Should there be rules in war? Isn't the purpose of war to wipe out whoever you are battling?

Question

Rekon: Stop quoting 'regulations' and books and tell me what you THINK...ugh

Answer 1

It's just not that easy anymore.

The rules of war have changed a lot in the last century. Unfortunately, the US is still engaged in that 'winner's circle' mentality--where overwhelming force equals instant victory.

Considering the ***-kicking we got in Iraq these last 6 years, I'm surprised we're still there and not waving the white flag already.

Fighting a war nowadays goes BEYOND mere firepower and how much ammo you carry in your utility belt.

The theater of war is so much different now--and has to be fought on a completely different level of thinking.

Sadly, we aren't at that point yet. We don't have the capability to start thinking of warfare in anything but the simplest terms and ideals.

Answer 2

Haven't you heard about the Rules of Engagement?  There are certain rules that apply, and the United States are in accordance to the Geneva Accord.  Plus there are rules that involve in use of weapons.  Geneva says that we cannot fire the Mk-19  40mm grenade launcher at enemy infantry, nor shoot at enemy paratroopers until they laned on the ground; regardless if they are shooting as us in mid-air!  Nor can we fire the AT-4 at an enemy position unless if involves armor!

Kinda makes you think that there is a conspiracy of Code Pink be involved in this somehow?  Could have they contributed the creation of the Geneva Convention?  We'll never know....

NOTE:  What books?  I ain't the Marine that abides by regulations!  This is common knowledge!  They teach us this  so-called ridicules training called PME, Professional Military Education.  I am an NCO, I was required to know this nonsense!  Well, some PMEs are not ridicules, but some are!  If they are shooting at us; return the favor!  If you want me to lie, let me know, I'll be glad to embellish my stories to the extreme!

My point is that war is not intended to maim and mutilate our adversaries.  According to Geneva, it isn't our purpose to 'wipe' them out!  But to accept POWs.  We Marines are to Code and Honor, therefore we abide by the Code of Conduct when it comes to engaging war!  If we crippled our enemy enough that 'killihg' is our last resort, we will not issue any more 'suppressive fire' on them and honor their life, however, they will be our in our possession-which I rather prefer!  I ain't into bloodshed!

I have to tell this story...sorry.  While I was with Task Force Tarawa, we had quite a number of the Fedayeen surrender to us.  I guess they rather be in the hand of the US Coalition than Saddam's side!  We in turn, turned them over to some of the 3rd ID (Army).  From what I witnessed, they surrendered because they were starving, dehydrated, and of poor hygiene.  So, it was our own discretion that we fed them, gave them plenty of water, and clothed them with what AAFES offered us.  h**l, me and many Marines of my team pitched in money outta our own pocket (consisted of a ticket, a stipend-type deal) and treated them.  We however ask who was their CO, and interrogating was involved "not by abusing or torture' but simply asking, where is the rest?  Most of them happily obliged in given us information of the other locations of their troops.  That was my job, Reconnaissance, that was the most simple Recon job I ever had to deal with!  It came to be that half of them surrendered without a fight ; must be that they saw their own kinda living like R&R in our custody!  See?  No wiping out but we gave them respect, and we were rewarded ten-fold!  However, Nasiriyah was a different story!  That I cannot bear!

So, NO, the purpose of war is not to wipe out whoever you are battling!

Answer 3

There are no rules to war. There are rules to war only in the hearts and minds of politicians, activists and the winners. Attempts have been made to sanitize war for over a thousand years and there has never been even one that has been subscribed too, except by propaganda experts and  afterward, when it is time to execute and imprison the losers. Oh yeah and when it's time to write the history books.  

Answer 4

I think there should be rules in war....to avoid the killing of innocent civilians and to protect prisoners of war...

Answer 5

The purpose of war is not to as you put it "wipe out whoever you are battling."  Wars are not fought to wipe out another group of people.  (with the exception of the n***s)  All wars are not genocide which is how you make it seem.  There should be some rules in ware as given by the Geneva conventions (this is not quoting regs, but years and years of work put forward by the international community to outlaw what is an unfair action.)  

The types of things that are so called rules of war, or against the Geneva Conventions are using weapons that are not a proper elevation of force, firing upon unarmed civilians, shooting unarmed medical personnel, etc.  These things are afforded to both sides.  (or at least supposed to be).  Yes there should be rules to war.  If you do not want your innocent women and children shot, then don't shoot the enemies.  This does not always work out this way nor is it always so simple, but there should be general guidelines.  (like outlined in the Geneva Conventions)  More importantly everyone should abide by them!

Answer 6

A much debated question. The golden rule verses the thirst for conquest. In an ultimate, really dirty, unprovoked attack, I mean an unforeseen, kick in the groin, all destroying nuke attack all rules should be suspended indefinitely until your foe, his children, his grandmother, his dog groomer are a steaming mass of burnt flesh. Barring that we should all behave as gentlemen and honor the codes set forth in the Geneva convention. I always assumed that these were the rules,anyway. Its' war, what do you want?

Answer 7

war is war

Answer 8

The UN seems to want to wipe out disproportionate response.  I don't know of any war that's been won without that.  I agree with you.  Our enemies don't have rules.  It all depends on how much you love your kids over the enemy.

I'm enjoying Recon's answer, thank you.

Wouldn't we all love to sit down and have a beer with one of our troops and hear the stories from Iraq/Afghan first-hand.

Answer 9

All is fair in love and war.  The people that try to make rules are the ones that get hurt when theyre violated.

Answer 10

There should be rules in warfare...especially concerning the treatment of prisoners and civillians in enemy territory.

Also there must be ground rules laid out for starting a war...like the country must clearly only go if its for self-defense or something.

We can't have a country destroy another just because they don't like them.

Answer 11

There are rules of war (which seem somewhat ironic) that says you may kill the enemy as long as you're nice about it. The enemy may slaughter but you can't violate their civil rights to save fellow soldiers or civilians.  hmmm...  I call it the Laws of Crappola!

Answer 12

Rule #1: Make the OTHER guy die for his country.Rule #2: Win!

The current "war" isn't one at all, in the usual sense. The enemy doesn't wear a uniform, has no officers, doesn't subscribe to the Geneva convention, represents no specific country and has no leader to get a surrender from.They have declared this a "Holy" war.This is a Guerrilla type war and there are really no non combatants. Everyone is a target  all over the world.

Answer 13

Since periods of war are followed by periods of peace, rules in war become more important as the period of peace approaches.  They can easily be ignored while war is going on, but the losers will be prosecuted by the winners for ignoring the rules of war once the conflict is settled.