Rules Of War

[jacee]

Big Guy

My question is just what are the rules of war?

Are there any?

Does the end justify the means?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war

Military necessity,

along with distinction (between combatants and civilians),

and proportionality,

are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Edited March 23, 2015 by jacee

[Derek 2.0]

A lesson in not getting involved in too many wars at once. Hasn't stopped others from doing it since.

Perhaps, but under some circumstances that isn't an option, be it the British during the later 1700s or again during the Second World War........hence the loss of the 13 colonies and most of the Empire East of the Suez....

[Derek 2.0]

I would assume that a question might arise about the hijacking of airplanes and carnage in New York on 9/11.

Was this an outrageous terrorists murder of innocent thousands of people or was this an act of war? Bin Laden, I believe had declared war on America. Is it an act of war to hijack enemy aircraft and fly them into buildings? Is it the same moral equivalent of our aircraft bombing buildings which we know are occupied by civilians in Iraq and Libya?

Its subjective, as the old saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

My question is just what are the rules of war?

Are there any?

Does the end justify the means?

There are certainly "rules" in terms of International conventions and unspoken understandings between foes, but said rules can and will be tossed, much like pre-war planning, once being tested by actual combat.

[Wilber]

Perhaps, but under some circumstances that isn't an option, be it the British during the later 1700s or again during the Second World War........hence the loss of the 13 colonies and most of the Empire East of the Suez....

It's inevitable if one wants a global empire or excert power on a global level. However the loss of the 13 colonies was mostly a result of Westminster's bone headedness. It was reasonable for Britain to want the colonies to accept some of the burden for their own defense but just imposing it without representation in Parliament was just arrogant and dumb.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

It's inevitable if one wants a global empire or excert power on a global level. However the loss of the 13 colonies was mostly a result of Westminster's bone headedness. It was reasonable for Britain to want the colonies to accept some of the burden for their own defense but just imposing it without representation in Parliament was just arrogant and dumb.

Was it bone headedness though to require English subjects in the 13 colonies to pay through taxation for a portion of the previous Seven Years' War, that defended the colonists from the French and to a lesser degree the Spanish?

Why, in that time period, should the 13 colonies have been treated any better, with seats in Parliament (then less than 70 years old), than any other British colony? Likewise, when sea voyages between North America and England were measured in months, how effective would a Member of Parliament for New York, Boston or Charleston have been versus a Governor as historic? Likewise, say that they had MPs in Parliament, but the still large Tory Government tabled and passed the various taxation acts, would the colonies still have rebelled?

[Wilber]

Was it bone headedness though to require English subjects in the 13 colonies to pay through taxation for a portion of the previous Seven Years' War, that defended the colonists from the French and to a lesser degree the Spanish?

Why, in that time period, should the 13 colonies have been treated any better, with seats in Parliament (then less than 70 years old), than any other British colony? Likewise, when sea voyages between North America and England were measured in months, how effective would a Member of Parliament for New York, Boston or Charleston have been versus a Governor as historic? Likewise, say that they had MPs in Parliament, but the still large Tory Government tabled and passed the various taxation acts, would the colonies still have rebelled?

If British citizens form a new colony somewhere, do they give up their rights as Britons to do so? Should they have no say in how they are taxed?

It was not too much to expect the colonies to foot some of the bill for their defence but the Seven Years war was imposed on them by European powers and BTW, it was a huge success for Britain which profited greatly by it.

[Derek 2.0]

If British citizens form a new colony somewhere, do they give up their rights as Britons to do so? Should they have no say in how they are taxed?

But its context, during that period, only Protestant males in England, Wales and Scotland had MPs in the British Parliament.......Britons throughout the rest of the Empire did not.....but in the 13 Colonies, they did have Continental Legislatures that allowed for local governance, much like our Provinces today.

It was not too much to expect the colonies to foot some of the bill for their defence but the Seven Years war was imposed on them by European powers and BTW, it was a huge success for Britain which profited greatly by it.

The Seven Years' War was fought in the defense of the then British North American colonies.........and nearly bankrupted the British........Some in the Colonies, the "Patriots", felt with the French no longer posing a threat (thanks to a war paid for by the British) they had no requirement to pick-up some of the tab for past and future defense......likewise, when King George partitioned British colonies in North America with the Proclamation of 1763, granting the land West of the Appalachians to the numerous native tribes for their service against the French, this angered rich American "nobles" that had laid claim to much of "Indian territory", in turn, said "nobles" later became "Patriots".....of which Ben Franklin and George Washington are counted among...........

[Wilber]

But its context, during that period, only Protestant males in England, Wales and Scotland had MPs in the British Parliament.......Britons throughout the rest of the Empire did not.....but in the 13 Colonies, they did have Continental Legislatures that allowed for local governance, much like our Provinces today.

Our federal government is made up of representatives from all our provinces and territories.

