Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Rethinking the rules of war


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:57:37 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



(While we're at it; since the collapse of the USSR, there is, by attrition, only two counties left that have caused or otherwise have underwritten the largest portion of the turmoil in the world since 1990. Both begin with the letter "U".)



That was intended as saying countries, not counties.

The edit time-frame is short on this forum site.



Thats a very myopic viewpoint Edwynn. Are you seariously suggesting no other wars have taken place since 1990 except where the UK and US have meddled ? Are you seriously suggesting if not for us Afghanistan under the Muhadijeen and Iraq under Saddam would have modernised. Are you suggesting the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Africa are somehow our fault. Thats frankly absurd nonsense.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 11:14:55 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
What do you think?

I think that it sucks when cowardly combatants use civilians as hostages to hide behind. So yes: shoot the hostages first and subsequently engage the combatants.

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 11:22:26 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific.


This, it seems to me, is the essence of war.

But there's a matter of porportionality and anteing up, which is blatantly ignored at times (e.g. Israel vs. Palestine).

Some will crawl into the ethical gutter when it suits them, while others take the moral high ground (whatever morality happens to be to them).

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 11:49:05 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



(While we're at it; since the collapse of the USSR, there is, by attrition, only two counties left that have caused or otherwise have underwritten the largest portion of the turmoil in the world since 1990. Both begin with the letter "U".)



That was intended as saying countries, not counties.

The edit time-frame is short on this forum site.



Thats a very myopic viewpoint Edwynn. Are you seariously suggesting no other wars have taken place since 1990 except where the UK and US have meddled ? Are you seriously suggesting if not for us Afghanistan under the Muhadijeen and Iraq under Saddam would have modernised. Are you suggesting the wars in the former Yugoslavia and Africa are somehow our fault. Thats frankly absurd nonsense.



My statement implied an imprecise though majority percentage fundamental cause of global conflicts attributable to the corporate interests (though I didn't state that important detail) in the two countries mentioned, especially in more well-known "hot zones."

Your assertion is that I claimed 100% fault of the US and UK, worldwide.

I'll leave other readers to their own comprehension skills.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 11:51:54 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 1:32:22 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline 		To speak to the Iraqi situation; The US and UK oil interests had no liking for Kassem, and the rightist Ba'ath party attempted an overthrow in '58, in which Saddam was injured. Being that Iraq was a semi-civilized country at the time, Saddam was merely imprisoned instead of being executed, as he would later do in his ousting of Ba'ath party opponents years later.

The CIA and MI6 of course approved of Kassem's ouster, and once Saddam was in place, he was their guy, for awhile. Bush I's shipment of canisters of anthrax to Hussein, as some sort of 'agricultural support' program in '89, would be one of several items in testimony to that.

It was thought that Hussein, Noriega, et al. were safely under control, as they in fact were for the few years that the association suited their purpose.

But relentless further imposition and insistence on their exposing their own sovereignty and their armies and their own citizens at the bidding of the commodity colonists soon drove them to an understandable position of defensive obstinance, too uncomfortably close to insouciant 'independence' for the commodity colonists' tastes.

On the other hand, are you implying that Iran is currently more 'stable' at this juncture, today, due to the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh in '53 at the behest of BP/MI6? And/or that the revolution of '79 had nothing whatsoever to do with that?




As for the accusation of my alleged myopia, I can well assure you that I am far more well-read in these matters than the typical person, and no surprise as to being more well-informed than the typical person coming into these matters from an ideological standpoint or such associated purpose. The myopia and otherwise limited relevant information and insight in these affairs is certainly demonstrated to be on the part of politicos and other ideologues.






< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 1:55:45 PM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 2:24:42 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

while others take the moral high ground


Who in this mess has taken the moral high ground...who has ever taken the moral high ground in this dumb assed war?

Butch

ps...I don't believe I can name a war where victory was forfeited to take the moral high ground...can you?

< Message edited by kdsub -- 11/19/2012 2:28:48 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 2:58:00 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.

