Imagine someone behind the scenes like "ok country A, you can fight country B, but only under these rules, as secretly we run the world, so you must do what we say, and these are the terms".

As if.

It's called Victor's Justice. So long as you win, you won't have to face justice.

So..

Basically nobody cares.

The stronger the country (USA, CHINA, RUSSIA) they procecute for it!

Others dont! (Like when USA starved iraq with 1 million deaths before theyve attacked it!)

It at least helps in wars without these parties involved!

And at least we dont (mostly, besides aasad) use chemicals weapon anymore and so on..

Same with taking hostages.. And nukes (BESIDES OF COURSE SO-CALLED IZRAEL)

So we improoved! The BIG PROBLEM AT THE UN IS THE VETO RIGHT THO: USA, China, France, UK and Russia can VETO EVERYTHING!

Thats a super flawed system!

But definitely better than nothing..

Like universal human rights which require a universal human these are concepts based on flawed assumptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXjj91RBONk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqIp1hDOrUk

bait used to be believable

It's only a war crime if you lose.

Originally posted by Long Niar™:

In war, there are no rules. It's a war.

I never understood 'rules of war', and 'war crimes'.

If you're following war rules, and guidelines, it's not a real war , is it?

It's a larp.

Just saying.

:steamdeadpan:

No, rules of war and war crimes are terms that certain countries agreed to in certain treatries.

Only the ones that agree to them have to follow them and are subject to them. That's why Israel can't have any war criminals, because they didn't sign that one.

As for "real war"....its a war and because you call it a war. There's not like a real specific definition of what makes it count as war..

We had a war on Terror....like a war against a concept.

And we fought a war against drugs...a war against intimate objects.

So, yeah, anything can be a war. Just gotta call it one.

"Inter arma enim silent leges"

In the top 10 best Star Trek episodes.

Before ww2 that would be true.

Now UN charter and Geneva convention won't allow you to do sucker punch in war, even when the other side do it first, or face disastrous economic crisis.

Only countries with nukes can violate it.

I'd say rules in war make it worse. Because both side can't ever reach decisive battle or total annexation.
They can't exterminate their enemies, so the conflict will continue to exist.

So, for example, deliberately shooting children is okay in a war? I mean, the hiding of the epstein files shows that trumpsters don't care about children, but still.

Hrmmm.

Originally posted by Long Niar™:

In war, there are no rules. It's a war.

I never understood 'rules of war', and 'war crimes'.

If you're following war rules, and guidelines, it's not a real war , is it?

It's a larp.

Just saying.

:steamdeadpan:

I think you're missing the point of them in the first place. It's basically "Hey, we don't want our soldiers tortured, so if you agree not to do that, we won't torture your soldiers; deal?"

Unfortunately, both sides try to undercut the other which ultimately make them meaningless, as seen today with modern wars. Israel is a prime example right now

It's simple. War is not a zero-sum game, it's a negative-sum game. Most of the time, both sides will be worse off at the end of the war than when they started.

How do you mitigate this? Rules of war. I want my young male population returned in good condition when this is all over, so let's both agree on decent treatment of POWs. I don't want my people coughing out their lungs 10 years from now, so let's both agree not to use biological weapons. And so on.

Besides, people who aren't subhuman degenerate monsters tend to find war horrible enough without torture, chemical weapons, mass rapes, etc., but to each his own. Fortunately for all the sadists out there, rules of war tend to be dropped as the conflict intensifies.

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

I think you're missing the point of them in the first place. It's basically "Hey, we don't want our soldiers tortured, so if you agree not to do that, we won't torture your soldiers; deal?"

Stole the words right from my mouth. It's genuinely worrisome people can't wrap their heads around something that intuitive.

Originally posted by Devious:

Originally posted by NoRain :( 🗕 🗗 🗙:

I think you're missing the point of them in the first place. It's basically "Hey, we don't want our soldiers tortured, so if you agree not to do that, we won't torture your soldiers; deal?"

Stole the words right from my mouth. It's genuinely worrisome people can't wrap their heads around something that intuitive.

The guy's profile is a shrine to Trump; I wouldn't expect any critical thinking