The Seven Years' War was fought in the defense of the then British North American colonies.........and nearly bankrupted the British........Some in the Colonies, the "Patriots", felt with the French no longer posing a threat (thanks to a war paid for by the British) they had no requirement to pick-up some of the tab for past and future defense......likewise, when King George partitioned British colonies in North America with the Proclamation of 1763, granting the land West of the Appalachians to the numerous native tribes for their service against the French, this angered rich American "nobles" that had laid claim to much of "Indian territory", in turn, said "nobles" later became "Patriots".....of which Ben Franklin and George Washington are counted among...........

While there were certainly policies regarding natives that rubbed the colonists the wrong way, the war was not fought for the 13 Colonies, it was much bigger than that. The Seven Years War gave Britain undisputed control of North America and India as well as dominance over the world's oceans that lasted over 150 years.

[Derek 2.0]

Our federal government is made up of representatives from all our provinces and territories.

Right, but the Parliament of Great Britain, circa 1700s, wasn't.

While there were certainly policies regarding natives that rubbed the colonists the wrong way, the war was not fought for the 13 Colonies, it was much bigger than that. The Seven Years War gave Britain undisputed control of North America and India as well as dominance over the world's oceans that lasted over 150 years.

The conflict between the French and British was very much so over each nations colonies in the Western Hemisphere......The decades long Carnatic conflicts over India represented only a small fraction of forces committed, with the British having more Red Coats in the West Indies then in India (In which the majority of the British troops were comprised of private solders of the British East India Company)

Of course this doesn't change the fact that the British were broke after the war, in turn, raised taxes dramatically at home, well attempting to tax/tariff goods in the 13 colonies to pay for the conflict and their Empires defense......Again, I fail to see what the British could have done differently, hence my questioning of your claim to their stupidity.

[Wilber]

Right, but the Parliament of Great Britain, circa 1700s, wasn't.

And that wasn't acceptable to people who considered themselves the equal of persons living in the British Isles.

The conflict between the French and British was very much so over each nations colonies in the Western Hemisphere......The decades long Carnatic conflicts over India represented only a small fraction of forces committed, with the British having more Red Coats in the West Indies then in India (In which the majority of the British troops were comprised of private solders of the British East India Company)

The war was about who would be the dominant wold power, not dominance of North America and has been called a world war. The peace treaty gave France a choice between keeping New France or the return of Martinique and Guadeloupe. They chose the latter.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that the British were broke after the war, in turn, raised taxes dramatically at home, well attempting to tax/tariff goods in the 13 colonies to pay for the conflict and their Empires defense......Again, I fail to see what the British could have done differently, hence my questioning of your claim to their stupidity.

They could have backed off. After all it was "their Empire". Instead, they got themselves another expensive war. I guess they thought they weren't too bankrupt for that.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Wilber

[Derek 2.0]

And that wasn't acceptable to people who considered themselves the equal of persons living in the British Isles.

Clearly....nor was paying their share or honoring commitments made by the Crown with the natives.

The war was about who would be the dominant wold power, not dominance of North America and has been called a world war. The peace treaty gave France a choice between keeping New France or the return of Martinique and Guadeloupe. They chose the latter.

Effective Peace treaty...........and of course they chose the later, Quebec was surrounded by British subjects and populated by hostile (to the French) natives....

They could have backed off. After all it was "their Empire". Instead, they got themselves another expensive war. I guess they thought they weren't too bankrupt for that.

Backed off from their Empire? You mean like they did Post-WW II?

[Je suis Omar]

What kind of fool suggests that there are no rules of war?

What kind of fool denies that illegal invasions of sovereign nations is a war crime under international law?

What kind of fool forgets all the propaganda about "day will live in infamy"? No declarations of war, blatant lies to justify illegal invasions, illegal drone strikes inside sovereign nation territories killing innocents by a country that shelters the most terrorists to be found anywhere?

[Moonlight Graham]

The OP is making an assumption that such a thing exists as rules of war. I have placed this reference into another thread but I think it may be more appropriate here;

As part of its war, ISIS has created a "computer hackers" division whose job is to investigate the uses of the new technologies in its current war against the coalition of the ...... of which we are part.

They have located and published the names, addresses, phone numbers and photographs of people in the American Air Force and Navy. They are encouraging and "lone wolves" in the USA to take out these folks if they get a chance.

ISIS is a non-state actor. They haven't agreed to or signed any rules of war, ie: Geneva Conventions, so aren't really obliged to follow it.

[LemonPureLeaf]

ISIS is a non-state actor. They haven't agreed to or signed any rules of war, ie: Geneva Conventions, so aren't really obliged to follow it.

this is true, good point.

[Je suis Omar]

ISIS is a non-state actor. They haven't agreed to or signed any rules of war, ie: Geneva Conventions, so aren't really obliged to follow it.

That's the position of the USA too. But it is a rogue state actor.

[Moonlight Graham]

That's the position of the USA too. But it is a rogue state actor.

The US is certainly a rogue state.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US is certainly a rogue state.

Yes...that's why Canada has longstanding economic and military alliances with the U.S.; more than with any other nation.

Rogue is good !

[Derek 2.0]

Yes...that's why Canada has longstanding economic and military alliances with the U.S.; more than with any other nation.

Rogue is good !