OTOH, the Israelis have been fighting an asymmetrical war for as long as I have been alive and longer - and they're still fighting it.

Coincidence?



Two differencess Tweakable one. The IRA never fired indicriminate rockets at civillians in the way Hams have fired them into Israel. The British Government were also willing to hold talks with the IRA with no preconditions from either side. That way both parties went to the negotiating table as equals. There are still murders being carried out by dissidents, the most recant was last this month. So some, dont wish for peace at any cost.

There are many differences and similarities. Both are post-colonial situations (though Palestine bears a closer resemblance to the South African situation IMHO). Both are military occupations engaged in counter-insurgency.

A magor difference is in the goals of the occupation. In Ireland, the aim was to defeat/contain the IRA, which eventually proved impossible militarily but was achieved politically. The aim of the Israeli occupation is land conquest and driving the indigenous population out. Hence Israel's disinterest in pursuing peace talks or any sort of political accommodation with the Palestinians and its imperative to seek an (impossible) military destruction of the resistance.

But that is my point. The reason Israel is still unsuccessful in its fight against 'terrorism' is its refusal to seek a political resolution, which is, as we all should know, the only way popular insurgencies are defeated, not because the resistance uses this weapon or that weapon. Despite over half a century of fighting 'terrorists', the 'terrorists' are in a stronger position than ever

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/19/2012 3:07:36 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:24:36 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Who in this mess has taken the moral high ground...who has ever taken the moral high ground in this dumb assed war?


I took hers as a post on the subject of the ethics of warfare, not as specific to any one war.

In this war, none are taking the moral high ground, true.

quote:

ps...I don't believe I can name a war where victory was forfeited to take the moral high ground...can you?


Depending on the morals and the definition of victory, there might be cases, but overall it seems unlikely we would hear of them.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:28:33 PM   
wittynamehere


Posts: 759
Joined: 2/5/2010
Status: offline 		I'm against all violence that isn't self defense, and most of the wars/battles/occupations/etc going on in the world today aren't self defense, so I'm against pretty much all of it currently. We make up reasons to justify killing each other, but really, they usually aren't very good ones.

_____________________________

I almost never return to a thread, so if you saw my post and want me to hear your reply, please message it to me.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:51:02 PM   
Kana


Posts: 6676
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Right now, we are witnessing the appalling outcomes of the use of heavy weapons in urban/civilian areas in locations such as Syria Gaza and Afghanistan. Women and children, old people, civilians and non-combatants are exposed to fire from heavy artillery, drones, rockets and missiles as well as aerial and naval bombardments.

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific. Those firing the weapons may have no way of telling whether civilians are in the impact zone, how many civilians may be in the zone, whether they are children playing or combatants fighting, or whether the number of civilian casualties will meet the 'proportionality' thresholds of the Geneva Conventions that cover the laws of war. In the case of drone operators, they're not even on the same Continent as the impact zone. Pilots screaming overhead at speeds greater than the speed of sound, or flying at altitudes of 30,000 feet have no idea whether the impact zone is full of children playing or combatants. Likewise, naval commanders or commanders of artillery can be many miles from the impact zones they are attacking - they may be operating off no more information that a set of co-ordinates.

The poor civilians don't even get a choice, they are just sitting ducks. Usually they have no way whatsoever of telling what is coming, or when it will arrive. Even if they did know, there may not be any air raid shelters or protection available. Even if they did know what is coming, and have access to shelters, often there isn't enough time to get to safety.

In short using these weapons in civilian or urban areas is a guaranteed method of ensuring civilian casualties while offering no guarantee of any military advantage.

How many more civilians are going to be butchered before we act to protect them?
Isn't time that we re-thought the legality of using such weapons and tactics under the Conventions?
Isn't it time that these murderous strategies were outlawed?
Isn't it time that we brought the rules governing warfare in civilian or urban areas up to date?
Isn't it time that we placed the protection, safety and welfare of civilians and non-combatants ahead of combatants?

What do you think?


