NationStates Jolt Archive

As much as I hate to say it, war is a part of humanity, and sometimes its even neccessary to prevent attrocity. The question then is, what rules of war exist? When conflict is unavoidable, what is acceptable and what is not?

Protection of non-combatants on both sides? Zero-tolerance for cruelty? What do you think?

that would be the Geneva Conventions:

First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)

Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)

Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)

Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

There are also two Protocols, but the U.S. objects to Protocol One on the basis that it would extend Geneva Conventions protection to some unlawful combatants (see Part III Article 44).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention

Do whatever the other guy can't stop you from doing if it will help your side win the war.

Don't piss into the wind

Well i do know this..the shotgun is not allowed to be used in warfare. this dates back to the first world war when the remmington shotgun was used by british troops when jumping in to jerrie held trenches. the germans found the shotgun a horrific weapon at close range, so appealed to us that we should stop using..being kricket players we agreed and so the shotgun was banned under the "rules of war" of 1916 :)

Well i do know this..the shotgun is not allowed to be used in warfare. this dates back to the first world war when the remmington shotgun was used by british troops when jumping in to jerrie held trenches. the germans found the shotgun a horrific weapon at close range, so appealed to us that we should stop using..being kricket players we agreed and so the shotgun was banned under the "rules of war" of 1916 :)

By comparison, the US has and still uses shotguns to this very day.

Personally, the triangular bayonet is much worse for close in... the wounds cannot heal.

By comparison, the US has and still uses shotguns to this very day.

Personally, the triangular bayonet is much worse for close in... the wounds cannot heal.

indeed the model t11 trench gun was used extensively in the philipenes

the triangular bayonet...soviet or just north korean in design?...

Well i do know this..the shotgun is not allowed to be used in warfare. this dates back to the first world war when the remmington shotgun was used by british troops when jumping in to jerrie held trenches. the germans found the shotgun a horrific weapon at close range, so appealed to us that we should stop using..being kricket players we agreed and so the shotgun was banned under the "rules of war" of 1916 :)

Among the other completely ignored and irrelevant little rules in the Geneva accords is the fact that a, round bayonet is illegal as is one with a serrated or saw edge on it. Hollow point bullets are also a violation as is shooting someone with too large a caliber weapon. It is all completely rediculous and if followed by all participants war would amount to a cat fight, however, claws may be illegal. Nice thought but totally useless for what it was designed for.

Liverbreath']Among the other completely ignored and irrelevant little rules in the Geneva accords is the fact that a, round bayonet is illegal as is one with a serrated or saw edge on it. Hollow point bullets are also a violation as is shooting someone with too large a caliber weapon. It is all completely rediculous and if followed by all participants war would amount to a cat fight, however, claws may be illegal. Nice thought but totally useless for what it was designed for.
AFAIK the Geneva conventions contain no provisions on bayonets, bullets, and the like.

indeed the model t11 trench gun was used extensively in the philipenes

the triangular bayonet...soviet or just north korean in design?...

Been around for centuries, most notably on the Brown Bess of yore... and pretty much common through the Napoleonic Era and until the 1860s.

Here's one from an Lee-Enfield, circa the American Civil War:
http://49thvirginiainfantry.com/Enfield%20Bayonet%20&%20Scabbard.jpg

Other nations still use them today, including NK.

Been around for centuries, most notably on the Brown Bess of yore... and pretty much common through the Napoleonic Era and until the 1860s.

Here's one from an Lee-Enfield, circa the American Civil War:
http://49thvirginiainfantry.com/Enfield%20Bayonet%20&%20Scabbard.jpg

i thought you meant this (http://arms2armor.com/Bayonets/rus1891c.jpg)

the brown bess..now thats a nice weapon..wish i had one

EDIT: have you never seen that film with jet lee in?..the evil nast bloke in it has this evil looking bayonet..very nasty..wich is basicly a triangle of metal with a hollow on each side

i thought you meant this (http://arms2armor.com/Bayonets/rus1891c.jpg)

the brown bess..now thats a nice weapon..wish i had one

:confused: That's the same thing? A 3 sided bayonet, right?

:confused: That's the same thing? A 3 sided bayonet, right?

if it is then i can not find a picture of what i mean...anyway the bayonet i am on about doesnt look much like the one you posted..... :(

I belieive that war should be dictated by just one rule, do what it takes to win, but treat the enemy as you would want to be treated. I do believe in gentlemens wars, but I also believe that moral issues are nothing compared to victory. And I don't believe in mercy unless it is deserved.

AFAIK the Geneva conventions contain no provisions on bayonets, bullets, and the like.

You are correct. I lumped following related conventions, treaties and accords all under the same umbrella with the first Geneva Convention of 1864 as it was the first attempt at the codification of the law of war.

I belieive that war should be dictated by just one rule, do what it takes to win, but treat the enemy as you would want to be treated. I do believe in gentlemens wars, but I also believe that moral issues are nothing compared to victory. And I don't believe in mercy unless it is deserved. I agree with you completely, and I think that un-uniformed combatants should not be protected by any rules of war.

I agree with you completely, and I think that un-uniformed combatants should not be protected by any rules of war.
You just quoted and agreed with yourself. :confused: If you disagreed with yourself I might become scared.

But yes, there is only one real rule in war and that rule is to win. The Geneva Convention is only good for diplomacy(so other nations will not get as mad) or if you are planning on losing the war.

I agree with you completely, and I think that un-uniformed combatants should not be protected by any rules of war.
Perhaps so, but maybe in order to acheive victory you must employ weapons such as flamethrows and musterd gas. The opposing side in turn will employ similar weapons. So if the reason your enemy is not showing you mercy is probably because you show them none. It will be just one long chain of mercy lacking that will result in the death of us all! :confused:

Don't piss into the wind

Or onto an electric fence.

I agree with you completely, and I think that un-uniformed combatants should not be protected by any rules of war.
Eh? Put them all to the sword?

No Pity, No Mercy, No Regret.

Kill them all to win!

Use injured enemy soldiers as guinea pigs for our evil experiments.

Bomb cities with agonising chemical weaponary and watch the population die in agony.

If enemy soldiers surrender kill them anyway, hell they'll only try and break out from our prison camps and then go back to fight us!

Muhahahaha!

No Pity, No Mercy, No Regret.

Kill them all to win!

And use injured enemy soldiers as guinea pigs for our evil experiments, muhahahaha.

So more like Japan in WW2 then?

No Pity, No Mercy, No Regret.

Kill them all to win!

And use injured enemy soldiers as guinea pigs for our evil experiments, muhahahaha.
Split the soldiers up into squads and send them around the city with orders to execute every single enemy soldier and civilian. None of this stupid looting lark, except for weapons, which are shared out among the best after the fight. Kill every human inside their city, and then take the bodies outside and burn them.

That what you had in mind? :)

So more like Japan in WW2 then?

No I was thinking more Brotherhood of Nod in C&C but the Japanese will do. :P

Split the soldiers up into squads and send them around the city with orders to execute every single enemy soldier and civilian. None of this stupid looting lark, except for weapons, which are shared out among the best after the fight. Kill every human inside their city, and then take the bodies outside and burn them.

That what you had in mind? :)

A man after my own heart. :PPP

No I was thinking more Brotherhood of Nod in C&C but the Japanese will do. :P


The japanese did it to civilians too though :P


Obelisk pwnage!

