Winners write the history books. To put it another way, in a properly handled self defense situation there should only be one version of events in the courtroom... There are victors and victims. Don't hate on the truth. The left and the RINOs have completely discarded adherence to the social and political norms. The only way to have liberty in America again is to fertilize the tree of liberty... Either their blood or ours.
Remember one the big reasons Woodrow "He kept us out of War" Wilson dragged us into WW1 a few weeks after his Second Inauguration? Germany practiced "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare," meaning they sunk merchant ships and passenger liners without warning. That was a big no-no. The rule was you had to give the crew warning and a chance to take to their lifeboats before sinking the ship. Of course that rule was from the time before wireless radios, airplanes, and submarines.
When the US joined WW2? We immediately announced unrestricted submarine warfare, because after two years of WW2 with unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and everyone else? The old rules were dead. They died in WW1.
RD
PS: Now do indiscriminate aerial bombing of cities.
If someone can arbitrarily decide "no rules" for anything, then what prohibits them for deciding no rules for everything? Good and evil is a genuine delineation. Bellum iustum is not required to be a suicide pact, but it also separates us from them.
I know that you are a brother, and that means that their are things that we corporately know are beyond the pale. In fraternity, I would encourage you to elaborate more extensively so that weaker amongst us do not assimilate a "turbulent priest" modality.
Well, there are rules galore. It's just that they are only observed as long as they don't interfere with winning the war, so they are simply theatre to appease the feelings of the dim.
The German's WW1 von Schlieffen plan that required the violation of Belgian neutrality as a fundamental premise and was worked on for decades is a good example of how rules are followed in wartime.
War crimes are whatever the winner says they are. Compare and contrast the Nuremberg trials to scientists from Unit 731, Operation Paperclip, and others.
Those of you who think there are rules in war lose this one. If they change, they aren't rules. Rules would also imply a controlling super-authority.
Games have rules. War is not a game. War is a struggle. Struggles have outcomes.
As a microcosm, Trayvon Martin may have thought he was wrestling under standard rules. George Martinez recognized it was not wrestling, but a life-and-death struggle. One casualty, one survivor. QED
In war, there are no winners. There are survivors, and there are casualties. Hint: Casualties don't make rules. Test this yourself: During combat, stand up and shout "Hey! That's not fair! You're cheating!" Tell us how it works out for you.
There may be a thing or things either side (or all sides) chooses not to do, for good - or stupid and naïve - reasons. Those are not rules. Those are expedients.
Survivors, or those who want to be, understand the difference. Casualties die with a surprised look on their faces.
We recommend the former state, not the latter one. You will not get there if you do not grasp the truth of this meme. Alternative views? Suture self.
@Aesop when the German and Soviet armies invaded Poland, both committed atrocities against civilians. When the Nazis were dragged to Nuremberg, the Allies convicted them of crimes against humanity. If there are no rules, then on what basis we’re these war criminals convicted?
There is a delineation between battles and war overall (which is bigger than just battles). Using mustard gas on an enemy trench line is different from using it against civilians. Massacring prisoners and the Rape of Nanking are also instances of “breaking the rules.” Claiming there are no rules in a fight by definition means that nobody can be justly punished for any of the above. Winning a lopsided firefight is not the same as committing crimes against humanity during a war.
Did the soviets also get judged at Nuremberg? If not then the trials were an expedient method of getting rid of the worst actors that shouldn't be allowed to be free among us and /or getting some public revenge that might satisfy the populous of the victorious nations.
Sometimes it is useful to not do something so that the enemy might not be emboldened to do it back to you. So not a rule, but a calculation of the psychology of the enemy.
They were convicted on the basis that "might makes right", i.e. because they lost. Nothing else. Mustard gas never killed civilians? Show your work. Explain why that's bad, but firebombing Dresden and most of Japan in the next war was okay. There are a host of things one side may choose not to do, but they are expedients, not rules. Learn the difference.
If you can document one single incident of something so egregious and heinous that lightning struck the perpetrator on the spot, or the ground opened and swallowed them up whole, I will concede the point that there are "rules", and the requisite controlling authority acting as referee.
If not, you're talking about applying judgements to things after the fact on the basis that it could be done, not because it had to be done. We blow people to pieces, shoot them in the face, and drop fire on them. This includes dropping bombs and napalm on civilians, even children. The fact that it is inadvertent is wholly irrelevant to those so harmed. That is war. We do not, however, run up, arrest them, and give them lethal injections and a pillow to rest their heads, after following the precepts of the Holy ACLU and Marquis of Queensbury Rules. The idea that we should is beyond retarded. We hang "war criminals" because it makes us feel good about what we've just done. (cf. Breaker Morant, or the trial of the camp commandant of Andersonville.) It serves to make a point, but the idea that it serves actual cosmic justice is ludicrous, and morally indefensible. It's a salve for the conduct of all sides in a war, and pretty thin gruel to make into moral absolutes.
Watch actual films of US troops cheerfully using flamethrowers to root out Japanese soldiers from caves, or napalmed children running in Vietnam with their skin coming off in a sheet after a napalm splash, or just watch the fictional scene in Saving Private Ryan where Mellish gets knifed in hand-to-hand combat, followed by Upham shooting a surrendered prisoner (and if you think neither example ever happened IRL you're a fool), and talk to me about "rules" in war, and I'll tell you you're speaking fluent bullshit and nonsense.
All war is ultimately a crime, and people who talk about rules and moral authority after conducting one are attempting to pick up and hold a giant turd by the clean end with their bare hands.
More proof, if you needed it: nota bene we prosecuted the Nazis who ran prison camps and did unspeakable horrors. But not any of the people who built the gas ovens, manufactured the Zyklon B, or ran the trains to those camps. Not. One. Single. Person. WTAF?