The irony of course, is that it was pretty much an American, specifically Sherman, who made war on the civilian populace part of modern war.
And Hamas (like most terrorist groups) deliberately places their weapons/bomb factories/rocket launchers et. al. in the civilian population, preferably among those who will draw the greatest press if they get killed our maimed, orphanages, old women's homes etc...
The war Hamas fights, like all terrorists, is played out in the media, not on a conventional battlefield.
And anyone who believes otherwise is a sap

The second, and perhaps greater, irony is that I sincerely doubt Hamas wants this war any more than Israel does ( I mean really, Israel has a modern US stocked air force, armor, artillery and state of the art army. Hamas has a bunch of guys in turbans with AK's. That's not really a fight at all*). But the thing about terrorism is it's letting the genie out of the bottle. Give a bunch of wingnuts some guns, teach em how to hurt people, give them a taste of a little power (and that's the key component here), and they tend to not want to give up when someone else tells them too, unless it's on their terms. That's when the splinter groups come into play, and they walk their own path, regardless of what the high command may want. Hamas is learning this lesson in the rudest possible fashion, kinda like the Saudi's did/are with The Taliban

*And in fairness, this is exactly why Hamas, and most terrorist groups use these tactics. They can't win in a straight up fight so they change the rules, try and make the others play the game on their terms. They don't fight according to Clausewitz, they do it according to Mao, and that makes all the difference in the world

_____________________________

"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. "
HST

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:57:22 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

To speak to the Iraqi situation; The US and UK oil interests had no liking for Kassem, and the rightist Ba'ath party attempted an overthrow in '58, in which Saddam was injured. Being that Iraq was a semi-civilized country at the time, Saddam was merely imprisoned instead of being executed, as he would later do in his ousting of Ba'ath party opponents years later.

The CIA and MI6 of course approved of Kassem's ouster, and once Saddam was in place, he was their guy, for awhile. Bush I's shipment of canisters of anthrax to Hussein, as some sort of 'agricultural support' program in '89, would be one of several items in testimony to that.

It was thought that Hussein, Noriega, et al. were safely under control, as they in fact were for the few years that the association suited their purpose.

But relentless further imposition and insistence on their exposing their own sovereignty and their armies and their own citizens at the bidding of the commodity colonists soon drove them to an understandable position of defensive obstinance, too uncomfortably close to insouciant 'independence' for the commodity colonists' tastes.

On the other hand, are you implying that Iran is currently more 'stable' at this juncture, today, due to the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh in '53 at the behest of BP/MI6? And/or that the revolution of '79 had nothing whatsoever to do with that?




As for the accusation of my alleged myopia, I can well assure you that I am far more well-read in these matters than the typical person, and no surprise as to being more well-informed than the typical person coming into these matters from an ideological standpoint or such associated purpose. The myopia and otherwise limited relevant information and insight in these affairs is certainly demonstrated to be on the part of politicos and other ideologues.



I love those that brag to be well read, despite playing hard and lose with the facts of what they actually claimed. Your claim about the UK and US being responisble for the majority of wars since 1990 is incorrect. It is revisionist to make an absolute claim Iran would have modernised without the overthrow of Mossedagh. At best it is your ASSERTION and no more than that. The same applies to Iraq. Talking of Iraq, the notion that the British helped Saddam overthrow Kaseem (sic.....I assume you meant Qasim) is no more than that, but I digress. If you were truly well read on the issue you would know Qasim came to power himself following the 1958 coup when King Faisal ( a friend of the British) was overthrown. So even if you are right that the US and the UK were involved in overthrowing Qasim, the books you claim to have read would show you that Iraq was far from civillised at the time. Lets not forget this was at the height of the cold war.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 4:02:13 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.

OTOH, the Israelis have been fighting an asymmetrical war for as long as I have been alive and longer - and they're still fighting it.

Coincidence?



Two differencess Tweakable one. The IRA never fired indicriminate rockets at civillians in the way Hams have fired them into Israel. The British Government were also willing to hold talks with the IRA with no preconditions from either side. That way both parties went to the negotiating table as equals. There are still murders being carried out by dissidents, the most recant was last this month. So some, dont wish for peace at any cost.