I think that every major convention on warfare should be ignored.

Flechette ammunition shall shear flesh from bone, triangular sawtooth bayonets will cause horrific wounds, napalm and flamethrowers will create human torches, peaceful cities will be bombarded daily by high explosives and poison gas, and nuclear weapons will be used at a whim as shotgun armed soldiers move from house to house.

Military effectiveness will be measured in Innocent-Children-Killed-Per-Minute.

As much as I hate to say it, war is a part of humanity, and sometimes its even neccessary to prevent attrocity. The question then is, what rules of war exist? When conflict is unavoidable, what is acceptable and what is not?

Protection of non-combatants on both sides? Zero-tolerance for cruelty? What do you think?

This subject was addressed in a thread titled "Just War Theory", which I found equally pointless. Creating an etiquette for war only allows power hungry rulers to justify their aggressive acts. Simply put, war is a terrible thing and there is no justification. Some of you might point to attrocities and genocide as excuses to fight a war, but my response is this is the equivalent of a negligent parent opting to shoot its own child when its behaviour gets out of control.

With vigilant and just government, wars and the need for war can be prevented before they get out of hand. Of course vigilant and just government requires that the average citizen takes an interest in public affairs.

Ofcourse I suspect most of the people that advocate "rules of engagement" would rather spend their time sitting around a game of RISK, fantasizing about what would happen if "This country went to war with that country".

A man after my own heart. :PPP
So you subscribe to the Genghis Khan way of fighting, then?

Nah, if I had an army I'd probably order them to at least try not to kill civilians… and flay to death any soldier who mistreats them.

Of course, my evil side thinks differently… kill every man and woman as quickly as possible.

So you subscribe to the Genghis Khan way of fighting, then?

Nah, if I had an army I'd probably order them to at least try not to kill civilians… and flay to death any soldier who mistreats them.

Of course, my evil side thinks differently… kill every man and woman as quickly as possible.

A General (can't remember who) once said:

"War leaves no time for pleasantries"

There is only one way to trully beat an opponent and that is to totally eradicate them.

So you subscribe to the Genghis Khan way of fighting, then?

Nah, if I had an army I'd probably order them to at least try not to kill civilians… and flay to death any soldier who mistreats them.

Of course, my evil side thinks differently… kill every man and woman as quickly as possible.
If I had an army I would do whatever would be required to have victory. Horrible acts by my men would not be allowed unless they were part of some greater war of terror. Civilians that are captured in war are useful, as human shields, as slave labor or simply as citizens but I am more likely to do the 1st or last idea than to make slaves of people.

If I had an army I would do whatever would be required to have victory. Horrible acts by my men would not be allowed unless they were part of some greater war of terror. Civilians that are captured in war are useful, as human shields, as slave labor or simply as citizens but I am more likely to do the 1st or last idea than to make slaves of people.

Interesting attitude... I wonder why you didn't suggest this in our "Just War" discussion.

one rule is u have to declear war first, unlike what the japs did in ww2. another is u cant touture or starve people capture and put in camps, like the krauts.

Interesting attitude... I wonder why you didn't suggest this in our "Just War" discussion.
Well, I consider the purpose of war to be winning. I do not care the means or the methods, it is good if less people are hurt but when facing a powerful foe but it is more important that your interests are protected. In the Just War theory thread I was more focused on defeating your idea that war was always avoidable. If I had posted these ideas about war in that thread I would have lost some credibility and weakened any support of my position so I simply focused on refuting your points.

Besides, the whole use the population in warfare to some extent does not work against an enemy that can not stand up against you. If we had used ruthless tactics in Iraq it would have hurt us politically and would not have helped us militarily. Most modern warfare is one-sided with the other side not even close to capable of winning and therefore makes such methods of getting the upper hand useless.

However, if you consider a case such as Japan or something, terror tactics were used to great benefit for both sides. We needed an unconditional surrender and they would not provide it so instead of invading we nuked them and not only saved lives on both sides(compared to an invasion) but also showed off our nuclear capabilities to the world and in that way possibly kept a real war between us and the USSR from forming. Although this can be debated it is the best modern example of a ruthless yet effective use of terror and many people do believe that nuking Japan was for the best. I only advocate that a nation is supposed to use the most effective way of going to war, this includes traditional tactics and ruthless tactics that preserve men and equipment from enemy harm.

Well, I consider the purpose of war to be winning. I do not care the means or the methods, it is good if less people are hurt but when facing a powerful foe but it is more important that your interests are protected. In the Just War theory thread I was more focused on defeating your idea that war was always avoidable. If I had posted these ideas about war in that thread I would have lost some credibility and weakened any support of my position so I simply focused on refuting your points.

Besides, the whole use the population in warfare to some extent does not work against an enemy that can not stand up against you. If we had used ruthless tactics in Iraq it would have hurt us politically and would not have helped us militarily. Most modern warfare is one-sided with the other side not even close to capable of winning and therefore makes such methods of getting the upper hand useless.

However, if you consider a case such as Japan or something, terror tactics were used to great benefit for both sides. We needed an unconditional surrender and they would not provide it so instead of invading we nuked them and not only saved lives on both sides(compared to an invasion) but also showed off our nuclear capabilities to the world and in that way possibly kept a real war between us and the USSR from forming. Although this can be debated it is the best modern example of a ruthless yet effective use of terror and many people do believe that nuking Japan was for the best. I only advocate that a nation is supposed to use the most effective way of going to war, this includes traditional tactics and ruthless tactics that preserve men and equipment from enemy harm.

Does this strategy include 19 men carrying boxcutters hijacking four planes and flying them into U.S. buildings? What was the kill ration of that tactical manuver?

Does this strategy include 19 men carrying boxcutters hijacking four planes and flying them into U.S. buildings? What was the kill ration of that tactical manuver?
Well if I was on their side I would agree with it. I am not on their side and therefore see these people as needing to be killed for crimes against my country. Whether the actions were good or bad to some extent depend on what side you are on, I simply think that the ends justify the means in war.

I think it should be all out fighting like it used to be. No bombing and shit. Cannons and guns or swords

If I had an army I would do whatever would be required to have victory. Horrible acts by my men would not be allowed unless they were part of some greater war of terror. Civilians that are captured in war are useful, as human shields, as slave labor or simply as citizens but I am more likely to do the 1st or last idea than to make slaves of people.

Precisely. Use the people to build roads, repair communications, build defenses and repair bridges; the enemy won't shoot their own civilians, and if they do it's no loss. Furthermore it destroys their will to fight and makes it easier to crack down on insurgent efforts. After all, if you're going to invade with the intent of permanent accquisition, you have to either break or assimilate the conquered by any means necessary.

Well if I was on their side I would agree with it. I am not on their side and therefore see these people as needing to be killed for crimes against my country. Whether the actions were good or bad to some extent depend on what side you are on, I simply think that the ends justify the means in war.

So your true attitude is "all is fair in love and war and to hell with innocent bystanders"?

one rule is u have to declear war first, unlike what the japs did in ww2.
The japs did declare war, however due to some setbacks the decloration didnt come in till 30 minutes after pearl harbor started, much to Japans embarresement. They ment to decalre war right before the attack.


