NationStates Jolt Archive

Think about it. In a war the only way to end it is to make the other army surrender. How can you make an army surrender by treating them humanely and feeding them? That is totally backwards. If you want to fight a war, you need to annihilate the enemy and kill all those who would otherwise be taken prisoner? Besides...do you think anyone would really be faithful and follow this insignificant legislation? I know I wouldn't...

???

Gee, that means if you're loosing your enemy can annialate you with impunity.

Personally, I like locking up the enemy, until there are none left to lock up or kill.

Think Guantanamo Bay Cuba :lol: :lol:

Or the Battan Death March.

Not only have I thought about it and endorsed it and voted for it and it's been passed.. but a lot of very smart people thought about it in 1929 as well. This resolution was basically the exact (with a few minor differences) Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of POWs. So, if you think you're more enlightened then the people who wrote the Geneva Conventions on warfare.. then you have one heck of an ego!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Stephistan...you must be really naive. You think anyone follows ICC rules? Look at WW2: the japs killed pow's like crazy. Look at Korea: the Turks killed anyone they found. Look at Vietnam: although you might not wanna hear it, the USA did not follow the Geneva conventions. The Rangers, Seals, and Green Berets were horridly out of line when it came to following such articles. If we followed them, we would not place mines or booby traps. We wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction. And we would treat prisoners fairly. BUT WE DIDNT! None of the SEATO armies in Indochina did. Anyone who thinks that those old documents hold any water will be in for a rude awakening. Besides, being as it was made by the League of Nations which had no power...the Geneva conventions had no power either. It is not my ego. It is your ignorance to how real wars are fought.

Also, Anacanapuna...what do you call the Battan Death Marches? You think the marines got treated fairly there? HECK NO! And about how they could kill my troops without impunity, well...that is just a risk I would have to take. No war is fair, and trying to make them that way is just one of a million bad ideas to humanize the end all be all of dehumanization: war.

The only people who think the Geneva Conventions are followed, or even workable, are those who have not made any study of the way the real world works. Powerful nations violate the GC constantly and with impunity. Small weak nations follow them or suffer the wrath of the big boys. Its all about power. If you have it, you do what you want. If you don't you do what you can get away with.

:roll: Boy people are dumb..really you are.

If you have a reputation of killing all that surrender..the your opponents will fight to the death, as they know they will die anyway so they will try to take out as many enemy troops as possible.

But if you have a reputation of taking prisinors & treating them well, then if given no alternative your enemies will surrender as no one (except fanatics) is that willing to die (its so permenant). Therefore you reduce the number of casualties on your side, which means more troops to carry on fighting else where.

And the reason why the Japs did what they did in WW2 is due to the fact they hadn't signed the Geneva Conventions, which Germany & the allies had done.

IRL the GC isn't followed systematically, but even the worse violators treat their prisoners better than befor ethey signed it.It's that PR thingy, you know ;)

What Slagkattunger said.
If we get into a conflict, and you torture and execute prisoners taken from our forces, next time we're in a tight spot, are we going to surrender, or fight on past normal tollerances, in an effort to break out (or even avenge the atrocities)? And if your men hear that Walmingtonian prisoners get a safe bed at night and a meal in the morning, are they going to be so determined to fight their way out next time we have them surrounded?

So there you go, treat people badly, they'll kick you in the face. This is for your own good!

Of course, if anyone argues that this makes their soldiers soft or cowardly, consider that it's only proportional to the enemy softening too. If it's even arguable.

(And think about it for just a moment. Who treated their prisoners more brutally in WWII, the Fascists, Nazis, and Imperial Japanese, or the British, Commonwealth, and US forces? And who won, despite being relatively "soft" on their prisoners? (of course there's always a rule-proving exception, and I find that it is usually Russia.) )

There's a little thing called moral contract that makes human societies work. And a concept of "Moral High Ground". The examples of WWII have been raised, and surprise surprise, the people who abided by the Geneva Convention weren't hanged at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Check the case records and you'll find that no Bulgarian was tried (they signed and respected the GC), but in fact American soldiers were indeed tried for unlawful slayings of POW's, two went to the gallows along with one British.

However this is beside the point. How can we expect our own POWs to be treated fairly if we don't treat theirs ourselves. Hence we sign GC, and if they don't respect it, we have the moral high ground to try them for war crimes. We can't expect anyone to follow it if no one sets an example. And just because others don't follow it is no reason not to. Remember, if it's an eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind.

