First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Gentleman's War
Member
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
what do you guys think about
"war crimes"

to me
i personally think that these rules are in place to keep people from going overkill
i think it is a good thing when countries abide by those rules

is there ever a time when committing a war crime can be justified?

things that can not be justified
-child soldiers
-unnecessary torture
-genocide
-the slaughter of POWs

10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
war crimes are merely rules made by pacifist to make them selves feel better. There is only two rules in war....

1.)WIN

2.)Survive

Everything else is diplomatic crap that people slap into the mix to feel better about themselves or to have a high sense of moral superiority. People need to quit thinking that life is a right. It's not a right it's a privilege any one tells you differently is trying to sell you something. War crimes are also another way to punish the loser, very rarely will you ever see a war crime trail for someone who won, it happens but not often.

okay first off I could solve your problem of POW's DONT TAKE ANY!
I wouldn't take prisoners, the Japanese had it right with the old way. Also the real reason for killing POW's is that if they escape or are freed you give your enemy another fighter that could come back and kill you. That contradicts rule two.

Child soldiers: well if they can fight why not. It's their land too, that's the difference between the weak and strong. The strong will live and continue to use any and all means necessary to win.

Unnecessary torture: well they made the decision to be quiet....so that is all on them.If they want to play hard ball I don't mind it actually would make my day. Some say there is no creature more dangerous than a woman sadist......hmmm the military needs to employ more of us....we would have them talking in no time and loving it.

Genocide: you say that like it's a bad thing. You can't kill what you can't catch, so it's their fault for being either too stupid or too slow. Hence Darwin was very correct, only the strong survive and make the species better. It works for mother nature why not us.

AND YES BEFORE YOU ASK I DO THINK THE GENEVA CONVENTION IS STUPID AND IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN ON.
8206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Republic of South...
Offline
Posted 12/7/08

silverfizz wrote:

war crimes are merely rules made by pacifist to make them selves feel better. There is only two rules in war....

1.)WIN

2.)Survive

Everything else is diplomatic crap that people slap into the mix to feel better about themselves or to have a high sense of moral superiority. People need to quit thinking that life is a right. It's not a right it's a privilege any one tells you differently is trying to sell you something. War crimes are also another way to punish the loser, very rarely will you ever see a war crime trail for someone who won, it happens but not often.

okay first off I could solve your problem of POW's DONT TAKE ANY!
I wouldn't take prisoners, the Japanese had it right with the old way. Also the real reason for killing POW's is that if they escape or are freed you give your enemy another fighter that could come back and kill you. That contradicts rule two.

Child soldiers: well if they can fight why not. It's their land too, that's the difference between the weak and strong. The strong will live and continue to use any and all means necessary to win.

Unnecessary torture: well they made the decision to be quiet....so that is all on them.If they want to play hard ball I don't mind it actually would make my day. Some say there is no creature more dangerous than a woman sadist......hmmm the military needs to employ more of us....we would have them talking in no time and loving it.

Genocide: you say that like it's a bad thing. You can't kill what you can't catch, so it's their fault for being either too stupid or too slow. Hence Darwin was very correct, only the strong survive and make the species better. It works for mother nature why not us.

AND YES BEFORE YOU ASK I DO THINK THE GENEVA CONVENTION IS STUPID AND IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT'S WRITTEN ON.


Awww hell. You wrote all of my thoughts. bhavik15, you have got you use that lump two feet above your ass before you make a topic. Since Fizz took all the words I'll leave a picture or two to enhace the point.



10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
THE RULES OF SURVIVAL


1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Your life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

9.5 Use a gun that works EVERY TIME.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect Your Ass.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust, everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone and everything you meet and see.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a ".4"
Member
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 12/7/08
rofl

i like the rules
but i had a problem with the child soldiers
most of them have been "brain washed"
also
"Alls fair in love and war"
is a quote ive heard only lovers use
but again
unnecessary torture is like going and beating someone just for the fun of it(if their is some)
if you needed info. i understand, to a point
we should do that torture where they have ice cold water being dripped onto the persons forehead
10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/7/08

bhavik15 wrote:

rofl

i like the rules
but i had a problem with the child soldiers
most of them have been "brain washed"
also
"Alls fair in love and war"
is a quote ive heard only lovers use
but again
unnecessary torture is like going and beating someone just for the fun of it(if their is some)
if you needed info. i understand, to a point
we should do that torture where they have ice cold water being dripped onto the persons forehead


Water torture isn't torture it's just annoying. Also I think torture is necessary while you don't, you can't really define what is considered unnecessary.

Plus everybody is brainwashed to a certain extent. Myself included, to use that as an excuse is just that an excuse. Take responsibility damn it.

as for quotes I prefer one of my mentors

Are wars anything but the means whereby a nation is nourished, whereby it is strengthened, whereby it is buttressed?
Marquis de Sade

It is always by way of pain one arrives at pleasure.
Marquis de Sade

What is more immoral than war?
Marquis de Sade
8206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Republic of South...
Offline
Posted 12/7/08

bhavik15 wrote:

rofl

i like the rules
but i had a problem with the child soldiers
most of them have been "brain washed"
also
"Alls fair in love and war"
is a quote ive heard only lovers use
but again
unnecessary torture is like going and beating someone just for the fun of it(if their is some)
if you needed info. i understand, to a point
we should do that torture where they have ice cold water being dripped onto the persons forehead


I thought I told you to use your head before posting.
10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/7/08


Not sure how well this will show up but it's some interesting reading.
10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/7/08


Hahahahah There is only one thing wrong with what you have said my dear friend. It is the rules of war. There is only one. And it is Neither of those.

