as the two try and take me.. why on earth is that breaking some "rule" of war?

I don't condone any such actions, fighting dirty, using chemical weapons, pretending to surrender, or what have you. And this doesn't even relate to today's war except for the fact that it keeps being brought up in the media..

But if someone is trying to kill me.. how could someone judge me for doing whatever I have to do to stay alive? (As long as nobody other then my attackers were harmed).

---

Not so much a rant.. just more of a "I don't get it."

Do you really want to see unrestricted warfare? Because if so, I think we could have ended this war in a day. Why load a B-52 with 500 lbs conventional bombs, when we could load them with 20 odd nuclear weapons (IIRC) and actually turn Iraq into one big glass bowl? Why not drop a couple tons of VX onto each and every one of their cities? Why not bust out the neutron bombs? That way all the infrastructure stays intact, only living flesh is hurt by it (mostly, if altitude detonated).

The answer is that no one likes war, but no one EVER wants to see totally unrestricted warfare in the age of the H-bomb, VX, anthrax, etc.

 

[sandorski]

Rules of war are good. Though I can understand Iraq's position in not following them, that won't matter once the war is over(I assume the Coalition will win ). One party not following the rules doesn't excuse the other party(ies) from following the Rules though.

 

[ProUser]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: ProUser
Maybe I am out of the loop, or am just "missing" something when it comes to this whole concept of war. However, "Rules of War" is something I don't quite understand, and no matter where you turn that phrase keeps getting spit out. I understand formal agreements to "not use chemical weapons" or what have you between nations and such...but...let's get down to basics here..

The way I see it is, person A is trying to kill person B and vice versa.

If I'm person A, and person B is coming to kill me. Screw any thoughts of rules of war. This isn't a backyard fight where you don't kick your opponent in the nads or throw dirt in their eyes because it's dirty - this is for your life. If you are trying to kill me, I'm going to do whatever it takes, using whatever methods I have at my disposal to make sure that if one of us isn't going to make it - it's going to be you. This is even greater if you are coming after me, especially to my home.

If two people trying to kill me corner me, and I know I'm dead unless I do something drastic so I throw my hands up in a sign of "I give up" only to pull a concealed gun out of my pocket as the two try and take me.. why on earth is that breaking some "rule" of war?

I don't condone any such actions, fighting dirty, using chemical weapons, pretending to surrender, or what have you. And this doesn't even relate to today's war except for the fact that it keeps being brought up in the media..

But if someone is trying to kill me.. how could someone judge me for doing whatever I have to do to stay alive? (As long as nobody other then my attackers were harmed).

---

Not so much a rant.. just more of a "I don't get it."

Do you really want to see unrestricted warfare? Because if so, I think we could have ended this war in a day. Why load a B-52 with 500 lbs conventional bombs, when we could load them with 20 odd nuclear weapons (IIRC) and actually turn Iraq into one big glass bowl? Why not drop a couple tons of VX onto each and every one of their cities? Why not bust out the neutron bombs? That way all the infrastructure stays intact, only living flesh is hurt by it (mostly, if altitude detonated).

The answer is that no one likes war, but no one EVER wants to see totally unrestricted warfare in the age of the H-bomb, VX, anthrax, etc.

I agree with you in that it would be bad.

But my original point was meant to be in the situation where nobody but the attacker would be hurt. Obviously dropping nukes is going to kill a lot of innocent people, etc.

I guess my point/questioning was just on "Person A" verses "Person B" without any affect on person C, D, E, etc...

If 5 people came to my house, trying to kill me and I had a (for sake of stupid what if) chemical grenade, that I knew would kill the 5 people trying to kill me and nobody else... I'm throwing that grenade. Especially if my family is asleep in the other room. Laser station in space? I'm firing it. A potato gun? I'm using it. Whatever it takes to stop those 5 people from killing me or my family without harming anyone else, I'm using.

"I'm going to come and try to kill you, but while I'm doing that make sure you follow the rules" I guess just does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ProUser
I agree with you in that it would be bad.

But my original point was meant to be in the situation where nobody but the attacker would be hurt. Obviously dropping nukes is going to kill a lot of innocent people, etc.

I guess my point/questioning was just on "Person A" verses "Person B" without any affect on person C, D, E, etc...

If 5 people came to my house, trying to kill me and I had a (for sake of stupid what if) chemical grenade, that I knew would kill the 5 people trying to kill me and nobody else... I'm throwing that grenade. Especially if my family is asleep in the other room. Laser station in space? I'm firing it. A potato gun? I'm using it. Whatever it takes to stop those 5 people from killing me or my family without harming anyone else, I'm using.

