"The Laws of War"

[Trailrider #896]

A lot of talk about "observing the laws of war".  Seems to me the only law of war is...WIN! If you don't you will regret it! (See: Korea, Viet Nam, the "War on Terror", Afghanistan...and whatever and wherever! 

[Badlands Bob #61228]

Only the loser gets prosecuted for war crimes.  

[Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139]

Only the good guys follow the laws of war. Our enemies have not, do not and will not. I have never understood why you have to kill someone humanely.  I agree with Trailrider, but there should be 2 laws:

 

1. WIN

2. COME HOME

 

PF

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

What did Sun Tzu say about all this?

[Chantry]

39 minutes ago, Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139 said:

Only the good guys follow the laws of war. Our enemies have not, do not and will not. I have never understood why you have to kill someone humanely.  I agree with Trailrider, but there should be 2 laws:

 

1. WIN

2. COME HOME

 

PF

 

Yeah, not. 

 

Dig deep enough into military history and you'll find that war crimes occur on both sides and sometimes "overlooked"

 

Some random examples:

The US Army and the American Indian

African troops under British command in India, killing and partially eating some Japanese prisoners

American troops killing prisoners, referenced in the series Band of Brothers and in an interview I saw on TV with an American soldier who recounted a fellow private killing 5 unarmed German prisoners when that private was supposed to take the prisoners back to HQ.  Turns out the private had lost most of his family in a German concentration camp.  The only thing his squad did was make sure he never brought prisoners back to HQ ever again.

 

And there is nothing about killing the enemy "humanely"  napalm, the bayonet and the flamethrower are hardly "humane" ways to kill someone.

 

 

[John Kloehr]

12 minutes ago, Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 said:

What did Sun Tzu say about all this?

Quite a bit...

 

If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. 

 

if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. 

 

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. 

 

In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. 

 

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. 

 

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. 

 

Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. 

 

 

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

Not killing prisoners of war is a good law. The fact that it is not always observed doesn't change that. Most good laws are violated on occasion. But often they are followed.

[Gungadin]

1 hour ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

Not killing prisoners of war is a good law. The fact that it is not always observed doesn't change that. Most good laws are violated on occasion. But often they are followed.

Also good psychology.  If the enemy thinks you will kill them when they surrender they will fight to the death.  Not a good deal.  Better to have the reputation of being reasonable to POW's.

[watab kid]

7 hours ago, Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139 said:

Only the good guys follow the laws of war. Our enemies have not, do not and will not. I have never understood why you have to kill someone humanely.  I agree with Trailrider, but there should be 2 laws:

 

1. WIN

2. COME HOME

 

PF

amen to that , and terorism needs to be eliminated from existence , leave the peaceful alone