Rules

1. Make sure your enemy doesn't win.

Surviving the war is a plus as is winning. That is why we have nukes after all. You don't win but neither do they.

This is truth and my way of thinking. When I fight I don't intend to win, that is merely a plus, I intend to make it so that even if my opponent beats me he still loses.
10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:



Hahahahah There is only one thing wrong with what you have said my dear friend. It is the rules of war. There is only one. And it is Neither of those.

Rules

1. Make sure your enemy doesn't win.

Surviving the war is a plus as is winning. That is why we have nukes after all. You don't win but neither do they.

This is truth and my way of thinking. When I fight I don't intend to win, that is merely a plus, I intend to make it so that even if my opponent beats me he still loses.


hmmmm.....well have to agree to disagree...yet

Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08


Why do you disagree?

I agree with Wolven. It's an age old martial arts proverb; "Don't aim to win, just make sure you don't lose." Being that survival is the first priority. Plus in war, no one truly wins. It's those who survive that count.

10410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / F / Somewhere in the US
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:



Why do you disagree?

I agree with Wolven. It's an age old martial arts proverb; "Don't aim to win, just make sure you don't lose." Being that survival is the first priority. Plus in war, no one truly wins. It's those who survive that count.



I aim to win......come hell or high water. That's just me, and I think that there is a winner in most wars not all but most. It's my opinion and belief, but then again I'm willing to do more than most people are to win, so I guess that can change ones perspective on things. What I would find acceptable MANY would not. My friends say I'm kinda like Hitler and Pattons love child.
10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:



Why do you disagree?

I agree with Wolven. It's an age old martial arts proverb; "Don't aim to win, just make sure you don't lose." Being that survival is the first priority. Plus in war, no one truly wins. It's those who survive that count.



But you see I never said survival was my goal. I said that my goal was to make sure they lost. If I died to ensure that well then so be it. And yes there is always a winner in war. The people that are still there after it is ended. It doesn't matter if they were involved in the war or not. If they are living and not ..... erm suffering they win.

Survival as I said is just a plus.
Owner
4444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / In your dreams...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08 , edited 12/8/08

WolvenDragoon wrote:

But you see I never said survival was my goal. I said that my goal was to make sure they lost. If I died to ensure that well then so be it. And yes there is always a winner in war. The people that are still there after it is ended. It doesn't matter if they were involved in the war or not. If they are living and not ..... erm suffering they win.

Survival as I said is just a plus.


I was elaborating on an interpretation of the quote I mentioned. Furthermore there's the large scale understanding and the small scale understanding. On a small scale survival is less important; On a large scale it is imperative.

As to there being a winner in war; that depends on how you interpret "Winning" and being that there are varying degrees of victory in military terms, that would be completely relative and thus, no, there is not always an inherent winner.


10196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Uoi'nota, kyon ul...
Offline
Posted 12/8/08

Ice_Blue_Eyes wrote:


WolvenDragoon wrote:

But you see I never said survival was my goal. I said that my goal was to make sure they lost. If I died to ensure that well then so be it. And yes there is always a winner in war. The people that are still there after it is ended. It doesn't matter if they were involved in the war or not. If they are living and not ..... erm suffering they win.

Survival as I said is just a plus.


I was elaborating on an interpretation of the quote I mentioned. Furthermore there's the large scale understanding and the small scale understanding. On a small scale survival is less important; On a large scale it is imperative.

As to there being a winner in war; that depends on how you interpret "Winning" and being that there are varying degrees of victory in military terms, that would be completely relative and thus, no, there is not always an inherent winner.




Tch. scale doesn't matter. Survival only matters if you have an agenda for after. And even then it isn't necessarily important. Take a defending army for example. If the defending army is smaller and less well armed there is little chance of survival. So the nature attitude should be that survival of the army is of no importance. Instead decimating the enemy and making it impossible for them to continue should be number one on the list. Thus in this example Survival is of less importance on a large scale.
Here is another one. Say a an empire begins to attack it's neighbors and that each of these neighbors are far weaker militarily than the empire. The idea that survival for each nation is rediculous. To think that all of them could survive isn't worth the brain power to think it. Instead the smaller nations should be thinking about how best to make it so that the empire can not attack anymore. Even if it means that one or two get swallowed up by the empire or by another countries government. Thus survival for that country and it's people are of Less importance in the larger scale of things.
As I said Survival is a plus. You don't have to be there to enjoying winning to have won.

And no winning isn't a completely relative term. Winning in a war means simply that the enemy is no longer a threat. All other terms are derived from this one fact. Someone always wins. Just because you don't know who doesn't mean they didn't.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.