"I'm going to come and try to kill you, but while I'm doing that make sure you follow the rules" I guess just does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

The thing is, when the Iraqi soldiers fire from behind women and children, someone else is getting hurt. When you station your AA batteries next to a apartment building, someone is going to get hurt. When you base your soldiers out of a hospital and actually use it to fire from, someone gets hurt. Your theoretical chemical grenade would kill your family, unless they are sleeping in MOPP suits. Same thing with using chemical weapons on US troops... anyone who is nearby or downwind is screwed.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Rules of war are good. Though I can understand Iraq's position in not following them, that won't matter once the war is over(I assume the Coalition will win ). One party not following the rules doesn't excuse the other party(ies) from following the Rules though.

actually, for some things, like chemical weapons, you are allowed to return fire in kind

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProUser

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: ProUser
Maybe I am out of the loop, or am just "missing" something when it comes to this whole concept of war. However, "Rules of War" is something I don't quite understand, and no matter where you turn that phrase keeps getting spit out. I understand formal agreements to "not use chemical weapons" or what have you between nations and such...but...let's get down to basics here..

The way I see it is, person A is trying to kill person B and vice versa.

If I'm person A, and person B is coming to kill me. Screw any thoughts of rules of war. This isn't a backyard fight where you don't kick your opponent in the nads or throw dirt in their eyes because it's dirty - this is for your life. If you are trying to kill me, I'm going to do whatever it takes, using whatever methods I have at my disposal to make sure that if one of us isn't going to make it - it's going to be you. This is even greater if you are coming after me, especially to my home.

If two people trying to kill me corner me, and I know I'm dead unless I do something drastic so I throw my hands up in a sign of "I give up" only to pull a concealed gun out of my pocket as the two try and take me.. why on earth is that breaking some "rule" of war?

I don't condone any such actions, fighting dirty, using chemical weapons, pretending to surrender, or what have you. And this doesn't even relate to today's war except for the fact that it keeps being brought up in the media..

But if someone is trying to kill me.. how could someone judge me for doing whatever I have to do to stay alive? (As long as nobody other then my attackers were harmed).

---

Not so much a rant.. just more of a "I don't get it."

Do you really want to see unrestricted warfare? Because if so, I think we could have ended this war in a day. Why load a B-52 with 500 lbs conventional bombs, when we could load them with 20 odd nuclear weapons (IIRC) and actually turn Iraq into one big glass bowl? Why not drop a couple tons of VX onto each and every one of their cities? Why not bust out the neutron bombs? That way all the infrastructure stays intact, only living flesh is hurt by it (mostly, if altitude detonated).

The answer is that no one likes war, but no one EVER wants to see totally unrestricted warfare in the age of the H-bomb, VX, anthrax, etc.

I agree with you in that it would be bad.

But my original point was meant to be in the situation where nobody but the attacker would be hurt. Obviously dropping nukes is going to kill a lot of innocent people, etc.

I guess my point/questioning was just on "Person A" verses "Person B" without any affect on person C, D, E, etc...

If 5 people came to my house, trying to kill me and I had a (for sake of stupid what if) chemical grenade, that I knew would kill the 5 people trying to kill me and nobody else... I'm throwing that grenade. Especially if my family is asleep in the other room. Laser station in space? I'm firing it. A potato gun? I'm using it. Whatever it takes to stop those 5 people from killing me or my family without harming anyone else, I'm using.

"I'm going to come and try to kill you, but while I'm doing that make sure you follow the rules" I guess just does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

The munitions of a potato gun needs to be deep fried in animal fat for best effect.

 

[human2k]

If they play trench war, Iraq or US calls a timeout and build there trenches. Then they call time in and fight.

 

[Bleep]

I take it that you do not want rules of war even a so callec conventional one. Is that correct?

How about rules of surrender? If you are willing to give up should then the ones that capture you should be allowed to torture and then murder you?
That is what happens when the rules of war and surrender are just ignored.

Bleep

 

[TheNinja]

I understand why they do it but I don't agree at all!!

I can understand why the Iraqis are playing these games...well some of them. I can understand cutting off the supply lines, guerilla warfare, warfare in the cities and come other things. The obviously cannot take us on in the open field so they are doing what they think they have to do to win. Unfortunately they only cause more bloodshed among innocent people when they use human shields, hospitals, and fake surrender. But I agree with the orginal post in that they are doing what they have to do to live and try to win whether or not it is fair.

Again, I understand what they are doing and why but I think it is horrible.

 

[ProUser]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: ProUser
I agree with you in that it would be bad.