Anyways theres been a lot of talk about "killing civilians" as a viable strategy of war, which of course it is. Before the atomic bomb, controversy was around long range heavy bombers in 1933 (im not enough of a history buff to know the exact model at the time) because they could be used to target civilian populations. In 1939 when britian and germany were at war, neither dared bomb civilian targets, in fear of retaliation. However the luftwaffe attacks crippled the RAF to a point that they needed to create a diversion, so they bombed berlin. The strategy worked and the Nazi's retaliated by bombing London, however it gave the RAF enough time to repair itself. Anyways once the US joined the war and sent more bombers to England, Allied attacks on civilian populations rose even more, and the allies continued to use this strategy throughout the war against Germany, Italy, Japan, and Romania. When you think about it, the atomic bomb was just a bombing raid on civilian population in hopes of destroying enemy morale. Fine, its much more complicated than that but simplified thats what you get.

To all you people to lazy to read my lil history report to sum things up the Allies used bombing and killing of civilian population in ww2 to destroy enemy morale as a tactical strategey of war. :fluffle:

So your true attitude is "all is fair in love and war and to hell with innocent bystanders"?
Not exactly, I try to be somewhat honorable when it comes to love. If there is war then I will try not to lose and if you do not want to be in the crossfire then leave. The purpose of war is victory in the manner that is most efficient for your interests, in that way you must make sure that the ends justify the means because if it ends crappily for your interests then you are not doing a good job.

Precisely. Use the people to build roads, repair communications, build defenses and repair bridges; the enemy won't shoot their own civilians, and if they do it's no loss. Furthermore it destroys their will to fight and makes it easier to crack down on insurgent efforts. After all, if you're going to invade with the intent of permanent accquisition, you have to either break or assimilate the conquered by any means necessary.
Precisely, if I fight a war then not only will I need to make the land useful but I will also need to win that war as well. Because I am not planning on losing that means that I will try to win in a manner that is the most efficient way to use resources, both captured resources and resources given by my people or allies.

As much as I hate to say it, war is a part of humanity, and sometimes its even neccessary to prevent attrocity. The question then is, what rules of war exist? When conflict is unavoidable, what is acceptable and what is not?

Protection of non-combatants on both sides? Zero-tolerance for cruelty? What do you think?
In a real war, the are no rules to tell you the truth. At its heart, it is survival.

Not exactly, I try to be somewhat honorable when it comes to love.

So there is hope for you yet.

If there is war then I will try not to lose and if you do not want to be in the crossfire then leave.

What if I can't leave? What if I am minding my own business, going to work, trying to raise my family as best I can and one day the leader of my country gets into a conflict with the leader of your country? I guess it sucks to be me.

The purpose of war is victory in the manner that is most efficient for your interests, in that way you must make sure that the ends justify the means because if it ends crappily for your interests then you are not doing a good job.

You already know my opinion on this, nothing justifies war.

So there is hope for you yet.

What if I can't leave? What if I am minding my own business, going to work, trying to raise my family as best I can and one day the leader of my country gets into a conflict with the leader of your country? I guess it sucks to be me.

You already know my opinion on this, nothing justifies war.
In my mind honor is required for love because it forces me to be respectful. Without respect love fails. So therefore I must be honorable in love if only for my own sake.

In a war there are usually only 2 sides. You either are working for the enemy or you are working for me. If you are the citizen of an enemy country the best you can do to save yourself from the possibility of my wrath is to become a spy for my side or some other form of ally for my cause.

I do know your opinion, I do not really care about your opinion, this is my opinion. War in my mind is the ultimate scenario where the ends justify the means, both sides are fighting for their own survival and victory and to fail means a possibility of enslavement and women being raped.

In my mind honor is required for love because it forces me to be respectful. Without respect love fails. So therefore I must be honorable in love if only for my own sake.

In a war there are usually only 2 sides. You either are working for the enemy or you are working for me. If you are the citizen of an enemy country the best you can do to save yourself from the possibility of my wrath is to become a spy for my side or some other form of ally for my cause.

I do know your opinion, I do not really care about your opinion, this is my opinion. War in my mind is the ultimate scenario where the ends justify the means, both sides are fighting for their own survival and victory and to fail means a possibility of enslavement and women being raped.

So rapes don't occur in times of peace? Slavery isn't the result of war? The fact that you don't care about other people's opinions doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.

Some of you seem to think that, the moment a war breaks out, some sort of bizarre morality force field goes up, isolating the warring nations from the rest of the world, therefore absolving said nations from any wider responsibility for their actions.

A completely neutral nation is in a useful strategic position? Roll over them: everything's fair in war.

We're losing? Annihilate the enemy with biological weapons: everything's fair in war.

These POWs are inconvenient. Torture them to death on broadcast television, to help demoralize their countrymen: everything's fair in war.

For that matter, why should this just be restricted to warfare? Why should I, in a conflict with my neighbor, be restricted by any sort of ethics or laws in our dispute over his tree dropping leaves on my property? Fuck it, I'm going next door right now to rape and murder his kids and burn down his property. Problem solved.

I'm seriously glad that none of you are anywhere close to obtaining any sort of political or military power.

So rapes don't occur in times of peace? Slavery isn't the result of war? The fact that you don't care about other people's opinions doesn't make you right, it makes you ignorant.
Rape occurs very often after and during a war when one side conquers land owned by another side. Slavery is something that can also happen to conquered people. The fact that I do not care means that I do not care, I was talking about my point of view, your opinion and my point of view are not the same and I simply did not really care about what you thought because we have already discussed this before. Ignorance is a lack of knowing not a lack of caring.

Some of you seem to think that, the moment a war breaks out, some sort of bizarre morality force field goes up, isolating the warring nations from the rest of the world, therefore absolving said nations from any wider responsibility for their actions.

A completely neutral nation is in a useful strategic position? Roll over them: everything's fair in war.

We're losing? Annihilate the enemy with biological weapons: everything's fair in war.

These POWs are inconvenient. Torture them to death on broadcast television, to help demoralize their countrymen: everything's fair in war.

For that matter, why should this just be restricted to warfare? Why should I, in a conflict with my neighbor, be restricted by any sort of ethics or laws in our dispute over his tree dropping leaves on my property? Fuck it, I'm going next door right now to rape and murder his kids and burn down his property. Problem solved.

I'm seriously glad that none of you are anywhere close to obtaining any sort of political or military power.
Besides, my morality is almost always the ends justify the means, considering that the ends are a rather massive thing in the greater picture(the ends could include 100 years from when the means were put in place) this means that the most efficient solution needs to be sought even if it is incredibly brutal.

Well the thing is that you do not get into bloody fights where you try to subjugate your neighbor. If you were actually at war with your neighbor(a real conflict of of dominance) then those ideas about killing his kids and burning down his property would be good ideas. The only thing that shows similarity to war in this world are the circumstances involving physical violence.

Rape occurs very often after and during a war when one side conquers land owned by another side. Slavery is something that can also happen to conquered people.

And these are your reasons for advocating war?

And these are your reasons for advocating war?
I advocate that the ends justify the means. If the way to achieve the end that is desired requires war then I say we need a war. I already know that you do not like war and are strongly pacifist, you will not convince me of your side any more than I will convince you of mine.

I advocate that the ends justify the means. If the way to achieve the end that is desired requires war then I say we need a war. I already know that you do not like war and are strongly pacifist, you will not convince me of your side any more than I will convince you of mine.

Evidently, but I am curious to know how extreme your views are.

