Originally Posted By barboy ///For instance, it's perfectly fine to kill Private Smith in the heat of battle. But if you take Private Smith prisoner, along with others, you can't kill them. Even though, let's say, had Private Smith been standing five feet to the left 20 minutes earlier and would have taken a bullet - he'd have been dead, and well within the rules of war - nonetheless, if you capture him, you can not kill him. On one level that may seem to make no sense, but that has been a rule of war we've agreed to for a long time./// I really liked the way you explained that. There is another war rule I found most interesting---informal or unwritten but definitely a rule/practice nonetheless--- that both sides honored during the US Civil War: bitter enemies doing the most barbaric and grizzly things to each other on the battlefields during day would play cards, exchange food stuffs or enjoy conversation by campfires come nightfall---it didn't happen terribly often but it did go down many times in different theatres and campaigns throughout the war.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***bitter enemies doing the most barbaric and grizzly things to each other on the battlefields during day would play cards, exchange food stuffs or enjoy conversation by campfires come nightfall---it didn't happen terribly often but it did go down many times in different theatres and campaigns throughout the war.*** Wasn't there a similar story about Russians and Germans during WWI? Or was it II? Bizarre, this human condition.
Originally Posted By barboy Yes, the story goes that WWI enemies suspended conflict on Christmas Eve. I believe each side came out of their earthworks/trenches and probably met each other out in 'no man's land' and sang Christmas songs together. I'll have to read up on the specifics Quite a story though
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Maybe this is what you guys are thinking about- British and Germans during WWI. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...as_truce</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There should be NO RULES for war. Rules only help to legitimize a completely barbaric activity. Torture... behead... burn… rape... do it all. This ain't football baby, this is WAR! If that makes you sick, DON'T FRICKING GO TO WAR!! "Rules of War" is the most totally disgusting thing I've ever heard of. I am very surprised that anyone here can support it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux We don't get to decide who we go to war with or when or why. Iraq is a perfect example - we have no business being there, we didn't HAVE TO start this war, and a solid majority of americans do not support the war, and yet here we are. The 'rules' of war are there for very good reason.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***"Rules of War" is the most totally disgusting thing I've ever heard of.*** And yet such a thing has existed from time immemorial to various degrees. In fact, it used to be far more "civilized" if you can say such a thing. Guerrilla tactics are really only necessary if you're the underdog (although some atrocities have been committed simply through sheer evil intentions and brainwashing such as what happened in WWII). ***I am very surprised that anyone here can support it.*** I don't support war as a matter of principle, unless it is to defend your homeland. But even so, I do "support" rules of engagement in the sense that no, I don't feel good about killing babies and soldiers raping the populace. If anything, such issues becoming common war tactics would only lead to many more wars (and rightfully so, YOU'D want to go to war if your child was raped and murdered and your spouse raped and murdered by some soldier, wouldn't you? you'd (rightfully) hate that country and everything it stands for til the day you die, and want to kill every last citizen right?).
Originally Posted By dshyates What DAR is advocating isn't justice its vigilantism. Where the handlers act as judge, jury, and prosecutor. And will inevitably lead to innocent people being tortured. DAR has no concept of what seperates the good guys from the bad guys. In his mind, We are the good guys because its us. Regardless of our actions. He says he wants to torture people without due process to protect the innocents. Due Process is specifically designed TO protect the innocent. Obviously, His mind is head with pudding.
Originally Posted By dshyates What DAR is advocating isn't justice its vigilantism. Where the handlers act as judge, jury, and prosecutor. And will inevitably lead to innocent people being tortured. DAR has no concept of what seperates the good guys from the bad guys. In his mind, We are the good guys because its us. Regardless of our actions. He says he wants to torture people without due process to protect the innocents. Due Process is specifically designed TO protect the innocent. Obviously, His his head with pudding.
Originally Posted By dshyates Sorry, let me try that insult again: Obviously, his head is fill with pudding. Mine is filled with doo-doo.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Re: Rules of War >>>And yet such a thing has existed from time immemorial to various degrees.<<< And systematically ignored by every side since then. Like I quoted...we can't handle the truth. Our problem is that we have all seen to many episodes of Hogan's Hero's. It just doesn't work that way. Does anyone really think that Hitler gave two snits about the "rules of war"? And does anyone really think he was defeated because everybody else followed the rules? It's a nice dream and a good way for us to cope with the massive loss of life, but, like so many other things in life...whatever floats your boat. Whatever helps us all stay self righteous in the face of mass murder, go for it. It really is a natural system for emotional survival. Denial is more that a river in Egypt. (sorry about using that old phrase)
Originally Posted By barboy Yes, courtesy of Gen. Sherman...war is hell ---which reminds me of how some WW2 stranded Japanese sailors were treated by US naval personnel after their ships were destroyed. Japanese sailors were either machine gunned, bludgeoned when they got close enough to US patrol boats and cruisers thinking they were going to be saved and pulled aboard or left floating in the Pacific only to die of thirst or shark attack.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, you're correct it's not nice to tell someone their head is filled with pudding (though slightly amusing), but what did you think of the rest of his post Dar? Did it resonate with you at all? Anyway, isn't a threat also a form of personal attack?
Originally Posted By dshyates "dshyates you would be wise to cut out the personal attacks right now." Me, wise? I just said that my head was filled with doo-doo. Obviously, wise isn't my strong suit. And pudding probably wasn't the right analogy, as most pudding I've eaten had a pretty think skin on top. And that appears to not apply to you. I promise to not refer to you as Puddin' Head again.
Originally Posted By dshyates "Anyway, isn't a threat also a form of personal attack? " Hey, if I get banned for saying someones head is filled with pudding, so be it. I felt someone needed to say it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***dshyates you would be wise to cut out the personal attacks right now.*** The more I read this (and considering what it's in response to in the first place, a mild insult at best), the more I realize what a loose cannon Dar really is. Seriously dsh, if I were you I'd be worried. Look at some of the positions this guy has proudly touted here.
Originally Posted By DAR No it clearly states "No personal attacks" if anything I would have reported it to a moderator. But I'm not a tattletale. I'm not threatening physical harm to dsyhates, nor anyone else. Do you really think I would take the time,effort and money to seek out anyone on these boards? Please this is a disagreement, most of you are wrong and I happen to be right about it.
Originally Posted By DAR BTW X I have one position about this in particular. But I've made it clear that I'm for better stewardship of the environment. I'm for gay marriage. I want our government to realize its citizens know what's best us and our families. I support our miiltary. I support our law enforcement. I want our schools public and private to be the best. I want there to be strict laws regarding child rapists. These aren't really radical positions it's what most Americans happen to think. But regarding this main topic I won't apologize for it not now not ever.