But my original point was meant to be in the situation where nobody but the attacker would be hurt. Obviously dropping nukes is going to kill a lot of innocent people, etc.

I guess my point/questioning was just on "Person A" verses "Person B" without any affect on person C, D, E, etc...

If 5 people came to my house, trying to kill me and I had a (for sake of stupid what if) chemical grenade, that I knew would kill the 5 people trying to kill me and nobody else... I'm throwing that grenade. Especially if my family is asleep in the other room. Laser station in space? I'm firing it. A potato gun? I'm using it. Whatever it takes to stop those 5 people from killing me or my family without harming anyone else, I'm using.

"I'm going to come and try to kill you, but while I'm doing that make sure you follow the rules" I guess just does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

The thing is, when the Iraqi soldiers fire from behind women and children, someone else is getting hurt. When you station your AA batteries next to a apartment building, someone is going to get hurt. When you base your soldiers out of a hospital and actually use it to fire from, someone gets hurt. Your theoretical chemical grenade would kill your family, unless they are sleeping in MOPP suits. Same thing with using chemical weapons on US troops... anyone who is nearby or downwind is screwed.

Trying to discuss this more on a "in general" rather then in regards to today's war because I think it relates to any "I'm coming to kill you" situation.

If you are running after me to kill me and I know you will if you catch me, and I know you absolutely adore Sunflowers and can't stand to step on them, and there is a big sunflower field - I'm running to hide in it. You are the one coming after me, trying to kill me. You step on the flowers that's your fault.

Or let's say the police are chasing you, and shooting at you. You can run into a crowded mall to try and escape where you know the police won't fire at you, or you can run into a deserted parking lot with no cover, where you might as well paint a big target on your butt. In all honesty which would you do?

Obviously I don't condone hiding behind women and children, or anything like that. I just think the notion of "Rules of War" to be a little questionable..

 

[WhiteKnight77]

An easy way to think of rules of war is in terms of ammuntion for rifles. Rules specify a certain kind of round for ammo. There are 2 kinds of rounds fired from rifles, jacketed (ball) or semi-jacketed. Now a semi-jacketed round mushrooms out and expands as it enters it's target thus causing much damage to soft tissue. A ball round will enter, may fragment if it hits a bone, tumbles inside the target (how it does it's damage,) but can also exit the target. Rules of war state that the ball round is the more humane of the 2 and thus is what is used in assault weapons world ride. It is also prohibited to cut an x in the top of ball round ammunition to cause a mushrooming effect like semi-jaketed rounds.

Ammo size also dictates what a weapon is used on. Larger calliber rounds (.50) are for use on hard (soft targets being humans) targets like buildings, trucks, jeeps and such. Now if a soft target is struck by such rounds while inside a hard target, that would be deemed legal.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: WhiteKnight77
A

Ammo size also dictates what a weapon is used on. Larger calliber rounds (.50) are for use on hard (soft targets being humans) targets like buildings, trucks, jeeps and such. Now if a soft target is struck by such rounds while inside a hard target, that would be deemed legal.

There are no restrictions on what size of ammo you can use on a target. You can drop a 2,000 lb bomb on a person if you want. There are no rules limiting this. You can also shoot people with 50 caliber machine guns, or even 30mm cannons in A-10's.

The reason they usually don't do this is because of weapon cost. Why waste thousands of dollars shooting a guy with an anti-tank missile when a M-16 will do?

 

[Ylen13]

Remember one thing. All rules go out of the window when the first bullet goes by you.

 

[Orsorum]

I wonder if the "rules of war" that get enacted are enacted to limit the damage to non combatants and the infrastructure of the warring nations. Despite what some will say, war cannot continue indefinitely; ordinary life will someday resume. The key is to enable both nations (or maybe one, or three?) to eventually resume daily operations with a minimum of reconstruction.

Just my uneducated opinion.

 

[dahunan]

Iraqis dressing as civilians and pretending to surrender only to open fire on unsuspecting U.S. troops.

Firing mortars into civilians trying to surrender to Allied troops in Basra.

Iraqi soldiers dressed as Allied troops accepting the surrender of other Iraqi soldiers and then brutally executing them on the spot.

Using hospitals as military fortresses and staging areas.

Using Red Crescent ambulances to carry orders and ammunition to Iraqi military.

Iraqi soldiers marching women and children in front of them while attacking U.S. 3rd Army in the An Najaf area.

Surface-to-surface missiles placed in the middle of homes in Baghdad.