Let us supposed one nation's government comes to power by scape goating an ethnic minority for all their problems. As a result a campaign on ethnic cleansing is carried out. You are an influential politician in a much more powerful country than the nation that is guilty of genocide who is a member of the ethnic group that is being persecuted. Because of your geographic location you yourself are not persecuted, but distant relatives are, do you push your country to go to war?

Evidently, but I am curious to know how extreme your views are.

Let us supposed one nation's government comes to power by scape goating an ethnic minority for all their problems. As a result a campaign on ethnic cleansing is carried out. You are an influential politician in a much more powerful country than the nation that is guilty of genocide who is a member of the ethnic group that is being persecuted. Because of your geographic location you yourself are not persecuted, but distant relatives are, do you push your country to go to war?
My country is much more powerful and these people are killing my relatives. I would push for a diplomatic means of ending the conflict first(I know it would not work but I am doing this mainly for political reasons). If my diplomatic means that includes threats of war, threats of embargoes, and general demands does not work then I say that these people are inhuman monsters and crush their government in order to help my relatives and end the racism towards my people and myself. I am assuming that in this situation that I can derive national benefit from the war such as stimulating the economy and possibly the gain of resources from the other country(or at least the elimination of a threat).

Take a look at the Just War Theory (http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm)

Take a look at the Just War Theory (http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm)

Believe me, we have.

My country is much more powerful and these people are killing my relatives. I would push for a diplomatic means of ending the conflict first(I know it would not work but I am doing this mainly for political reasons). If my diplomatic means that includes threats of war, threats of embargoes, and general demands does not work then I say that these people are inhuman monsters and crush their government in order to help my relatives and end the racism towards my people and myself. I am assuming that in this situation that I can derive national benefit from the war such as stimulating the economy and possibly the gain of resources from the other country(or at least the elimination of a threat).

Let's say before you go to war you look into a magic crystal ball that allows you to see into the future. You see soldiers from your armies committing attrocities during your attempt to crush this genocidal government. Do you still go forward with your plans for war?

Take a look at the Just War Theory (http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm)
I have looked at it, I pretty much figure that by achieving victory at the least amount of cost to my men or people we can create a better outcome. The more men and resources that my people have by the time that the war ends the more rebuilding and such that I can do to the country when I have won the war. Really when I win the war the people in the newly conquered cities become part of my empire and therefore the area must be rebuilt if simply just to increase the economic efficiency and productive abilities of the area.

Let's say before you go to war you look into a magic crystal ball that allows you to see into the future. You see soldiers from your armies committing attrocities during your attempt to crush this genocidal government. Do you still go forward with your plans for war?
Well, the reason that I went to war was because I thought that these people were a menace and because they were hurting those that I had loyalty towards. I would say that any cruelty that is not part of an overall military strategy should be treated as some form of treachery or insubordination but if the attrocities are part of the strategy that is necessary to conserve my resources in the end it does not matter. The end is what is important not how we get there and there is more to the end than my victory but also what we can do with the newly conquered country.

Well, the reason that I went to war was because I thought that these people were a menace and because they were hurting those that I had loyalty towards. I would say that any cruelty that is not part of an overall military strategy should be treated as some form of treachery or insubordination but if the attrocities are part of the strategy that is necessary to conserve my resources in the end it does not matter. The end is what is important not how we get there and there is more to the end than my victory but also what we can do with the newly conquered country.

So attrocities are not an issue if it is part of the strategy? Would you advocate a massive rape campaign? After all, the best way to prevent future genocides would be to ensure an ethnically diverse population. With a massive rape campaign you would wipe out any notion of a master race forever.

So attrocities are not an issue if it is part of the strategy? Would you advocate a massive rape campaign? After all, the best way to prevent future genocides would be to ensure an ethnically diverse population. With a massive rape campaign you would wipe out any notion of a master race forever.
If I felt that a massive rape program would be the best option in the long term I would support it. Frankly, I would more likely kill or brainwash any idiot who strives to be a racist. As I have said before, the ends justify the means.

If I felt that a massive rape program would be the best option in the long term I would support it. Frankly, I would more likely kill or brainwash any idiot who strives to be a racist. As I have said before, the ends justify the means.

Okay, I will go with your scenario (not as much fun and your conscription rate for male applicants won't be as high).

You begin killing and/or brainwashing all these racial supremists, but there are a lot of them. Not only in the country you are invading, but in your own country as well. In fact the success of your campaign has caused these brainwashed idiots to put a spin on the war and they are publicly protesting your "aggression" towards the sovereignty of their nation. They say, brain washing is a violation of civil rights. What do you do to settle down the protests within your own country? Do you brain wash them too?

Okay, I will go with your scenario (not as much fun and your conscription rate for male applicants won't be as high).

You begin killing and/or brainwashing all these racial supremists, but there are a lot of them. Not only in the country you are invading, but in your own country as well. In fact the success of your campaign has caused these brainwashed idiots to put a spin on the war and they are publicly protesting your "aggression" towards the sovereignty of their nation. They say, brain washing is a violation of civil rights. What do you do to settle down the protests within your own country? Do you brain wash them too?
Sure, the ends justify the means. I do whatever it takes to get the best results that still qualify for victory on the war against racism.

Sure, the ends justify the means. I do whatever it takes to get the best results that still qualify for victory on the war against racism.

Since you are against racism, the country that you rule is an ethnically diverse nation. At first many of them supported your war to put an end to the genocide. But after seeing how you handle citizens who are simply protesting your methods, they begin to fear for their own civil liberties. This time, instead of staging public protests they organize themselves into armed militias. This includes those remaining racist supremists who have not been apprehended by your security forces, and they begin attacking police stations and government buildings. Do you use force to put down the rebellion?

Since you are against racism, the country that you rule is an ethnically diverse nation. At first many of them supported your war to put an end to the genocide. But after seeing how you handle citizens who are simply protesting your methods, they begin to fear for their own civil liberties. This time, instead of staging public protests they organize themselves into armed militias. This includes those remaining racist supremists who have not been apprehended by your security forces, and they begin attacking police stations and government buildings. Do you use force to put down the rebellion?
Sure I use force, but why would I have even allowed my country to get that bad in the first place? Is it so hard to use propaganda and suppression of news sources? I am against racism because of how it affects economic efficiency and national cohesion. If things get too bad I will be forced to sacrifice intent for a long term plans and if you are going to keep on saying that my country rebels even more I will simply back down, fake an appology and continue my efforts with methods that would stir up less popular resistance, the ends justify the means and if my means are not giving me the desired end then I must adapt strategy.

Sure I use force, but why would I have even allowed my country to get that bad in the first place? Is it so hard to use propaganda and suppression of news sources? I am against racism because of how it affects economic efficiency and national cohesion. If things get too bad I will be forced to sacrifice intent for a long term plans and if you are going to keep on saying that my country rebels even more I will simply back down, fake an appology and continue my efforts with methods that would stir up less popular resistance, the ends justify the means and if my means are not giving me the desired end then I must adapt strategy.

The point I'm trying to make is that the means often define the ends. With regards to suppression of news sources this is impossible. Unless you want to reduce your nation to a fascist dictatorship, and even if you do that, people living in your country who have relatives in the country you are invading will find out what is going on simply by making phone calls, e-mail or receiving letters. If you cut off all forms of communication to the country you are invading then you will have protests anyways because people will assume the worst. Maybe you decide to imprison the protestors or brain wash them, maybe you have to go so far as to execute them. But then you have become exactly what you opposed in the first place, a tyrannical ruler who is engaged in a campaign of genocide.