There are many differences and similarities. Both are post-colonial situations (though Palestine bears a closer resemblance to the South African situation IMHO). Both are military occupations engaged in counter-insurgency.

A magor difference is in the goals of the occupation. In Ireland, the aim was to defeat/contain the IRA, which eventually proved impossible militarily but was achieved politically. The aim of the Israeli occupation is land conquest and driving the indigenous population out. Hence Israel's disinterest in pursuing peace talks or any sort of political accommodation with the Palestinians and its imperative to seek an (impossible) military destruction of the resistance.

But that is my point. The reason Israel is still unsuccessful in its fight against 'terrorism' is its refusal to seek a political resolution, which is, as we all should know, the only way popular insurgencies are defeated, not because the resistance uses this weapon or that weapon. Despite over half a century of fighting 'terrorists', the 'terrorists' are in a stronger position than ever


Tweaks, Ulster is British, it has been for several hundred years. To suggest otherwise is to claim that the people of Ulster are occupiers. If you wish to take that route then just about everywhere is occupied.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 6:03:57 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I love those that brag to be well read, despite playing hard and lose with the facts of what they actually claimed. Your claim about the UK and US being responisble for the majority of wars since 1990 is incorrect.


Prove it.

And no, I can't prove my assertion with absolute certitude either, but as I said, I'm not limiting it to actual invasions, but including funding or supplying or in some way instigating or encouraging various events. There is not a single South American country that has not suffered negatively in some fashion from the northern busybody. Likewise there is hardly a ME country that has not been influenced, in fact actually having been mapped out by the UK, France, and the US. And yes, jousting and jostling with Russia had some bit to do with it. But the primary concern was with control of the oil fields.


quote:

It is revisionist to make an absolute claim Iran would have modernised without the overthrow of Mossedagh. At best it is your ASSERTION and no more than that.


If it came across as an absolute claim, it was unintentional. But I do think it to be less than honest, and displaying questionable integrity, at the least, to constantly harp on ME countries' putative 'natural tendency' towards violence and fanaticism when their affairs have constantly been interfered with, often enough violently, from Western powers, along with Russia's various attempts at influence and of course their invasion of Afghanistan.

I do know that there is a large faction of Iranian people who are well disposed to normalizing relations with other countries, Western nations included, and virtually every Iranian that I've come across in person (mostly at the uni) is pretty level headed and interested in learning what there is to learn here, carrying on a normal life, etc. Haven't met a single jihadist among them yet, but of course that could be just a streak of good luck.


quote:

The same applies to Iraq. Talking of Iraq, the notion that the British helped Saddam overthrow Kaseem (sic.....I assume you meant Qasim) is no more than that, but I digress. If you were truly well read on the issue you would know Qasim came to power himself following the 1958 coup when King Faisal ( a friend of the British) was overthrown. So even if you are right that the US and the UK were involved in overthrowing Qasim, the books you claim to have read would show you that Iraq was far from civillised at the time. Lets not forget this was at the height of the cold war.


Sorry, it's been a good while since I read of that episode, but yes, Qasim (whose name I've seen spelled about 5 different ways by foreign policy folks, in different books and articles, etc., glad you set them all straight on the definitive spelling there) actually came to power in '58, and several unsuccessful coup and/or assassination attempts occurred before he was finally ousted in '63.

Of course it is necessarily speculation as to what the region would be like today had the inhabitants been allowed to fight their own battles, allowed to experience the democracy some of the countries were growing towards or actually implementing, and leaders so elected, without being overthrown by outside forces, etc.,

But it is utterly tiresome to hear of all this that and another claims and judgements made about people of the region from others whose countries have been directly and indirectly responsible for the largest part of the turmoil occurring there for many decades.






(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:00:28 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific.


This, it seems to me, is the essence of war.


This post made me so sad. Not because I naively believed that war is fought over ethical principles or just causes (it can be though most of the time it's not) but more because of the possibility that it might be close to the mark.

