Should there Be rules in war? [|Sith|3|Darth|Warman88 .vs. Blackomur89] commentary thread

[Perkele]

Pathetic debate. Not even discussing the matter...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN88]

Then don't comment then.

[Perkele]

Then don't comment then.

Why not? This is the commentary thread...asking specifically for my thoughts...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN88]

But you don't want to provide any opinions,so....

[Goofy]

Should there be rules in war

Yes, definitely.
...
But it simply isn't possible in the modern world.

This was my short but straight-to-the-point opinion.

EDIT: Oh, sorry for messing up the thread. Didn't notice this is between you two only, and this was my first post here...
Anyways, I can't cancel what is already done.
Sorry again.

[Mr. White]

I would have to agree with you Mightypeon. The only problem with "rules of war" is that if one belligerent does not follow the set "rules of war" and is victorious in the war than that belligerent is free from reprimands from the other contending nations in the war. Basically a nation has the decision to either follow the agreed rules of war or not, and face further reprimands from other nations.

[Mightypeon]

To sum up my point: War SUCKS (I have not been in one, but I have been assaulted with the intend to kill me in my civilian life), as a matter of fact, I can hardly think of anything that could possibly suck more. Rules of war make war suck a little bit less. This little bit less still amounted to countless lifes saved, and should therefor be cherished, improved and if possbile enforced, not abandoned.

[motiv-8]

In the wars in Iraq, there are 5 million orphans.

Hm? How do you get 5 million orphans when there's not even remotely that many deaths (less than 1% of 5 million, actually)? I hope this doesn't have to do with that silly Lancet survey.

[athanaric]

If you break the rules of war you shouldn't really be afforded the same protection those same rules provide.

Heh. That's perhaps the biggest dilemma civilized nations face when fighting an enemy that doesn't care for civilized rules - or any rules, for that matter.
How do you combat somebody who wages a total war against you? Would it be wise to change the rules, because they weren't made for such an occasion?
I hope the Allied commanders have some ideas for that, because so far the "War on Terror" looks more like a war against an unquenchable hydra.

Hm? How do you get 5 million orphans when there's not even remotely that many deaths (less than 1% of 5 million, actually)? I hope this doesn't have to do with that silly Lancet survey.

That's what we in Germany call the "Moral Club" (club as in bat or mace, not congregation). It contributes nothing to the topic, indeed is not even related to it most of the time. But it makes people feel bad because "while you're talking about genetics/art/Flying Spaghetti Monster, there are children dying in Africa!!111".