Fight with honor only if your opponent is an honorable man.

The point I'm trying to make is that the means often define the ends. With regards to suppression of news sources this is impossible. Unless you want to reduce your nation to a fascist dictatorship, and even if you do that, people living in your country who have relatives in the country you are invading will find out what is going on simply by making phone calls, e-mail or receiving letters. If you cut off all forms of communication to the country you are invading then you will have protests anyways because people will assume the worst. Maybe you decide to imprison the protestors or brain wash them, maybe you have to go so far as to execute them. But then you have become exactly what you opposed in the first place, a tyrannical ruler who is engaged in a campaign of genocide.
Um yeah, almost all forms of communication can be censored and propaganda is a good way to get support up for your cause. People will not necessarily know what is going on either. I did not really care about the fact that my enemies were killing off people it was just they were killing off the people I liked, if they were killing off the people I did not like(like I am) then I would not have really cared. I almost considered not even going to war with the other nation in the other country but decided against that idea because of the fact that these were my relatives and that I would win and possibly get resources. In other words my opposition to my enemies in the beginning was not so much moral as it was in defense of my own interests.

The point I'm trying to make is that the means often define the ends. With regards to suppression of news sources this is impossible. Unless you want to reduce your nation to a fascist dictatorship, and even if you do that, people living in your country who have relatives in the country you are invading will find out what is going on simply by making phone calls, e-mail or receiving letters. If you cut off all forms of communication to the country you are invading then you will have protests anyways because people will assume the worst.
Actually the suppression of media and quiet removal of offensive groups has happened in countries in the past. It is entirely possible to not only remove those I dislike without much problem or dissent so long as I either do it quietly or I do it loudly with propaganda. I would prefer propaganda because with propaganda I could hopefully get rid of many problems that occur with lacking patriotism and people that do not conform to my state morality.

Yes, rules of war do exist ie Geneva Accords, but the problem is were the only ones who follow them. Well, us and Europe (basically the civilized world). Whats interesting is how we follow the Geneva Accords even while fighing an enemy that does not fall under their jurisdiction. Since the terrorists fight for no flag and do not openly wear uniforms displaying that country, we are not compelled to do anything of the sort, but we do. I find it intereresting, then, how much heat we take internationally for anything we do that is deemed borderline when the fact is, we could legally do a lot worse. Just goes to show you what kind of world we live in and the difference between the civilized nation we live in and the barbarians we fight. If it was me, id be a little tougher on them, the tales of our compassion towards the terrorists that try to kill us is astounding, but no one hears about them, they only hear of Abu-Grahib, and the bad parts of Gitmo. In reality, the terrorists in our custody have it much better than if they were in their own. We provide them with decent meals, medical care, they even get their own Koran for gods sake! I cant imagine American POWs get the same treatment. Look at Jessica Lynch.

Actually the suppression of media and quiet removal of offensive groups has happened in countries in the past. It is entirely possible to not only remove those I dislike without much problem or dissent so long as I either do it quietly or I do it loudly with propaganda. I would prefer propaganda because with propaganda I could hopefully get rid of many problems that occur with lacking patriotism and people that do not conform to my state morality.

Did you read the entire post?

If I felt that a massive rape program would be the best option in the long term I would support it. Frankly, I would more likely kill or brainwash any idiot who strives to be a racist. As I have said before, the ends justify the means.
Wha'? We didn't need to do that in WWII… the Russians felt they did, but that's Russians for you.

If I had command of an army invading, I would immediately make a very visible and painful example of any soldier caught committing atrocities… if I was in the army and I saw a fellow soldier committing a rape/massacre, I would quite happily shoot them. They are not necessary and only harm your country's reputation and integrity in the long run, meaning you must keep fighting in more ways than one long after the war is over.

Hang on… you want soldiers who quite happily rape people?

Yes, rules of war do exist ie Geneva Accords, but the problem is were the only ones who follow them. Well, us and Europe (basically the civilized world). Whats interesting is how we follow the Geneva Accords even while fighing an enemy that does not fall under their jurisdiction. Since the terrorists fight for no flag and do not openly wear uniforms displaying that country, we are not compelled to do anything of the sort, but we do. I find it intereresting, then, how much heat we take internationally for anything we do that is deemed borderline when the fact is, we could legally do a lot worse. Just goes to show you what kind of world we live in and the difference between the civilized nation we live in and the barbarians we fight. If it was me, id be a little tougher on them, the tales of our compassion towards the terrorists that try to kill us is astounding, but no one hears about them, they only hear of Abu-Grahib, and the bad parts of Gitmo. In reality, the terrorists in our custody have it much better than if they were in their own. We provide them with decent meals, medical care, they even get their own Koran for gods sake! I cant imagine American POWs get the same treatment. Look at Jessica Lynch. Which is exactly why we must keep acting that way. What are we fighting for, if we're no better than them?

I thought Jessica Lynch came out of capture healthy and unharmed… but I'm in the UK, so I may be misinformed.

Did you read the entire post?
I did read the entire post. I just did not really care.

Which is exactly why we must keep acting that way. What are we fighting for, if we're no better than them?

I thought Jessica Lynch came out of capture healthy and unharmed… but I'm in the UK, so I may be misinformed.

She made it out alive, with most of her bones broken...not to mention the rape. I do not support the commiting of atrocities by americans, i agree we are fighting for the continuation of civilization, i was just trying to point out the difference in expectations of us from the civilized world in comparison to what the terrorists do.

Wha'? We didn't need to do that in WWII… the Russians felt they did, but that's Russians for you.

If I had command of an army invading, I would immediately make a very visible and painful example of any soldier caught committing atrocities… if I was in the army and I saw a fellow soldier committing a rape/massacre, I would quite happily shoot them. They are not necessary and only harm your country's reputation and integrity in the long run, meaning you must keep fighting in more ways than one long after the war is over.

Hang on… you want soldiers who quite happily rape people?
The Russians did do that. The point that I am arguing is that the ends justify the means. If I was trying to get the friendship of the people that I was conquering I would make the same example of the offending soldier. A soldier that disobeys me is hurting our efforts. The raping of enemy women would hurt the morale of the enemy but if you are fighting an enemy that is not that strong to begin with or are approaching victory then it is time to extend the helping hand of your government in order to protect your own interests.

I want soldiers that follow orders, if they rape people when I do not command them to do so they should be shot, but I am not sure if I would ever command them to do so, simply killing people is usually pretty effective.

The Russians did do that. The point that I am arguing is that the ends justify the means. If I was trying to get the friendship of the people that I was conquering I would make the same example of the offending soldier. A soldier that disobeys me is hurting our efforts. The raping of enemy women would hurt the morale of the enemy but if you are fighting an enemy that is not that strong to begin with or are approaching victory then it is time to extend the helping hand of your government in order to protect your own interests.

I want soldiers that follow orders, if they rape people when I do not command them to do so they should be shot, but I am not sure if I would ever command them to do so, simply killing people is usually pretty effective. Actually, think about how you would react if someone close to you was raped. You'd probably go completely ballistic and quite happily murder any enemy troops you could find… I know that's how I'd react. It wouldn't help at all and it would cause problems in the future.

