Your Ethics of warring?

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

Folks, since so much carnage is rised when unfair warring is one sided-ly created.

if a real and fair war were to be, where would you draw the line for all the warring actions on our part.

if someone who you are killing, begs you of their life and you feel sorry for them, would you still kill them?

why would you do this when the authority commanding you to do this, is not there?

regarding the persons of all people, property and countries’ infrastructure, air, waters and land?

Would you go by that ethics, or would you not?

2

Re: Your Ethics of warring?

from a relgious stand point this is a different discussion but otherwise

destroy what u cant move, eliminate the intellectuals, prop up quislings and pacifiy the population but some superficial gestures

3

Re: Your Ethics of warring?

The war crimes trials that followed WW2 laid down that following orders is not a valid defence for carry out war crimes.

All war must be conducted according to the Geneva conventions.

If someone you are about to kill tries to surrender, you must accept the surrender.
Deliberate destruction of civilian infrastructure is also illegal (unless it is to carry out a military objective - such as destroying a bridge that is used to transport military material)

4

The first rule of war is that there are no rules

Master Sun Tzu the Art of War.

P.S: Do you know who is the biggest violater of Geneva Conventions? You don't want to know.

Timepass-July 2012
5

And yet the Prophet (pbuh) laid down rules for Muslims to follow in war (all of which in essence also appear in the Geneva conventions).

Muslims are supposed to fight war within the confines of certain rules. Heathens like Sun Tzu can do so their own way, but thet aren't fighting for an afterlife.

6

we are leaving religious considerations aside for the moment ...

btw are u refering to the kangroo courts called nuremberg trials
too bad they didnt punish "bomber" harris or curtiss lemay who had a far bigger claim to being war criminals than kesselring or Raeder.

at any rate allies didnt follow the geneva conventions either as german POWs were employed as slave labor and for lifethreatning works like mineclearing.
Even during the war allied not just soviet] soldiers routinely shot SS prisoners

7

well said ....but this subject is better dealt with in the religion section than here

8

Rigidly enforcing the laws of war is the right of the victor upon the defeated. :D

All war crime courts are pretty much kangaroo courts, regardless of whether they are prosecuting the defeated (heavy sentences) or the victor (light sentences).

Witness the slaps on the wrist given to American soldiers for war crimes in Iraq; versus the sentences given to Iraqi baathists.

International war crimes laws still serve a purpose through acting as a mild deterrent. You should be worried that in case you lose after your bad behaviour, that you will be punished.

There's no system that can possible punish the victor in a war.

9

You mean, since USA has nuclear bombs in unlimited quantity and means to deliver them on their target too, they should not have endangered life of their soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, should not have used minor bombs, but should have used nuclear bombs to fulfil their desire?

10

Sun Tzu is right though. If your goal is victory with no consideration of morality, then there are no rules in war. Obeying rules only lowers your chances of victory.

For example, the US attack on Fallujah would have been much more effective, and the American victory achieved faster, if the entire city was bombarded with chemical weapons beforehand.

In an all-out war one day, one faction may decide to disregard all rules to try and achieve a victory that is slipping out of its grasp.

The Last Film You Saw
11

The Swiss.................

because they don't understand the language it was written in..Ingleesh..:D