Why Rules in war?

[svltech]

The enemy never follows rules of engagement so why do we? They will come and kill even our children if given the chance yet we hide behind our rules and get our butts whooped. Give warning to those that need to leave. Give a grace period then flatten the rest. That is war not the games we play today. WWll was not won by rules. There wasn't any. I would like some input to see where I may be right or wrong in this but it seems stupid to just be punched in the face and then some goodie goodie saying it isn't nice to hit back. Don't hit back now.

[Charlie P]

The Geneva convention was in effect in WW2 wasn't it?

Were getting our butts whooped? We've lost 700 they've lost 15,000.

[FroMan]

When it comes strictly to numbers, we always win. Anyone will hardly claim that we "won" Vietnam, when we lost 58,000 men to the Vietnamese 1 million. Hardly seems comparable...but the outcome still wasn't the desired effect.

We're the greatest nation in the world, we are held to higher moral standards then other nations...

But sometimes I sit back and am with you, if they don't follow the rules, why the heck should we?

[stork]

Don't be fooled. Our guys break the rules too.

It is the rules that keep the really bad stuff from happening. At least most of the time.

[kenton6]

What do we do about the Mosques that are being used for amories and fortresses?

[svltech]

This has gone well. I guess I could agree that without some rules really bad things would happen. What I haven't spent time on is what happened with ***an. Not what is in the history books but a ***anese point of view. How did we win that one and get it started again. Yes the bomb helped but where did we go from there. I wasn't around and haven't talked to anyone that was to go over the details but isn't our current situation similar? Overthrow the government and then establish a new governement? Didn't we take harsh actions to take ***an? I am here for the knowledge. I really don't want this all to get out of hand. Thanks in advance.

[Dave590]

The reason that we have "rules" or a better word is "conducts of war" is to answer questions like kenton6"s question.

A hospital, religious place etc. is not a legitamate target. The reason being is that "Non-combatents" would tend to be in those places.

However, once the enemy shoots at you from one of those places, they cease to be "off-limits" and becomes a target.

[logs]

The "rules" or conduct in war may not always be followed but to a great degree they are guidelines for the more civiized countries.
They are like speed limit signs along a highway. Often ignored but there as a reminder.

Yes we also do violate the rule of war and if the tables were turned and we the occupied country we'd be using the same tactics. The fact is if we did, as to the British back in the 1700 we were no more than a rebel up rising.

One has to understand how the enemy thinks and sees thing and why.

We could go in today and kill almost all the problem Iraqi but we would just be winning that battle and prolonging the war.

[driftrider]

Because we're the good guys.

We are better than the scum sucking b*****ds that we have to blow to hell to make the world a better place for us, and the rest of the undeserving people of the world, and should act like it.

Mike

[Vapodog]

We have also prosecuted govt officials for violations of war...treatment of prisoners.....

We had the Nuremburg trials and further had specific proceedings to procecute ***anese for the Bataan March and other attrocities. One must underderstand that if the rules of war are disobeyed the winning party can prosecute for the infractions.