|
Zonie63 -> RE: What makes it a war crime? (9/1/2013 11:37:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffBC
I think I see where your head is at on this BenevolentM and if so, I'm with you.
In point of fact I'm not a huge fan of any "rules of war". I think that's hilarious and tragic and very, very dangerous. War is not a civilized or pretty thing and I'd just as soon avoid putting lipstick on the pig. It seems to me that rules on paper are very pretty and the moment one side starts to lose and they have the means to stop that defeat....
The whole problem is my view conflicts with notions of "honor" and "glory" in war. By my view there's nothing honorable or glorious about it. It's a dirty, nasty business that will soil your soul if you partake of it but sometimes you need to anyway.
It may be a dirty, nasty business, and it may be the dirtiest part of a business that's already dirty: Politics. War is a political gambit. Politicians have their reasons for going to war, but they also have reasons for keeping it limited. To quote Virgil Sollozzo from The Godfather: "I don't like violence, Tom. I'm a businessman. Blood is a big expense." Likewise, politicians may not actually like going to war, but they do it for whatever political or economic gain they might get.
The "rules of war" may or may not be a facade, although I can see it as a political necessity. Since war is a political activity, the politicians need public support, financing, an industrial infrastructure, and a large pool of manpower to recruit (or draft) from (but you still need to leave enough people to tend the farms and work the factories). The propaganda is needed. The people need to believe that it's a noble and just cause. The "rules of war" may be part of reinforcing that belief. Even if war is a means of achieving a political goal, politicians may still opt to go the practical route if they can.
The "rules of war" are just...politics. Politics is nasty, dirty, and just as dangerous as war. You can't have one with the other.
|
|
|
|