The 20th century transferred war from the battlefields and trenches of World War 1 into people homes, with the invention of aerial combat and aerial bombing, the latter making large scale civilian casualties inevitable. Targets no longer had to be military, strategic or industries supporting the war effort, they simply had to be standing and populated. The almost unlimited number of potential civilian targets vulnerable to aerial bombing makes them virtually impossible to defend.

This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain. The only instrument available to do that is the Geneva Convention, though I am open to other ways of creating and enforcing international law on this issue.

Not only do I believe that, but I need to believe that. The alternatives are far too horrifying and repulsive to contemplate.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/19/2012 8:03:46 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:24:57 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain


We can...as others have said stop hiding and using weapons of war among civilians. I suppose you think the hundreds of rockets sent into Israel are precisely guided missiles that will never kill civilians.

Now if the Palestinians were to move all rocket batteries, construction and storage outside of heavily populated areas and the IDF were to continue to bomb civilians then I will join you in protest...Right now i am protesting both sides.

But keep this in mind... You hold all of Israel culpable for the actions of its army...why should not Israel hold all Palestinians culpable for the actions of theirs?

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 11/19/2012 8:48:58 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:33:46 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific.



This, it seems to me, is the essence of war.


This post made me so sad. Not because I naively believed that war is fought over ethical principles or just causes (it can be though most of the time it's not) but more because of the possibility that it might be close to the mark.

The 20th century transferred war from the battlefields and trenches of World War 1 into people homes, with the invention of aerial combat and aerial bombing, the latter making large scale civilian casualties inevitable. Targets no longer had to be military, strategic or industries supporting the war effort, they simply had to be standing and populated. The almost unlimited number of potential civilian targets vulnerable to aerial bombing makes them virtually impossible to defend.

This thread was started with the perhaps naive hope that we could discuss just how we could take civilians out of the line of fire as much as possible. I believe it is possible to outlaw those tactics that make serious levels of civilian casualties inevitable, with little or no military gain. The only instrument available to do that is the Geneva Convention, though I am open to other ways of creating and enforcing international law on this issue.

Not only do I believe that, but I need to believe that. The alternatives are far too horrifying and repulsive to contemplate.


ETA: While there has been a lot of discussion about the Palestinian situation in this thread can I remind people that it is merely one example of the complexities of this issue, and not the subject of the thread itself. The thread was inspired by the appalling situation in Gaza and other places such as Syria and Afghanistan. It is about avoiding civilian casualties everywhere.
My hope is that we can focus on finding ways to prevent any civilian area anywhere into a battlefield, and avoid the resultant carnage

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/19/2012 8:44:48 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 9:31:19 PM   
imin2bdsm


Posts: 23
Joined: 7/26/2007
Status: offline 		Just a few notes to contribute to the discussion.

LIST OF WARS 1990 to 2007 with approximate numbers of DEAD:

