War to Fight Good Wars

[TMA_1]

I love how everybody has grown shocked at the "international law breaking" Iraq has committed several times. The idea of a just and noble war is pretty western in our concept. Many cultures have been more humane than the western nation by a hundred fold, but they didnt need codes of war, it was just by your honor not to do horrible stuff. It is like how we faught the native americans. So many tribesmen grew shocked at the style of fighing the european nations had. Skinning heads for hair, raping women and children (both boy and girl), killing women and children if necissary. there were many native american tribes that were warlike, but nothing at all like the americans that invaded.

Now days we depend on a shallow group of laws to protect people in war. They are supposed to be followed by nations, and if not, those nations have to be arrested and found guilty of war crimes.

Since when was war crimeless? sure we have a right to defend ourselves, but does that make killing a human better? no it doesnt, but it has to be done. Since when does war require law to be attatched to it? Have we lost so much reason that we cant figure out evil from good without a list of rules? When do we need to use rules anyway? People say it is to be humane, but I really dont see war as humane. It is really silly, and I just think the geneva convention and other codes of war are foolish. No nation is above another unless that nation is taken over obviously. There might be evil, but it cant be solved by "charging the leader with war crimes!" Do you know how many leaders charged with war crimes laugh at that statement? Even george bush has been threatened with it unofficially. He is above the law of course because he is the "prime supporter" of the U.N. notice how I said that. It is really currupt and silly to think you can put laws to war.

It is like setting the honor system on a criminal while he is in a completely unlocked bank. That criminal will still take the money. Is that bad? yes it is, but would any of you do different? You may say yes, but you have never been a position of such power.

[ken124578]

When do we need to use rules anyway? People say it is to be humane, but I really dont see war as humane.

Those rules are there to minimize the amount of deaths, dropping some atomic bombs would surely finish the current iraqi regime, together with the iraqi people, not killing people that are surrendering, etc.

[ken124578]

Btw. i have a strong feeling that saddam would start invade countries again but this time with chemical/biological weapons, it's better to fight them off now, then fight them off later, after alot of people have been killed, get them by the roots!

[TMA_1]

I believe that it can lengthen and hinder warfare, to the point that it is even worse than war already is.

[quoudam72]

I would never think that my enemy would fight "fair". That would in fact the furtherest thought from my thinking.

[Acriku]

The laws made up are to prevent unnecessary torture and killings.

[TMA_1]

torture and killings happen anyway. I see it as an evil that cant be stopped. The laws are more a staple of western self righteousness in myo pinion.

[Acriku]

Again, to prevent unnecessary torture and killings. It's done to limit those acts as much as possible, even though it can't be totally stopped.

[TMA_1]

as I said though, the group itself is not necissary, and many powerful people convicted of war crimes are never even taken to the tribunal. War is bad, so why not finish it as quickly as possible, as cheatfully and unmercifully as possible. In the end, you committed the same sin for being in the war in the first place. There is no better way to kill a person other than self defense.

[Davidu]

Tortures and kills are sometimes neccesary and effecive. Think of when you want to obtain the enemy positions from a POW. You could beat him into telling the positions... not actually a torture.

[Acriku]

TMA, if we did that then we wouldn't be here to complain now would we? ::)

Yes, as Davidu has said, some killing and torture is necessary in a war. Some of it is necessary to be effective in a war. But a lot of it is not, and thus made illegal in a war.

[Egeides]

You can't stop bad things from coming when a war erupts, but you can minimize them, put some rules that will make so that some things will be banned (Dune: atomics...). Maybe they will be done anyway in some cases, but it is like civil laws: some brak them and we run after them to arrest them, limit them.

War is a curse but if we can limit the plague, then it should be done (Geneve, etc.).

[Birdfolly]

I like your thoughts on this stuff TMA. I think the would be crimes of the powerful people who actually make, change, or are abve the laws far outweigh any of the acts carried out by those considered criminals.

Take Enron type corporate crime and this supposed war for liberation of Iraq as examples. They make a bank robery look like child's play. Laws are pretty much an excuse to be as big a scumbag killer and theif as possible in these cases.

[Dude_Doc]

War is mostly about revenge nowadays. If Palestine (well, the Palestinian terrorists) would have an atomic bomb, I don't think they would hesitate a minute to use it on, you know who. I don't even think they give a sh_t about war crimes and etc.