Besides (and this may sound a little idealistic, but we should all be a little more idealistic), I wouldn't trust ANYONE who would follow an order to rape somebody. In fact, I'd cheerfully kill them. Basically, your soldiers would be evil, and you can't trust evil people.

The Ganeva Convention is qutie a noble concept but rather impractical. Battles today, and for some time now, are fought against geurillas and terrorists which makes it difficult and dangerous to dicker over who's a combatant and who's not, and they aren't playing by the rules to begin with.

I don't want to see civilian casualties, and I don't want unneccesary cruelty, but we are talking about war.

I am trying to think of a war whose ultimate result was what the combattants anticipated. Let me see:

WW 1, 'the war to end all wars,' fought to 'save the world for democracy.' Instead, the result was the establishment of rightist dictatorships in Italy, in Germany, in Hungary, Poland, etc.

WW 2, fought to destroy the rightist governments of the Axis. The result was to condemn Eastern Europe to an almost 50 year nightmare of Communist dictatorship.

Korea, fought to stem the rise of China. Oops, the result seems to have been the division of Korea with a Communist government in the north and the dictatorship of Mr Rhee. That South Korea has become a democracy of sorts now is a tribute to the Korean people. And China is now far better off than it was at the beginning of that war.

Vietnam, fought to prevent the 'domino theory' of J. F. Dulles from becoming a reality. The result, a Communist Vietnam is militarily the strongest nation in southeast Asia.

My point: those who find war an option should consider exactly what they want out of such a waste of men and materiel. "Older men declare war. But it is youth that must fight and die. And it is youth who must inherit the tribulation, the sorrow, and the triumphs that are the aftermath of war." -Herbert Hoover, speech (1944)

I might add to Mr Hoover's comments, that it is also the families of the fallen who must inherit the sad legacy of myopic, imbecilic, self-serving politicians and generals who promote war. And the triumphs ring hollow if the result of a war is defeat.

"In peace sons bury fathers, but war violates the order of nature, and fathers bury sons." -Herodotus, Histories

Actually, think about how you would react if someone close to you was raped. You'd probably go completely ballistic and quite happily murder any enemy troops you could find… I know that's how I'd react. It wouldn't help at all and it would cause problems in the future.

Besides (and this may sound a little idealistic, but we should all be a little more idealistic), I wouldn't trust ANYONE who would follow an order to rape somebody. In fact, I'd cheerfully kill them. Basically, your soldiers would be evil, and you can't trust evil people.
The raping of your opponents, even though it may cause rage will not help them. Eventually the side being raped will start having problems, the rage will not be sustainable and the defeats will weigh very heavily on their spirits. Pretty much discipline is good for an army, things that cause people to lose their ability to focus and maintain discipline are bad for an army. Raping the countryside would eventually wear down your enemies and cause them great problems.

I think that we should all be more pragmatic. The most important quality for my soldiers is discipline, and evil is pretty much what we perceive to be evil. I do not claim that rape in peace time is good or that even rape in wartime is necessarily good, I just think that the ends justify the means and if a long term plan requires rape to accomplish it and the rapes will not cause too much damage to your interests then rape is the best thing to do. What I claim is that the ends justify the means, especially in a time of war.

<snip>
Well, world war one was a failure because of bad post-war policies and the onset of the depression. The Versaille treaty created ill-feelings between Germany and the rest of the world and to some extent was the cause of WW2. In other words, the allies took the short term gain of brutally hurting Germany, taking repayments and totally causing ill-will between the nations because the best post war policy is to rebuild and get land or allies.

WW2 actually had some good results. We conquered Japan and made it into a democracy, we took over part of Germany and made that into a democracy, we established the power of the United States over the rest of the world, WW2 is believed by some to have stimulated the US economy, Hitler was killed, the Jews were saved, WW2 ends up with some amount of a happy ending. Stalin just was opportunistic and used the war to get land but in the end that did not help the soviets very much but the competition could be seen to have helped our nation by forcing us to try to stay on top.

Korea was divided before the Korean war began. We were successful in the fact that South Korea was not invaded by North Korea. South Korea today is a better place to live than in North Korea for obvious reasons including the economy.

Vietnam was also divided before the war began. The desired result from the Vietnam war was that we would get results similar to those created by the Korean war. One of the reasons that we lost the war was because of our own students protesting the war more than anything else. We lost the war simply because of the student protests more than anything else, if we had stayed and fought we could have kept South Korea freer than it is today and achieved our objective.

My point is that many wars have proven successful in getting what we want. Certainly bad things may happen because of war, especially if the war is ill-chosen but good things can happen if we strike with our purpose in mind and make sure we get long term goals accomplished.

War has no rules. Some people restrict themselves on their actions during war, for various reasons.

If it were my call, it would depend on what the war was for. If it was to help or save people(Which I mostly wouldnt go to war for, unless it was my own country, obviously), then atrocities and the like would be against orders. Same with a civil war, though no restrictions of weaponry(just no mass rape, killing, etc).

If it was a land grab, economic reason, etc(from either side), all restrictions are gone. There is a reason I like artillery. You sit back, and flatten a city. Just make sure you have plenty of tubes and munitions. Same way with hollow point/flechette ammunition. One shot, one kill. Cheaper for mass execution.

However, this said, war is to be avoided at mosts costs. But when it times to beat your enemy, you beat your enemy.

the Ten Rules of combat

1st Rule of combat - Never underestimate your enemy, the cocky are dead.
2nd Rule of Combat - when your enemy is hurt, he is dangerous
3rd rule of combat - there is no such thing as over kill
4th rule of combat - if you can shoot your enemy, he can shoot you.
5th rule of combat - never leave a fallen comrade behind.
6th rule of combat - limit non combatant casualties as best you can.
7th rule of combat - prisoners are more useful alive.
8th rule of combat - Never leave an enemy stronghold intact.
9th Rule of combat- Do not become your enemy, just because they rape and pillage you do not.
10th Rule of combat - Do not break rule 1, it has two rules thats how important it is.

the Ten Rules of combat

1st Rule of combat - Never underestimate your enemy, the cocky are dead.
2nd Rule of Combat - when your enemy is hurt, he is dangerous
3rd rule of combat - there is no such thing as over kill
4th rule of combat - if you can shoot your enemy, he can shoot you.
5th rule of combat - never leave a fallen comrade behind.
6th rule of combat - limit non combatant casualties as best you can.
7th rule of combat - prisoners are more useful alive.
8th rule of combat - Never leave an enemy stronghold intact.
9th Rule of combat- Do not become your enemy, just because they rape and pillage you do not.
10th Rule of combat - Do not break rule 1, it has two rules thats how important it is.

Rule number 11 - Do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Fight with honor only if your opponent is an honorable man.

And how do you know your oponent is an honorable man?

I did read the entire post. I just did not really care.

Have fun living inside the box.

Actually, think about how you would react if someone close to you was raped. You'd probably go completely ballistic and quite happily murder any enemy troops you could find… I know that's how I'd react. It wouldn't help at all and it would cause problems in the future.

Besides (and this may sound a little idealistic, but we should all be a little more idealistic), I wouldn't trust ANYONE who would follow an order to rape somebody. In fact, I'd cheerfully kill them. Basically, your soldiers would be evil, and you can't trust evil people.

Thanks for the advanced warning.

And how do you know your oponent is an honorable man?

On a serious note, Honour is what seperates the good from the bad

On a serious note, Honour is what seperates the good from the bad

What about the bland? I'm sure there has to be a third grouping in there somewhere.