Set a precedent for a safer world.

Stephistan...you must be really naive. You think anyone follows ICC rules? Look at WW2: the japs killed pow's like crazy. Look at Korea: the Turks killed anyone they found. Look at Vietnam: although you might not wanna hear it, the USA did not follow the Geneva conventions. The Rangers, Seals, and Green Berets were horridly out of line when it came to following such articles. If we followed them, we would not place mines or booby traps. We wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction. And we would treat prisoners fairly. BUT WE DIDNT! None of the SEATO armies in Indochina did. Anyone who thinks that those old documents hold any water will be in for a rude awakening. Besides, being as it was made by the League of Nations which had no power...the Geneva conventions had no power either. It is not my ego. It is your ignorance to how real wars are fought.

Ignorance? I think we know how wars are fought, and they are fought badly. Unjust, bloody, damaging and the few positive points are far outweighed.
And we know the US does not follow the Geneva Convention, look at Iraq. And Guentanemo Bay.
This is how wars SHOULD be fought, if any are fought at all.
I can't believe I have to explain this. Sounds like a 12 year old on NS?
No, he (or she) can quote some truths. 13 or 14 then.

Think about it. In a war the only way to end it is to make the other army surrender. How can you make an army surrender by treating them humanely and feeding them? That is totally backwards. If you want to fight a war, you need to annihilate the enemy and kill all those who would otherwise be taken prisoner? Besides...do you think anyone would really be faithful and follow this insignificant legislation? I know I wouldn't...

You bring up a pretty good point, as much as I hate to admit it. I'm going to take the stance of this making things better then they would be, even if it's never totally respected. At least now we have some guidelines we know in the back of our heads that we should follow, and that'll probably effect peoples actions.

In this UN, you HAVE to obey the legislation.

And if you wouldn't obey this, well, sorry, but you're in the minority, and a stupid, hawkish one at that.

In this UN, you HAVE to obey the legislation.

And if you wouldn't obey this, well, sorry, but you're in the minority, and a stupid, hawkish one at that.

Another good point. The other difference between our UN and the real world UN (the first one being that this is set up more like a legislature, one person said) is that in this one you MUST follow all the rules and if it looks like you don't, a judge will decide how guilty you are. But this gives more meaning to The Acacians initial post, and that's a scary thought.

Never bring my age up in this again. Besides, I am not 12, 13, or 14. And moral high ground??? Who cares! If there was moral high ground, we wouldn't be fighting at all! There is no moral effect in any war, so enough with it. The fact is, if I were to fight a war, I would be the most sadistic and dirty fighter you would find. The point of war is to kill. If you don't kill, you will be killed.

And war crimes? Anything committed in a war could be justified as an attrocity. I mean...no act of war is ever kind. It always causes bloodshed, grief, panic...never anything good, except for the winning side...and only at the cost of their own men. So why even try to church it up? The best way is just to annihilate the enemy without ever really having to look him in the eye. I would rather kill a man than take him prisoner so I would never have to get to know him. War is not personal. I do not want to know the man I kill...he might have turned out to be my friend if the war hadn't occured. So why give myself the guilt streak and make myself strain myself and my other soldiers by quartering this man? It doesn't add up. Just put a bullet in his head and it is over with. Much quicker, much simpler. The simpler a war goes, the easier it is fought.

Stephistan...you must be really naive. You think anyone follows ICC rules? Look at WW2: the japs killed pow's like crazy. Look at Korea: the Turks killed anyone they found. Look at Vietnam: although you might not wanna hear it, the USA did not follow the Geneva conventions. The Rangers, Seals, and Green Berets were horridly out of line when it came to following such articles. If we followed them, we would not place mines or booby traps. We wouldn't use weapons of mass destruction. And we would treat prisoners fairly. BUT WE DIDNT! None of the SEATO armies in Indochina did. Anyone who thinks that those old documents hold any water will be in for a rude awakening. Besides, being as it was made by the League of Nations which had no power...the Geneva conventions had no power either. It is not my ego. It is your ignorance to how real wars are fought.