^^Those are probably Violations of the "Rules Of War"

 

[BarneyFife]

I don't really understand them either. This is life or death here and you have to use whatever tactics necessary to survive. We invaded their country. We started the war. We shouldn't whine about people shooting from hospitals or homes because we really have no business in there.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I don't really understand them either. This is life or death here and you have to use whatever tactics necessary to survive. We invaded their country. We started the war. We shouldn't whine about people shooting from hospitals or homes because we really have no business in there.

This is not sound logic. It is in the Iraqis' best interest to follow the rules of war.

The entire reason that you don't attack hospitals is because they're strictly for humanitarian purposes. They are not to be used as hiding places for the military. If the military wants to use hospitals as fortresses, fine. But get used to your hospitals getting destroyed as any fortress would. We'd have no problem doing that. But you need hospitals, therefore it was established early on that hospitals are "out of bounds" for military use.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I don't really understand them either. This is life or death here and you have to use whatever tactics necessary to survive. We invaded their country. We started the war. We shouldn't whine about people shooting from hospitals or homes because we really have no business in there.

This is not sound logic. It is in the Iraqis' best interest to follow the rules of war.

The entire reason that you don't attack hospitals is because they're strictly for humanitarian purposes. They are not to be used as hiding places for the military. If the military wants to use hospitals as fortresses, fine. But get used to your hospitals getting destroyed as any fortress would. We'd have no problem doing that. But you need hospitals, therefore it was established early on that hospitals are "out of bounds" for military use.

Maybe the US should get tougher? We are fighting brutes in Iraq. I wouldn't put it past them to put a suicide bomb on a kid. Soldiers are getting killed out there because they are playing nice.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I don't really understand them either. This is life or death here and you have to use whatever tactics necessary to survive. We invaded their country. We started the war. We shouldn't whine about people shooting from hospitals or homes because we really have no business in there.

This is not sound logic. It is in the Iraqis' best interest to follow the rules of war.

The entire reason that you don't attack hospitals is because they're strictly for humanitarian purposes. They are not to be used as hiding places for the military. If the military wants to use hospitals as fortresses, fine. But get used to your hospitals getting destroyed as any fortress would. We'd have no problem doing that. But you need hospitals, therefore it was established early on that hospitals are "out of bounds" for military use.

Maybe the US should get tougher? We are fighting brutes in Iraq. I wouldn't put it past them to put a suicide bomb on a kid. Soldiers are getting killed out there because they are playing nice.

This is me getting up on my soapbox, but that is our burden... if we really want to be leaders on a world level, we must be willing to set the standard and abide completely by it. That includes usage of WMD's, torture, due process, free speech, voting rights, rules of war, etc.

 

[KenGr]

There are really good reasons to follow the Geneva convention:

If you will mistreat captives, the opposition will fight to the death rather than surrender.

If you use civilians as shields or disguise your soldiers, the opposition will eventually be more than willing to shoot civilians.

If you fake a surrender, the next surrender will not be taken seriously.

Unfortunately these are not good reasons to the Iraqis who seem have no interest in the good of either their soldiers or civilians.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: KenGr
There are really good reasons to follow the Geneva convention:

If you will mistreat captives, the opposition will fight to the death rather than surrender.

If you use civilians as shields or disguise your soldiers, the opposition will eventually be more than willing to shoot civilians.

If you fake a surrender, the next surrender will not be taken seriously.

Unfortunately these are not good reasons to the Iraqis who seem have no interest in the good of either their soldiers or civilians.

Playing devils advocate here, what about those Taliban that we kidnapped from Afghanistan and threw in Cuba. Bush refused to declare those POW's and we are still uncertain about their status. Those people live in cages outside in the sun and are blindfolded and chained like animals. Should we really be expecting better treatment?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: KenGr
There are really good reasons to follow the Geneva convention:

If you will mistreat captives, the opposition will fight to the death rather than surrender.

If you use civilians as shields or disguise your soldiers, the opposition will eventually be more than willing to shoot civilians.

If you fake a surrender, the next surrender will not be taken seriously.

Unfortunately these are not good reasons to the Iraqis who seem have no interest in the good of either their soldiers or civilians.

Playing devils advocate here, what about those Taliban that we kidnapped from Afghanistan and threw in Cuba. Bush refused to declare those POW's and we are still uncertain about their status. Those people live in cages outside in the sun and are blindfolded and chained like animals. Should we really be expecting better treatment?

Do you really believe they are living in cages, still blindfolded, and still chained like animals?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Maybe the US should get tougher? We are fighting brutes in Iraq. I wouldn't put it past them to put a suicide bomb on a kid. Soldiers are getting killed out there because they are playing nice.

I agree.