1990 1991 Gulf War/Persian Gulf War Iraq and Kuwait 20,000 - 200,000 KILLED
1990 1993 Rwandan Civil War, Rwandan Genocide Rwanda ~500,000 - 1,000,000 KILLED
1990 1998 First Tuareg Rebellion Mali and Niger unknown
1990 2006 Casamance Conflict Senegal ~1,000 KILLED
1991 1991 Slovenian War Slovenia 62 KILLED
1991 1992 War in South Ossetia South Ossetia ~2,800 KILLED
1991 1994 Djiboutian Civil War Djibouti unknown
1991 1995 Croatian War of Independence Croatia 10,668 - 13,603 KILLED
1991 2002 Sierra Leone Civil War Sierra Leone ~100,000 [3] KILLED
1991 2002 Algerian Civil War Algeria ~150,000 - 200,000 KILLED
1992 1992 War of Transnistria Transnistria, Moldova ~1,592 KILLED
1992 1993 War in Abkhazia Abkhazia ~4,000 - 34,000 KILLED
1992 1995 War in Bosnia and Herzegovina [1] Bosnia and Herzegovina 96,175 - 102,622 KILLED
1992 1997 Civil war in Tajikistan Tajikistan 50,000 - 100,000 KILLED
1993 2006 Burundi Civil War Burundi ~300,000 KILLED
1993 Ongoing Ethnic Conflict in Nagaland India unknown
1994 1994 Zapatista Rebellion Mexico unknown
1994 1994 Yemeni Civil War (1994) Yemen unknown
1994 1996 First Chechen War[1] Chechnya, Russia ~58,500 - 108,500 KILLED
1995 1995 Cenepa War Peru and Ecuador ~500 KILLED
1995 1995 Hanish Island Crisis Yemen 231-250 KILLED
1995 2009 Insurgency in Ogaden Ethiopia ~125 KILLED
1996 Ongoing Naxalite-Maoist Insurgency India ~4,483
1996 2006 Nepal Civil War Nepal ~12,700 KILLED
1996 1999 Kosovo War Kosovo, FR Yugoslavia 578 - 13,627 KILLED
1996 1997 First Congo War Zaire ~200,000 KILLED
1997 1997 Unrest in Albania Albania 1,700 - 2,000 KILLED
1998 2000 Ethiopia-Eritrea War Ethiopia and Eritrea 53,000 - 190,000 KILLED
1998 2003 Second Congo War Democratic Republic of the Congo 3,500,000 - 4,400,000 KILLED
1998 1998 Operation Desert Fox Iraq 600 - 2,000 KILLED
1999 1999 Kargil War India and Pakistan 2,921 - 6,564 KILLED
1999 2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley Serbia 40 KILLED
1999 2003 Second Liberian Civil War Liberia ~150,000 KILLED
1999 2007 Ituri conflict Democratic Republic of the Congo ~60,000 KILLED
2000 2007 Second Chechen War Chechnya ( Russia) ~55,000 KILLED
2000 Ongoing Second Intifada Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip ~6,035 KILLED
2001 2001 Macedonian conflict Macedonia ~200 KILLED
2001 Ongoing War in Afghanistan Afghanistan ~20,000 KILLED
2002 2007 Civil War in Côte d'Ivoire Côte d'Ivoire ~1,814 KILLED
2002 Ongoing Insurgency in the Maghreb Algeria, Mauritania, and Morocco ~6,000.


The majority were NOT started by the UK and the US.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:08:21 PM   
DiaperedJason


Posts: 2
Joined: 11/17/2012
Status: offline 		I thought I would thrust my opinion into this thread. In regards to the title question of this thread, there are no real rules to war. The Geneva convention are more like guidelines, because so many warmongers do not follow them. The issue in some cases is winning at any costs and in other cases civilian casualties being an actual tactic for victory. Throughout history, those tactics have proven to be unreliable and punitive to your chances of victory in the long run. The Art of War holds true even in the modern era. Brutality is a weakness. The best way to win is with the least possible amount of engagement.

< Message edited by DiaperedJason -- 11/19/2012 10:11:20 PM >

(in reply to imin2bdsm)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:17:55 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		That was a LOT of people murdered in the Second Congo War. I missed that one. Was that the right number - at least 3.5 million people murdered?

_____________________________

"I tend to pay attention when Rule speaks" - Aswad

"You are sweet, kind, and ever so smart, Rule. You ALWAYS stretch my mind and make me think further than I might have on my own" - Duskypearls

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

(in reply to imin2bdsm)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:18:44 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I don't believe I can name a war where victory was forfeited to take the moral high ground...can you?

The closest thing that comes to mind is Woodrow Wilson's vision for ending the Great War with a "peace without victory"--a treaty hammered out between equals and ensuring just treatment of all. It was on the basis of Wilson's vision, particularly the Fourteen Points, that the Germans voiced interest in an armistice.

Of course, the treaty that ultimately emerged from the Paris Peace Conference was not, despite his efforts, quite what he or the Germans had hoped for.

The most acute take on the treaty came from French commander Marshall Foch: "This isn't peace. It's an armistice for 20 years."

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Rethinking the rules of war Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125