Wait wait wait... what did the Turks do in Korea? :?:

You don't know what the Turks did??? They cut the ears off of all the men they took captive in battle. I got pictures of my grandfather, when he was a green beret advisor with the turks, doin this to several north koreans who were bound and gagged on the ground. and this was not just one incident. they did this a lot. and the south koreans killed women and children. their tiger and leopard divisions did it in vietnam too. The Turks fight a real war. they dismember the enemy to make them afraid of ever fighting again. So yeah, they might take prisoners, but they make sure to demoralize them from ever fighting them again. Besides, how do you come home with no ears...I couldn't face the world if i were dismembered like that.

And war crimes? Anything committed in a war could be justified as an attrocity. I mean...no act of war is ever kind. It always causes bloodshed, grief, panic...never anything good, except for the winning side...and only at the cost of their own men. So why even try to church it up? The best way is just to annihilate the enemy without ever really having to look him in the eye. I would rather kill a man than take him prisoner so I would never have to get to know him. War is not personal. I do not want to know the man I kill...he might have turned out to be my friend if the war hadn't occured. So why give myself the guilt streak and make myself strain myself and my other soldiers by quartering this man? It doesn't add up. Just put a bullet in his head and it is over with. Much quicker, much simpler. The simpler a war goes, the easier it is fought.

Or, you could not kill him, and take him prisoner, and get to know him. If you spare his life, then later on, if he is released, and you both fight in another war against each other, then he might spare yours next time if you're caught in a comprosing situation. If you spare his life, then you would have no reasong to be guilty.

I'd also like to see Stephistan post a rebuttle to you... but then again, why should she waste her time?

Tipay, you never expect a soldier to have the compassion you might have for him...that will get you killed. And it wouldn't be wasting her time. You just wanna say that to try and insult me...but it isn't working.

There's a little thing called moral contract that makes human societies work. And a concept of "Moral High Ground". The examples of WWII have been raised, and surprise surprise, the people who abided by the Geneva Convention weren't hanged at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Check the case records and you'll find that no Bulgarian was tried (they signed and respected the GC), but in fact American soldiers were indeed tried for unlawful slayings of POW's, two went to the gallows along with one British.

However this is beside the point. How can we expect our own POWs to be treated fairly if we don't treat theirs ourselves. Hence we sign GC, and if they don't respect it, we have the moral high ground to try them for war crimes. We can't expect anyone to follow it if no one sets an example. And just because others don't follow it is no reason not to. Remember, if it's an eye for an eye, the whole world goes blind.

Set a precedent for a safer world.

Exactly. We haven't entered any wars, but we already have a policy for the ethical treatment of prisoners that exceeds such a code.

We will follow this to the fullest.

That is the problem, though. If you enter a war, you should commit total war. It is the most effective way to fight, because you destroy the enemy's will to go against you. There should be no ethics or morals at all except for the fact that you may as well think the enemy deserves to die, as all you are gonna do is kill them anyway. So why B.S. and try and make things a little more fair? It just doesn't add up. When a war is fought, it is not meant to be happy or friendly. It is a bitter struggle where massive amounts of people will lose their lives. That is why you should forget about trying to treat people right. And also, you said that even if you haven't entered a war yet, you have signed something to give you a policy of ethical treatment towards enemies. Well...look at the Kellog-Briand Pact and the 100 Powers Treaty. They were signed to outlaw war. And it seems that wasn't followed by the USA, Britain, France, or Japan. They all sure signed it. So who cares if you sign something? Paper is paper. Paper is not binding you to stop from doing something. I could sign a lot of things and not follow them.

Lemme apologize for that...I really don't see how I did that...

Tipay, you never expect a soldier to have the compassion you might have for him...that will get you killed.

bah! :p that's why i don't fight wars in the first place.

But if you've already captured him... how is showing him compassion going to get you killed?

The Acacians,, you probably quadruple posted by pressing the "back" button on your browser after you'd posted. I learnt this the hard way after writing a thread on spamming, only to see it appear 3 times, oh the irony.

Anyway, your statement "If you enter a war, you should commit total war." somewhat misses the point that humanity is humane. The version of war you espouse is the complete and utter destruction of your enemy, down the last child, in the mold of Hitler, Stalin, Hussien or any other genocidal leader you'd care to name. "Breaking the will to fight" has been used as code for firebombing enemy civillians in WWII, and has been proven ineffective in so many publications I am at a loss to name them all.

