Clearing Up Confusion On "Rules Of War". - Page 2

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

That is your "opinion" and not a proven fact.

It's easy to make stuff up to support your point of view when there is NOTHING to base that opinion on

Likewise it is just an "opinion" to say the US wouldn't as it has not been in the condition yet to consider this scenario.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:34

Master Zen, your analogy of the War of 1812 is ludicrous.

Jack, ever hear of the "guilty dog barks first" ?

Jack_www · March 25, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Master Zen, your analogy of the War of 1812 is ludicrous.

Jack, ever hear of the "guilty dog barks first" ?

Again you miss what I was trying to say. I think that it is absursed, almost amusing that some think you can get nations at war to follow these rules. Nations at war will follow them weather they want to or not, and no one willl be able to force them to not follow them or follow them. Why cant people understand what I am trying to say??!!??

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:42

Sure. A nation's leader can choose to not follow the rules.
And in retaliation they pay the ultimate price themselves.

Simple stuff, easy to understand.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 15:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
During the war of 1812, the British complained that US frigates were "too large" and that it was not fair. Did that stop the US? Nope. No rational nation will follow any rules, whether signed to or not, if it will impede their ultimate victory. Is any nation willing to risk defeat just because it followed a rule or convention?

The ABM is a perfect example of this. Now that the US faces a threat of a nation like N.Korea launching a nuke against them, considers the treaty too restrictive for the national security of the country and hence, scraps it. It's totally logical.

The US could have just annahiltaded Iraq in half an hour and called it day. We didn't. Obviously state will not do anything they can to win. Most times, specially with prisoners, breaking the rules isn't wrht the problem breaking the rules causes. If the Iraqis showed US prisoners on TV, it was a propaganda stunt to curry favor in the Arab street by showing they are not impotent. The Iraqis could use WMD's to try to survive, though i suspect the probably won't since the political hit would most likely outweight the military gains.

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 15:47

Care to point out a better one?

In simple mathematical game theoretic terms:

US = world superpower
Rogue Nation = third world nutcase

Benefits from following conventions = +5
Benefits from winning the war = +10
PR hit from NOT following conventions = -5
Losing the war = -10

Assuming of course that the US can't lose conventionally unless fighting an unconventional foe and the RN can't win conventionally at all:

US fights, and wins conventionally = +15
US fights, and wins unconventionally = +5
US fights, and loses conventioanlly = -5

Rogue nation fights against the rules and wins = +5
Rogue nation fights against the rules and loses = -15
Rogue nation fights conventional syle and loses = -10

As you can see, it is in the best interests of the US to fight conventionally and for the rogue nation to fight guerrilla style.

Now just change Rouge Nation to US and it will also apply. Why is it so hard to understand?

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 15:50

And obviously you can take "US fights and wins unconventionally" to mean totally annihilating Baghdad and the rest of Iraq.

If the US can win by the rules, it has no incentive to break them.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 15:51

Guerrila war is not against the rules of war: the question is on the issue of treatment of prisoners and use of banned weapons.

The Iraqis have yet to suse ban weapon, and have mistreated prisoners. The US has done neither.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 15:54

GePap, you aren't going to win an argument with a wall.

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 15:58

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Guerrila war is not against the rules of war: the question is on the issue of treatment of prisoners and use of banned weapons.

The Iraqis have yet to suse ban weapon, and have mistreated prisoners. The US has done neither.

Edited "guerrilla" to "against the rules" (I was kinda thinking of Vietnam...)

The US mistreated many Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, they were filmed, many in embarrassing and humiliating positions, it has also been documented that torture like sleep deprivation was used. We all say it on TV so why is Rumsfield suddenly so uptight about Iraq following conventions when the US has failed to do so too?

There were also pictures of Iraqui prisioners keeling before being tied up, that, as far as these standards go, is also illegal.

Now, if the network stations were so enlightened, and were so knowledgable about these conventions, why did they transmit the images at all? They are just as guilty.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 15:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Wait a minute:

You misunderstood my comment... I'm just saying that SOME aren't following the rules anymore... not that people shouldn't follow the standard conventions.

Nations used to follow the rules because they expected the same in return.

In this case... IMHO, Saddam know we will, so I guess he feels he can do anything he wants. (not that I believe he actually cares what happens to his troops)

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
GePap, you aren't going to win an argument with a wall.

That's the same thing I've been thinking since last thursday.

no one's going to change their mind and I don't expect this to be the aim of discussion. Usually, like in many other threads, they just "fade away..."

ranskaldan · March 25, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Sure. A nation's leader can choose to not follow the rules.
And in retaliation they pay the ultimate price themselves.

Simple stuff, easy to understand.

That is a strange argument.

Why is paying the ultimate price a counter-incentive to breaking the rules of war? A losing nation is going to pay the ultimate price anyway. They would be wanting to avoid that through whatever means they can.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
That is a strange argument.

Not strange at all... while yes, you are correct that the losser pays the price no matter what.. it's still a matter of degrees. Breaking the rules may cause the winner to even be more harsh in victory...

The losser rarely gets TOTATLY wiped out... the survivers could be treated EVEN worse.

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 16:19

However, some Western nations are bound by their own constituencies so that even if their enemy breaks the rules, the victor will not be TOO harsh.

From Saddam's PoV, I think he realizes he might break the rules a bit and the US might not respond in kind. Imagine the outburst of nuking something or causing massive civilian casualties... that'd be terrible for PR no matter what Saddam did.