How you fight defines the kind of person you are, the enemy may use dubious methods to fight but if you don't it makes you better than them. there is not true way to stay neutral.

What seperates the outlaw from a common thief? an outlaw follows a code of honour that he lives by and will likely die by, a thief has no such code

What about the bland? I'm sure there has to be a third grouping in there somewhere.

The good the bland and the ugly?

How you fight defines the kind of person you are, the enemy may use dubious methods to fight but if you don't it makes you better than them. there is not true way to stay neutral.

What seperates the outlaw from a common thief? an outlaw follows a code of honour that he lives by and will likely die by, a thief has no such code

*Enter theme music to E.T.*

Have fun living inside the box.
Box? That is funny I was thinking the same of you. I did not care because I do not agree.

Don't piss into the wind
Nope, this was covered in the first Geneva Convention...

Box? That is funny I was thinking the same of you. I did not care because I do not agree.

This highlighted portion is why you are in the box.

This highlighted portion is why you are in the box.
Am I supposed to care if I do not agree? People do not deeply care about that which we do not agree with. Your point was lost on me because I saw no problems with becoming a totalitarian state. Therefore, because I saw no point in your statement I did not care.

Am I supposed to care if I do not agree? People do not deeply care about that which we do not agree with. Your point was lost on me because I saw no problems with becoming a totalitarian state. Therefore, because I saw no point in your statement I did not care.

Have you ever seen the movie "Trains Planes and Automobiles"? There's a scene where John Candy and Steve Martin are driving down a highway, but because John Candy wasn't paying attention to the road signs, they are actually travelling against the flow of traffic. This is not an immediate problem, because it is late at night and no one else is on the road. However a couple notices they are driving the wrong way and starts shouting to them that they are going the wrong way.

Steve Martin and John Candy didn't care about what they had to say either, until two sixteen wheelers came along.

As much as I hate to say it, war is a part of humanity, and sometimes its even neccessary to prevent attrocity. The question then is, what rules of war exist? When conflict is unavoidable, what is acceptable and what is not?

Protection of non-combatants on both sides? Zero-tolerance for cruelty? What do you think?

War is nessary when I cannot through peaceful means obtain that which I seek. There is no limitation to available methods, because if I win, then I will just rewrite history later to reflect my greatness, and the nobility of our warriors through the fight.

Have you ever seen the movie "Trains Planes and Automobiles"? There's a scene where John Candy and Steve Martin are driving down a highway, but because John Candy wasn't paying attention to the road signs, they are actually travelling against the flow of traffic. This is not an immediate problem, because it is late at night and no one else is on the road. However a couple notices they are driving the wrong way and starts shouting to them that they are going the wrong way.

Steve Martin and John Candy didn't care about what they had to say either, until two sixteen wheelers came along.
Ok, so because I disagree with you it means that I am going to get run-over by a sixteen wheeler? I do not see a sixteen wheeler and I did read you comment I simply did not agree with it. Because I think that getting run over by a sixteen wheeler while on the internet is sort of impossible unless one crashes into the place where I am on that internet.

War is nessary when I cannot through peaceful means obtain that which I seek. There is no limitation to available methods, because if I win, then I will just rewrite history later to reflect my greatness, and the nobility of our warriors through the fight.
Well, of course. The victor decides history and the ends justify the means.

The raping of your opponents, even though it may cause rage will not help them. Eventually the side being raped will start having problems, the rage will not be sustainable and the defeats will weigh very heavily on their spirits. Pretty much discipline is good for an army, things that cause people to lose their ability to focus and maintain discipline are bad for an army. Raping the countryside would eventually wear down your enemies and cause them great problems.

I think that we should all be more pragmatic. The most important quality for my soldiers is discipline, and evil is pretty much what we perceive to be evil. I do not claim that rape in peace time is good or that even rape in wartime is necessarily good, I just think that the ends justify the means and if a long term plan requires rape to accomplish it and the rapes will not cause too much damage to your interests then rape is the best thing to do. What I claim is that the ends justify the means, especially in a time of war. Let's go back. Why would you be fighting the war in the first place? Would it be for the gain of your own state, or to prevent a genocide or whatever, or to protect a smaller nation or yourself - because if it is of these motives, as soon as you use any means, you've just lost your end, as you become as bad as those you are fighting against. Ultimately it's treating foreign people as "lower life" than your own people - losing you any justification.

Let's go back. Why would you be fighting the war in the first place? Would it be for the gain of your own state, or to prevent a genocide or whatever, or to protect a smaller nation or yourself - because if it is of these motives, as soon as you use any means, you've just lost your end, as you become as bad as those you are fighting against. Ultimately it's treating foreign people as "lower life" than your own people - losing you any justification.
My justifications were that the enemy was mistreating some people that I liked and this enemy was both weaker than I was and had resources that I could use. It does not matter how I get the job done, as soon as I win I will start rebuilding the economy of the region and provide jobs. Most certainly I will try not to damage resources if possible but the people will obey because they have utterly lost to an opponent much stronger than they are. I will crush their rebellious spirits through any means and offer them jobs, food, living conditions and everything they need to those who will follow and I will take their lives, their families, their land, their homes, their jobs and everything they have if they try to resist me. Besides, "Men forget more quickly the loss of a father than the loss of patrimony" so I just need to avoid looting these people and try to get them to obey me using propaganda, threat of force and the rebuilding of economic infrastructure.

My justifications were that the enemy was mistreating some people that I liked and this enemy was both weaker than I was and had resources that I could use. It does not matter how I get the job done, as soon as I win I will start rebuilding the economy of the region and provide jobs. Most certainly I will try not to damage resources if possible but the people will obey because they have utterly lost to an opponent much stronger than they are. I will crush their rebellious spirits through any means and offer them jobs, food, living conditions and everything they need to those who will follow and I will take their lives, their families, their land, their homes, their jobs and everything they have if they try to resist me. Besides, "Men forget more quickly the loss of a father than the loss of patrimony" so I just need to avoid looting these people and try to get them to obey me using propaganda, threat of force and the rebuilding of economic infrastructure.
It does matter how you get the job done. The Chinese still haven't forgotten the Japanese means used to achieve their end. How can you justify invading to protect people if you then act as badly as their aggressors?

It does matter how you get the job done. The Chinese still haven't forgotten the Japanese means used to achieve their end. How can you justify invading to protect people if you then act as badly as their aggressors?
The Japanese lost, if you lose then you should not expect any kindness or anything, besides we nuked 2 japanese cities in order to end the war and rebuilt Japan to be the strong nation it is today. I was only invading to protect a small group that I liked, I was invading for the good of everyone in that nation. In the description this nation was described to be weaker than mine, it was described to be a nation that I could invade rather easily. I feel that I could have instituted my plans for economic rebuilding and probably integrate these people into my society. People often care more about their current situation than they do the past and if I bring these people good jobs and use propaganda then they will no longer care about my brutallity in the past.

WW2 actually had some good results. We conquered Japan and made it into a democracy, we took over part of Germany and made that into a democracy, we established the power of the United States over the rest of the world, WW2 is believed by some to have stimulated the US economy, Hitler was killed, the Jews were saved, WW2 ends up with some amount of a happy ending. Stalin just was opportunistic and used the war to get land but in the end that did not help the soviets very much but the competition could be seen to have helped our nation by forcing us to try to stay on top.

