Forums

Rules in war reduce the suffering of war. A lie about war is that “it’s all the same.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as any two acts, though named the same, are not the same, two conflicts each called wars are never the same. While generally true that “war engenders suffering,” the level of suffering varies greatly. The rules of the specific war are what have the greatest impact on that, and are at the root of the major differences between wars.

In short the notion that “they all end up dead” justifies “there should be no rules in war” is flawed, both logically and in practice. Logically, because there’s no logical link between one effect justifying an infinite number of causes. (They’re dead, so it doesn’t matter if they died of old age in a camp, were shot, were killed by disease, or tortured to death over weeks.) In practice because the effect of a “no rules” philosophy is much greater suffering than if there are rules.

Not to flame here, but a couple of your other assumptions are inaccurate:

1) The idea that ‘no one wants war’ is demonstrably untrue. Throughout history the evidence shows that a majority of folks do want war a lot of the time.

2) Terrorism is not the same as collateral damage. Terrorism has a long and storied history, and is a specific strategy aimed at specific ends. A death from a terrorist action is not the same as an unintended killing.

Exellent,....
Where I want to go, is "international" law on Warfare,..etc.
All very intulectual it seems at first sight. But rules and laws also underly a certain "way of viewing things/philosophy". Which I think is at the moment biast by the West.
"War" is not chess.

To me it looks, the West is "right" always -we bring something as Democracy, we also always "liberate" (from evil?), bring freedom....,, next thing is we bring McDonnalds, Coke, ....

Back to War & Law,
Question is : these LAWs governing "WAR" are they Western or "absolute". Note Guantamobay prison is exactly set up to put people in Legal Limbo..... "unlawful combatants" one of the definitions is "because they are not waring a uniform......
Soldiers could ware HIP-Hop, Punk (I would call it Urban/City camouflage)

The current international rules of war are very Western, based on Western ideas, written in Western terms, couched in Western values. Are they right? Being a Westerner I think they are.

That’s not as important (being a believer in Western values) though as whether or not I’m a Universalist. (What I think youmean by Absolute.) A Universalist doesn’t just believe what they believe, they believe everyone inherently, “naturally” believes the same thing.

For example, the belief that torture is wrong. As a Western value it’s established, if not always honored. A Universalist would say that everyone agrees that torture is wrong, or if they don’t agree then it’s justifiable to forcibly change them, because they should “naturally” agree.

I used to be a universalist (think about it yourself – Democracy, rule of law, freedom of religious practice, raising children, place of women in the world, importance of work versus leisure… how many of those things do you have Universalist beliefs about?), but my wife brought me kicking and screaming to the non-Universalist camp.

It’s interesting to note that Universalism is by definition Imperialist. If the answer for everyone is always ‘A,’ then there’s nothing wrong with going other places and changing it to ‘A’ if it’s not that way now. After all, it’s what everyone REALLY wants.

I think there two parts to "war": the actual fighting; and what comes after.

Similar to what Sgt Barker said, I think a lot more people want "what comes after" (assuming that their side wins) than the actual fighting. I think that's why wars generally get started. Some group becomes so focused on the goal of what comes after, that they start to de-emphasize the cost of the actual fighting in their minds. At some point the scales tip over and the flag goes up.

If you're interested in this kind of thing arm yourselves with "WAR Studies from Psychology Sociology Anthropology" Edited by Leon Bramson and George W . Goethals

Its pretty dry and hard going as you would imagine but the essays cover a lot of the why questions, why and for what societies choose war and the moralities of the same if not the legalities of that choice, Law discussed on this level being more of a social construct anyway...

Prinz von Egan Wrote:You confuse the victims of war with the perpetrators. The women you speak of, if they actually exist, have known nothing but war since their births and have been alternatively bombed and strafed by the Israelis, the Americans or their own governments. They don’t “want” war; they are desperate, and have nothing to lose, hence “suicide” bombings.

It doesn’t matter why a woman wants war to contradict your statement that “women don’t want war.” Few if any, man or woman, who want war see themselves as unjustified. Most if not all see themselves as victims, righteously making war to obtain justice. Your specific example no more shows that women don’t want war than using a grieving Chilean woman who joins a religious order after losing her son to government violence shows that women don’t want religious commitment.

In short, the fact that a woman grows up with war and feels justified in making war doesn’t support the argument that “women don’t want war.” It shows, in fact, the opposite; women do want war.