Also, government style does come into play. Iraqi civilizans are not directly responsible for the actions of their depot government and thus cannot be held accountable, and should not be made tu suffer in the name of the regime (which is what happened thru the embargo). On the other hand, a democracy does imply that the citizens have a word in the course of action that their government takes and thus can be held resposible to a certain degree (now it's all a question of, did Bush really win??

)

ranskaldan · March 25, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Not strange at all... while yes, you are correct that the losser pays the price no matter what.. it's still a matter of degrees. Breaking the rules may cause the winner to even be more harsh in victory...

The losser rarely gets TOTATLY wiped out... the survivers could be treated EVEN worse.

From the losers' point of view, they are going to pay the ultimate price - the highest possible. By this I'm talking about the people who're making the decisions - the political and military leaders who will, without doubt, be facing a war crimes court and a noose when they lose. Hence, no matter what they do at this point, they're going to face that anyways - so wouldn't they try whatever means they can to end the war?

(Besides, if the winners take out their anger out on the entire losing nation a la Versailles, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot anyway.)

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Besides, if the winners take out their anger out on the entire losing nation a la Versailles, then they're just shooting themselves in the foot anyway.

While that is true... it doesn't change what could happen.

If they start shooting more POW's, and showing it on TV, that could lead to some nasty retaliations later. I'm not saying that it is right... on the contrary, that's as bad as the events that might cause the behavior... but that's the point, you don't know what might happen. You don't want to really piss off the winners any more than war usually does.

ranskaldan · March 25, 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

While that is true... it doesn't change what could happen.

If they start shooting more POW's, and showing it on TV, that could lead to some nasty retaliations later. I'm not saying that it is right... on the contrary, that's as bad as the events that might cause the behavior... but that's the point, you don't know what might happen. You don't want to really piss off the winners any more than war usually does.

The losing leaders, who will face a war crimes court, wouldn't be directly affected by these retaliatory measures.

It is only the winners who would be shooting themselves in the foot. Why then would the losing leaders want to prevent this?

Ming · March 25, 2003, 16:48

One would think that the leaders would be doing what's best for their people... OH, never mind, we are talking about Saddam... silly me.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 17:13

You know what?

Ranskaldan and Master Zen make a pretty fine argument for why the Coalition are the good guys.

ranskaldan · March 25, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
One would think that the leaders would be doing what's best for their people...

That's the idealistic case. If leaders really did that we would right now be living in a communist utopia.

ranskaldan · March 25, 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You know what?

Ranskaldan and Master Zen make a pretty fine argument for why the Coalition are the good guys.

Sad how some people here blindly believe that their leaders are doing the best for them because they say so.

Ming · March 25, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Sad how some people here blindly believe that their leaders are doing the best for them because they say so.

It's just a matter of one person's opinon vs anothers...
I'm sure they think you are blind as well...

So let's not resort to trying to insult other people, lets stick to the discussion.

GePap · March 25, 2003, 17:44

I think another thing geenrally ignored is that military vicotry coupled with political defeaf equal defeat.

To revise Master Zens' chart:

US conventional victory instantly (had the "decapitation worked)= +50

[sliding scale of positive values as the timespan of US conventional victory lengthens]

US conventional victory in 6+ months= +1
_________________________

US unconventional win (as desbriced) = -50
US conventional defeat = -50
[those are the same thing: the US would only revert to pure brute force if its conventional strategy failed]

US unconventional defeat= -100

We came in saying we are angels of liberty for Iraqis: to do anyting that would rmove this self-protrayal would be defeat.

SlowwHand · March 25, 2003, 17:53

Here's why I think what I think.

I maintain that this session of war ia continuance of the initial Gulf War, where fighting ended via a cease fire.
I've already put in many places the difference of cease fire and surrender.

I didn't vote for Bush, Sr. the 2nd time around, almost exclusively over the way that turned out.

Following the cease fire, Hussein murdered a vast number of his people, which prompted the USA and Britain to institute the No Fly Zone.

Hussein doesn't like it? Too bad, and fine then.
Which brings us to present day.

I don't blindly follow Bush, or any damned body.
I agree with Bush. My only sore spot in foregn affairs being that since the U.S. and Britain brokered the cease fire, we never should have burned daylight waiting on the likes of France.

As I've also said, that was a dollar waiting on a dime.

Get it now? I'm voicing my own belief and knowledge.
Much different than alleged "parroting", which is what the radical liberals are doing.

reds4ever · March 25, 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Well, no one has always followed those rules completely, which is why, for example, they Doenitz wan't convicted of more at nuemberg for ordering his subs to sink merchants without warning. His lawyer brought in American Admirals to explain that they had done the same to Japanese shipping as the germans had to allied shipping.

how much longer would you have liked Doenitz to serve? what happenned to him was a travesty(sp)

Master Zen · March 25, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by reds4ever

how much longer would you have liked Doenitz to serve? what happenned to him was a travesty(sp)

nothing that any other US admiral didn't do... and he still got convicted. And Jodl! He got hanged for no other reason than being one of the head honchos at HQ...

To the victors the spoils, and the truth.

Under even WW2 standards, Bomber Harris and Curtis Le May were even greater criminals than anyone... LeMay was a nutcase, he was an advocate of starting a nuclear war during the cuban missile crisis. To think people like him end up in high places is sickening