The basic crux of your argument is that Human lives are expendable and are not sacred. Please carefully consider the implications of this. If it allright to kill volutarily surrenuring prisoners (ie people who wish to CEASE fighting) and embark on deliberate genocide of civillians (ie those who DON"T WANT to fight), the two groups who have by default expressed a desire NOT to kill you, or anyone for that matter, then there are no limits to human behaviour, and we descend to chaos and hell.

This is where the idea of social contract comes in. In most societies, people don't walk around wantonly killing others, because there is a contract in place that is if I don't kill you, you won't kill me. This contract isn't set on paper (god help it if it was, cause you'd dismiss it anyway), but in the actions and thoughts of people. If we want to benefit from what society offers us, we agree to the contract. Most people, according to Frued, aggree at about 11 years old. The same principal must apply to war and POWs.

The last point about paper rules not being binding si truistic and irrelevant.
Yes we know that people break rules, but as always, just because you can doesn't mean it's right, or that you have the right to do so. (Unless of course you're Donald Rumsfeldt or one of his cronies, where you'll disagree on the last, in that case, re-read the above for reasons not to.) If we follow this logic to its conclusion, there is no need for Laws in societies, no need for humans to interact and exploit the biological advantage we've got, ie that we work better in numbers. Paper rules can be enforced, and it's only when they're not that a crisis evolves. Even if they're not upheld, it gives us a minumin standard to aim for, and a rallying point to remove the abuses of sub-human policies.

Uphold Humanity.

:D :) :o 8) :lol: :wink:
I'm surprised the Knights of Ni didn't know that the real way to end a war is with "The Comfy Chair!"-- Sits them everytime!

Fraternally,

Bench Sitters on Jackson Square
Confederacy of Metro New Orleans

You don't know what the Turks did??? They cut the ears off of all the men they took captive in battle. I got pictures of my grandfather, when he was a green beret advisor with the turks, doin this to several north koreans who were bound and gagged on the ground. and this was not just one incident. they did this a lot. and the south koreans killed women and children. their tiger and leopard divisions did it in vietnam too. The Turks fight a real war. they dismember the enemy to make them afraid of ever fighting again. So yeah, they might take prisoners, but they make sure to demoralize them from ever fighting them again. Besides, how do you come home with no ears...I couldn't face the world if i were dismembered like that.

:shock: I didn't know that Turkey was involved in the Korean War...

Something like 30 nations participated in the Korean War, as it was another "Coalition of The Willing" adventure against Nth Korea and PRC.

There's been wild accusations of cruelty flying from both sides scince, and who was crueller is now a moot point, it was an ugly war.

The Acacians,, you probably quadruple posted by pressing the "back" button on your browser after you'd posted. I learnt this the hard way after writing a thread on spamming, only to see it appear 3 times, oh the irony.

Anyway, your statement "If you enter a war, you should commit total war." somewhat misses the point that humanity is humane. The version of war you espouse is the complete and utter destruction of your enemy, down the last child, in the mold of Hitler, Stalin, Hussien or any other genocidal leader you'd care to name. "Breaking the will to fight" has been used as code for firebombing enemy civillians in WWII, and has been proven ineffective in so many publications I am at a loss to name them all.

The basic crux of your argument is that Human lives are expendable and are not sacred. Please carefully consider the implications of this. If it allright to kill volutarily surrenuring prisoners (ie people who wish to CEASE fighting) and embark on deliberate genocide of civillians (ie those who DON"T WANT to fight), the two groups who have by default expressed a desire NOT to kill you, or anyone for that matter, then there are no limits to human behaviour, and we descend to chaos and hell.

This is where the idea of social contract comes in. In most societies, people don't walk around wantonly killing others, because there is a contract in place that is if I don't kill you, you won't kill me. This contract isn't set on paper (god help it if it was, cause you'd dismiss it anyway), but in the actions and thoughts of people. If we want to benefit from what society offers us, we agree to the contract. Most people, according to Frued, aggree at about 11 years old. The same principal must apply to war and POWs.

The last point about paper rules not being binding si truistic and irrelevant.
Yes we know that people break rules, but as always, just because you can doesn't mean it's right, or that you have the right to do so. (Unless of course you're Donald Rumsfeldt or one of his cronies, where you'll disagree on the last, in that case, re-read the above for reasons not to.) If we follow this logic to its conclusion, there is no need for Laws in societies, no need for humans to interact and exploit the biological advantage we've got, ie that we work better in numbers. Paper rules can be enforced, and it's only when they're not that a crisis evolves. Even if they're not upheld, it gives us a minumin standard to aim for, and a rallying point to remove the abuses of sub-human policies.