To add, the numerous longstanding economic and military alliances with various nations around the globe......to the point of subsidizing many nations economic and national security.......

A rogue with many first, second and third world toadies.....

[ToadBrother]

Was it bone headedness though to require English subjects in the 13 colonies to pay through taxation for a portion of the previous Seven Years' War, that defended the colonists from the French and to a lesser degree the Spanish?

Why, in that time period, should the 13 colonies have been treated any better, with seats in Parliament (then less than 70 years old), than any other British colony? Likewise, when sea voyages between North America and England were measured in months, how effective would a Member of Parliament for New York, Boston or Charleston have been versus a Governor as historic? Likewise, say that they had MPs in Parliament, but the still large Tory Government tabled and passed the various taxation acts, would the colonies still have rebelled?

The Americans' argument wasn't that they should have seats at Westminster, but rather that the British Government should recognize their own colonial legislatures as having similar powers to Parliament; that taxation shouldn't be imposed upon the colonists without some form of representation.

And really, sea voyages in the 18th century didn't take months to cross the Atlantic, but weeks (3-6 weeks depending upon direction and prevailing winds). Even after the War of Independence, the US was able to have ambassadors in Britain, France and other important states, so I'm not sure that seats at Westminster would have been totally unworkable, though I agree not ideal. More sensible would have been to grant the colonial governments similar powers as were granted to Nova Scotia in 1848. For all the high minded rhetoric, what the American colonies were asking for was responsible government.

[Big Guy]

Getting back to the rules (or lack of such) of war.

If Canada were being bombed by Syria, would any Canadians or Canadian sympathizers in Syria be encouraged and/or expected to do harm in Syria? I think most of us would agree. In fact, it would be considered a good thing and the individuals doing the damage, killing bombing in Syria would be treated as heroes in Canada.

So Canada is dropping bombs on Syria. Would any Syrians or Syrian sympathizers in Canada be encouraged and/or expected to do harm in Canada? I think most of us would disagree. In fact, it would be considered a terrorist act and individuals declared murderers and saboteurs.

Would we not expect people on the other side to react as we would during a war?

There are about 50,000 people in Canada who identify themselves as Iraqi or Syrian.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Big Guy

[ToadBrother]

Getting back to the rules (or lack of such) of war.

If Canada were being bombed by Syria, would any Canadians or Canadian sympathizers in Syria be encouraged and/or expected to do harm in Syria? I think most of us would agree. In fact, it would be considered a good thing and the individuals doing the damage, killing bombing in Syria would be treated as heroes in Canada.

So Canada is dropping bombs on Syria. Would any Syrians or Syrian sympathizers in Canada be encouraged and/or expected to do harm in Canada? I think most of us would disagree. In fact, it would be considered a terrorist act and individuals declared murderers and saboteurs.

Would we not expect people on the other side to react as we would during a war?

There are about 50,000 people in Canada who identify themselves as Iraqi or Syrian.

I think the situation in Syria is a little too complex for such a simplistic formula. The areas in Syria being bombarded are not under the Syrian government's control. A more useful comparison might be to Allied actions during the Liberation of Europe in WWII, where the defacto governments of occupied countries (like Vichy France) would certainly not have permitted Allied attacks on their soil. By your logic, D Day might very well have been unlawful, as it involved attacking Germany via a third party's (Vichy France) territory.

Also see the Mers-al-Kabir attack where British naval forces attacked a French naval contingent in French territorial waters in Algiers, sinking several French ships and killing nearly 1,300 French sailors, despite Vichy France's declaration that the French Navy would not fall into Germany's hands. That most certainly was an open act of war against Vichy France, an attack on their military assets in their territorial waters.

I think the attacks on Syrian territory that is controlled by ISIS, even where Syria has not granted permission, would stand up quite well considering the numerous precedents.

[Je suis Omar]

ToadBrother: For all the high minded rhetoric, what the American colonies were asking for was responsible government.

Omar: So sad they never got it.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think the situation in Syria is a little too complex for such a simplistic formula. The areas in Syria being bombarded are not under the Syrian government's control. A more useful comparison might be to Allied actions during the Liberation of Europe in WWII, where the defacto governments of occupied countries (like Vichy France) would certainly not have permitted Allied attacks on their soil. By your logic, D Day might very well have been unlawful, as it involved attacking Germany via a third party's (Vichy France) territory.

That's a very good observation....such complexities are often resolved with "illegal" solutions. For instance, NATO's actions against Serbia (Kosovo War 1999) were technically "illegal". The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had firmer legal ground because of Gulf War surrender instruments and UN resolutions.

[Moonlight Graham]

That's the position of the USA too. But it is a rogue state actor.

The US has signed into all sorts of international law and rules of war and international relations. That's why it's a rogue state actor. It has little to no regard for these laws/rules they have bound themselves to when it doesn't suit them.

But to be clear, I'm not saying the US is the only rogue state.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US has signed into all sorts of international law and rules of war and international relations. That's why it's a rogue state actor. It has little to no regard for these laws/rules they have bound themselves to when it doesn't suit them.

True...this is the case for other nations as well, including Canada.