WW2 - conservatively 55 million people dead, many more millions scarred for life, enormous expenditures and debt, the largest forced migration in human history, etc. It is true that Japan, half of Germany, and Italy became democracies, but the price was exorbitant. The fate of close to 6 million European Jews might have been avoided if other countries would have accepted Jewish refugees (SS. St. Louis, etc.) and the war might have been avoided if the non-Axis powers had attempted serious and well-meaning diplomatic negotiations before the WW1 treaties were forced on defeated nations, and through the 20's and 30's. Sadly, the real winner of WW1, the USA, did nothing to halt the invasions of Manchuria, Ethiopia, etc. and nothing about the Spanish civil war, all dress rehearsals for the real thing.

Vietnam was also divided before the war began. The desired result from the Vietnam war was that we would get results similar to those created by the Korean war. One of the reasons that we lost the war was because of our own students protesting the war more than anything else.

Mr Ho Chi Minh attempted to enlist the aid of other nations (including the USA) against the imposition of French colonism, and that aid was refused. During the American chapter of the Vietnam civil war, more bombs were dropped in the Mekong delta alone than were dropped during WW1 and WW2, so the USA did have the fire power. Why the US lost Vietnam had little to do with students and more to do with the nature of that war, well understood by Gen. Giap and not at all understood by Gen. Westmoreland. US troops and US society in general were not committed to a victory. Indeed, if one had money and position in US society, one did not serve. The inequalities in US society of that era were painfully evident to the many good people who did serve.

I still believe that war is not a policy, except for the unscrupulous; it is the failure of a policy. The only good that I can see in war is a rather expensive method of population control and the opportunity for supposedly mature men to play with newer and more expensive toys at the expense of their own people and the people they fight against. :sniper: :(

<snip>
You do not like war, I got that but I disagree with you on whether war has a purpose. The reason that we dropped out of Vietnam was do to our own politics, we had a lot of manpower and weaponry but popular opinion was against the war and the politicians had to cover their own asses. I will admit that the WW1 treaties were not well thought out in the fact that they were designed to hurt the societies that were on the opposing side and were not designed to help foster long term gain for both sides and these treaties were the one of the major causes of WW2. The US avoided conflict due to the policy of non-intervention. This policy ultimately failed because we ended up getting involved in both situations and we should have simply intervened in that war that would have come to us anyway. War is the policy that is guaranteed to get something done. People may ignore embargoes and the like but they will not ignore bullets. The ends justify the means and if a war can be of use for a goal or plan then it should be used like any other tool.

Ok, so because I disagree with you it means that I am going to get run-over by a sixteen wheeler? I do not see a sixteen wheeler and I did read you comment I simply did not agree with it. Because I think that getting run over by a sixteen wheeler while on the internet is sort of impossible unless one crashes into the place where I am on that internet.

Getting run over by a sixteen wheeler while typing posts on the internet is unlikely...

But then so is having a plane crash into your office.

Getting run over by a sixteen wheeler while typing posts on the internet is unlikely...

But then so is having a plane crash into your office.
Wow, I thought this thread was dead and gone. Look, I am tired of arguing this thing so I propose that we agree to disagree. I know you will not convince me of anything and I know that I will not convince you. We have very different beliefs about the nature of human beings, of society and of how the world works. Pretty much what I see is that your points have no appeal to me because of my differing outlook and my points have no appeal to you because of your sense of morality.

Wow, I thought this thread was dead and gone. Look, I am tired of arguing this thing so I propose that we agree to disagree. I know you will not convince me of anything and I know that I will not convince you. We have very different beliefs about the nature of human beings, of society and of how the world works. Pretty much what I see is that your points have no appeal to me because of my differing outlook and my points have no appeal to you because of your sense of morality.

It is not morality that defines my point of view but practicality. I find your views impractical because they advocate violence over reason. Human beings are social creatures who accomplish a sustainable lifestyle by working together. Our greatest tool is our ability to communicate complex and abstract thoughts. If humans all chose to take the path to war that you are advocating, then civilization would be reduced to a series of tribal bloodbaths with infighting within the tribes. If we act as individuals, inspired only by self-interest, eventually we reach the point where we can trust no one. Now would you rather live in a world where charity and equality prevail, or would you rather sleep with a gun under your pillow?

It is not morality that defines my point of view but practicality. I find your views impractical because they advocate violence over reason. Human beings are social creatures who accomplish a sustainable lifestyle by working together. Our greatest tool is our ability to communicate complex and abstract thoughts. If humans all chose to take the path to war that you are advocating, then civilization would be reduced to a series of tribal bloodbaths with infighting within the tribes. If we act as individuals, inspired only by self-interest, eventually we reach the point where we can trust no one. Now would you rather live in a world where charity and equality prevail, or would you rather sleep with a gun under your pillow?
I think that my views are the more practical, I advocate that the ends justify the means and you advocate an anti-war statement that I think defies practicality.

I do not even understand the reasoning of your arguments to tell the truth, you made mention about a plane crashing into me and that I was going to be run over by a truck, I know that you are not talking literally or something it is just that your arguments do not really make sense from my point of view. We are both individuals and communities and in order to get the best goal we need to do what is best for our community including sacrificing our lives. The idea that we can abolish violence in the world seems unrealistic because of the fact that violent people often need a violent reaction to eliminate their threat. A man with a gun gives less respect to those without their own weapons, in order to actually achieve "peace" we need to not only have an army but also the will to use it if enemies are threatening us.

We will never agree because we view reality in different ways. Your points are so alien to my viewpoint that they almost seem senseless despite the fact that they seem logical to you and my points despite the fact that I seem logical to myself must be the insane ramblings of a war craving Nazi to you or something. But whatever.

I think that my views are the more practical, I advocate that the ends justify the means and you advocate an anti-war statement that I think defies practicality.

I do not even understand the reasoning of your arguments to tell the truth, you made mention about a plane crashing into me and that I was going to be run over by a truck, I know that you are not talking literally or something it is just that your arguments do not really make sense from my point of view. We are both individuals and communities and in order to get the best goal we need to do what is best for our community including sacrificing our lives. The idea that we can abolish violence in the world seems unrealistic because of the fact that violent people often need a violent reaction to eliminate their threat. A man with a gun gives less respect to those without their own weapons, in order to actually achieve "peace" we need to not only have an army but also the will to use it if enemies are threatening us.

We will never agree because we view reality in different ways. Your points are so alien to my viewpoint that they almost seem senseless despite the fact that they seem logical to you and my points despite the fact that I seem logical to myself must be the insane ramblings of a war craving Nazi to you or something. But whatever.

You keep trying to dismiss the argument by claiming the ends justifies the means and that we will never convince each other that one view is superior to the other. And yet you keep responding to my posts.

Perhaps you are bored and have nothing better to do, or perhaps you need to get the last word. For me, I don't mind debating because it helps me to define my principles.

To clarify; the comment about the airplane was an allusion to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the WTO and the Pentagon. Had people in the U.S. been more informed as to their government's activities in the middle east, beginning with the installation of Isreal, up to and including the financial backing of the Mujahideen, perhaps they would have supported more peacefull methods that would have brought about democratic middle eastern governments that would not harbour militant extremists. Ofcourse this is hindsight, but now that we have the events of the last five years to show us the error of our ways, why do people propose that we follow the same course?