Uphold Humanity.

Well said. :)

:D *sigh of contentment* I love to just sit back and watch all the different opinions come out. I love how no two people have the same exact opinion. I like watching this. heh 8)

It's yet another question of Human Rights vs Human Deaths, of which nobody has the same opinion obviously, as everyone values lives differently.

Most people value their own life as paramount, but it's when the lives of others are involved that it gets tricky, as some of don't have a heart at all, and don't value the lives of others. Those people go on to be either US Seceratry Of State (Albright being the one exception) or the director of a Multinational. Other people want to value the lives of ALL people in the hope of advancing humanity. Hopefully we're honest and caring by nature, not by learning, and hence we should all uphold the Utillitairian ethics I've been hammering on the last couple of posts. Remember the Precedent Principle,,, if it's the accepted method, to treat others civially, then you're more likely to be treated civially when you're in a tight spot.


At least the proposal passed, and that obviously quite a few people absorbed it's main ideas, and hopefully thought about them a little.

I'm not sure wether to be happy that so few people debated on this thread. Either, they thought the idea of knocking down such a worthy proposal was absurd, in which case I can take heart, or that they thought it wasn't worth bothering about, in which case it's very disturbing.

Taking the optismistic approach and going with the former.


And does anyone have any idea what "New Orleans" was on about with the "comfy chair", or am I missing something?

To those of you who believe that you should be free to kill whoever you want in war, this convention does NOTHING to prevent you from doing so. What it does do is that it gives the rest of the UN the authority to punish you afterward if they believe you have acted improperly.

To those of you who believe that you should be free to kill whoever you want in war, this convention does NOTHING to prevent you from doing so. What it does do is that it gives the rest of the UN the authority to punish you afterward if they believe you have acted improperly.

And?

Not every resolution can solve all the world's problems, nor should it attempt to.

This resolution was designed to protect Prisoners of War. And if you'll note, there are third party interventions on behalf of the POW during the period of conflict.

BUT WHY SHOULD POW'S GET SUCH TREATMENT??? It makes no sense to me that an enemy should get anything other than death. Anyone who wants to bear arms against me should die. Think, if they shoot at my men, they are trying to kill them. That would be attempting to murder my men. Attempted murder should be punished as if it were murder. Murder is an eye for an eye...so kill them.

BUT WHY SHOULD POW'S GET SUCH TREATMENT??? It makes no sense to me that an enemy should get anything other than death. Anyone who wants to bear arms against me should die. Think, if they shoot at my men, they are trying to kill them. That would be attempting to murder my men. Attempted murder should be punished as if it were murder. Murder is an eye for an eye...so kill them.

They're not attempting to murder your men, they're attempting to kill them. There's a difference! And your men are trying to do the same for them! They're acting in self-defence and/or the defence of their nation and its interests. If they're surrendering, they no longer pose any threat to you or your men. You are acting in the best interests of your own soldiery if you accept them as prisoners of war, because they will be confident in their treatment and will therefore find surrendering to be a viable option, and will therefore not fight to the death at the expense of your own lives.

And they should be treated well, because they're human beings and have inalienable human rights

If you think its logical to kill people simply because they are fighting against you Aca., then its just as logical to kill anyone who oppose you and by that we can say that without any rules of war, things like 11 sept. is completly acceptable since it was an attack against the economy and safty of the "evil" americans who they considered to be their enemies.

Wrong or not, it exists. Deal with it.

Sincerely,
The President of the Republic of Sparkinia

There is no such thing as an inalienable human right. Humans only have rights when they are given to them. Otherwise we wouldn't have had people like Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mao Zedong, George Custer, Adolf Hitler, or Josef Stalin. They alienated the rights of anyone they wished. It was only when all of them died that they stopped their respective reign of terror upon the people they butchered and massacred. Are you trying to say the people they slaughtered had inalienable rights? But back to the point. A war is not meant to be fair. It is not meant to be honorable or nice. It is not supposed to be something you try to ameliorate for the masses to understand. What it is, though, is an insatiable monster that can only be fed sufficiently when fought quickly, thoroughly, and with great prejudice. Now realize, I am not a fan of war. I hate it. Too many of my relatives have been hurt or psychologically damaged in wars fought for too long for too little. But I am a fan of ending a war in the favor of my side as quickly as possible so as not to hurt my own people. Honestly, if I am willing to go to war with someone, I may as well forget they are human beings. If you don't see them as human beings, how can you really feel bad about killing them? Some might say that I just have no respect. Well...I don't have any. They are right. I refuse to have any respect for someone I have to kill.

One thing I don't believe has been discussed here is the policy of conscription. Some nations here do enforce it from what I've seen, and I wouldn't be too surprised if refusal came with its own severe penaties.

Are they legitimate targets for mass murder if they've been forced into a fight they want no part of?

Well, that would sort of be like the Soviet Union under Stalin. They died fighting or died hanging. I would die hanging so they couldn't get the satisfaction of having me help them.

I just don't see why people wish to bring humanity into such a godless and merciless thing like war. It is backwards. When you do something as extreme as war, you need to do it. No half assing. It is all or nothing.

Ironically, The Acacians, that is not so. When Hitler fought "fairly" in the west in 1940, both sides took prisoners and were treated relatively well. (Massacres did occur, but were not the norm.) During the Battle of Britain, Hitler thought that a massive aerial onslaught would break the will of the people. It did not - the same way the Allied bombing of Germany did not break the will of the Germans. "Total War" or war on both civilians and military, is LESS likely to break a nation or military force - they have nothing to lose, and more innocent lives are lost. If the German 6th Army in Stalingrad had been allowed to surrender earlier, it would have proven the humanity of the soldiers to the Russian people. Instead, the intractable enemy who would not surrender was able to be demonized by the Soviets (not that the Nazi's needed any help in being demonized) and therefore ALL Germans were to be treated as such. The idea that you must wipe out your enemy may seem like a good idea, but it doesn't bode well for you if the tables are turned. The horrendous rapes of German women and girls in 1945 was, to the Russians, simple payback. To the women, however...

Regarding the hanging...Russian units had NKVD troops behind them. Stop or retreat and they were shot. Surrender and they would likely end up in a concentration camp. If they survived and returned to Russia, they were often sent to Siberia. Poor bastards couldn't get a break.

Taking of prisoners and accepting surrenders is not only honorable, but morally legal. (Medieval knights loathed those soldiers, even on their own side, who did not take prisoners. Often, these knights were killed by their own fellow knights.) Church law states that the killing of prisoners can nullify one's claim to a "just" war. Even Sun Tzu states in his classic, THE ART OF WAR...

III. Attack by Stratagem

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Think about it.

I know darn well those words would bite me in the ass if the tables turned. But honestly, I don't care. If I am gonna be in a war, I will go for broke. And I would kill every single person on the other side who stood in my way. If I am willing to kill one enemy soldier, I may as well be willing to kill his family and friends, and burn down his house as an example. Think of the American Civil War. Sherman burned his way to the Atlantic, and then up to South Carolina. You think that didn't demoralize the Confederate soldiers? When you fight a war, you kill everyone indiscriminately. There is no point to picking and choosing. It takes too long and doesn't pay off. And why do you keep saying there are morals to war? War is simply overdramatized mass murder. There is nothing morally outstanding to that, so keep the morals away. The point is, in war, you destroy everything. If you can't have it, they won't either. Besides, that way if you lose, they didn't win too much except keeping their lives. But then again, their lives don't mean a lot because everything to their lives has been wrecked. In a war, you kill and kill until there is nothing left but your side. Prisoners...heh...no need for them except to dispose of them with a bullet in the head. I don't view an enemy as a human being, but as a rabid dog who should probably be put down with great prejudice. God knows I might like my enemy if I got to know him, so it is better to just shoot first and ask questions later. Ignorance is bliss when it comes to that situation.

What a barbaric attitude.

Just one reason why it is so is that the families of the soldiers may not even support the war. Why kill them? To unfortunately bring the real world into this, the Iraqi war is a good example. I didn't support the actions being undertaken, and neither did a lot of other British. Yet by your reasoning, had the tide somehow, inconceivably, turned, we would all be legitimate targets since we were on the other side.

I would surmise you wouldn't think twice about using WMD on an enemy, am I right?

War is barbaric. So naturally, if you are going to participate, you should have the same feelings. And no, I wouldn't ever hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction. In war, you have to do anything you can to win. I don't care if that means flash-incinerating millions of people. I would nuke my enemy in a heartbeat.