(That's before we transplanted their V-2 rocket scientists to America wholesale, under Operation Overcast/Paperclip. You could look it up. Prosecutions for that facade? Nil.)
So...srsly? "War crimes"?? It is to laugh. The naïvety and self-delusion necessary to maintain the necessary mental facade is staggering. The realities of any war is, I suspect, why veterans on any side who've been there generally STFU afterwards. Some things are best left unspoken of.
Rulebreakers do not prove that rules don’t exist. Demanding Thor smite bad guys with lightning the instant they break the rules is a reductio ad absurdam argument.
Yes, actually, one of the manufactures of Zyklon B was convicted at Nuremberg because he knew the gassings were happening. Butthurt Wehraboos like to claim he was falsely accused on Gab.
Fire bombing Dresden and Japan were aimed at destroying industry, not exterminating civilians. This is not the same as German troops pushing villagers into a barn and then burning them alive for the crime of existing/being “subhuman.” Intent does matter, otherwise everybody develops Tet Syndrome.
Breaker Morant was guilty, the reason we sympathize with him is because the Boers broke rules all the time (particularly feigned surrender like the Japanese). When a man surrenders, killing him is only acceptable if he games the system. Your example from “Saving Private Ryan” involves a man who surrendered and then rejoined the fight (I.e., gaming the system). Upham did not massacre every prisoner who surrendered just because it was “expedient.”
In the end, rules are about integrity, not arbitrary (looking at you, Marquis de Queensbury) standards. Men without integrity are men without honor; they’re a swarm. And war is often divine punishment for a nation’s sins- Britain lost America as punishment for conquering Quebec, Mexico lost California and Texas for secularizing, and America’s civil war was punishment for slavery. Demanding instant divine intervention is to misunderstand God.
Rulebreakers do not prove that rules don’t exist. Circular Reasoning Fallacy. -10 yard penalty. Demanding Thor smite bad guys with lightning the instant they break the rules is a reductio ad absurdam argument. Imagining that there are rules without a controlling over-authority is a failure of basic logic and grammar. -10 yards. Yes, actually, one of the manufactures of Zyklon B was convicted at Nuremberg because he knew the gassings were happening. Butthurt Wehraboos like to claim he was falsely accused on Gab. One contrary example begs the question: WTF happened to the other 50,000 culpable parties??? Begging the Question Fallacy. -10 yards. Fire bombing Dresden and Japan were aimed at destroying industry, not exterminating civilians. This is not the same as German troops pushing villagers into a barn and then burning them alive for the crime of existing/being “subhuman.” Intent does matter, otherwise everybody develops Tet Syndrome. Difference Without A Distinction. Dead civilians is either wrong, or right. It doesn't become right simply because someone claims they were aiming for the factories. And citywide firestorms obviate any argument that anyone was aiming for the industrial capacity, by wiping the entire city off the map. That's simply delusionally risible. -10 yards.
Breaker Morant was guilty, the reason we sympathize with him is because the Boers broke rules all the time (particularly feigned surrender like the Japanese). When a man surrenders, killing him is only acceptable if he games the system. Pretending he was the only one guilty yet again Begs The Question: Why didn't they execute the whole command that gave Morant his orders? Begging the Question. -10 yards. Your example from “Saving Private Ryan” involves a man who surrendered and then rejoined the fight (I.e., gaming the system). Upham did not massacre every prisoner who surrendered just because it was “expedient.” Assumes facts not in evidence. Perhaps he ran into a German patrol before the Allies, and thus and had no choice. That's not "gaming" anything, it's how it works. Either summarily shooting unarmed prisoners is either wrong, or it's right. It cannot be both, nor situational, and still be a "rule". To claim otherwise is to make a mockery of language, and a gibberish of the word "rule". Situational Ethics Fallacy: -10 yards.
In the end, rules are about integrity, not arbitrary (looking at you, Marquis de Queensbury) standards. Men without integrity are men without honor; they’re a swarm. Assumes facts nowhere in evidence, and Circular Reasoning Fallacy. Again. - 10 yardsAnd war is often divine punishment for a nation’s sins- Britain lost America as punishment for conquering Quebec, Mexico lost California and Texas for secularizing, and America’s civil war was punishment for slavery. Appeal To Imaginary Authority Fallacy. -10 yards. Demanding instant divine intervention is to misunderstand God. Appeal to imaginary Authority fallacy again. -10 yards.
(cont.) That's 90 yards of losses in 9 attempts. Probably 2-3 Own Goals in there. Stringing together three paragraphs of serial fallacious reasoning is no substitute for undertaking to prove the unprovable point. But at least it was grammatically correct. 1 point.
To have Rules, war would have to have an overall controlling authority. By definition, war is chaos. And it's a zero sum; the more cogently prosecuted by one side, the greater the chaos inflicted on the other side. {cf. Gulf War "Highway To Hell".} Anyone claiming that inflicting chaos has "rules" is like claiming one can rule the tides or the weather. It's quite simply physically impossible for human beings to do that.
Hence Sherman's truism: "War is all Hell." Spoken by a man who had practiced it, and seen it, up close and personal, for years at that point.
"Rules" in warfare are a security blanket/snuggly teddy bear to salve the souls of those that unleash it. But the blanket is always spattered with the blood of its owners' victims, and never completely makes the nightmares go away. Anyone who clings to that blanket is self-deluded.
Put away the childrens' toys, and embrace Reality. War has expedients. It has tactical principles and precepts. But is has no "Rules". The very idea is absurd.
Wrong use of circular logic fallacy. Actual circular logic would say “rulebreakers prove there are rules.” It sounds similar, but all you did was prove my original wasn’t a tautology.
Imagining rules without an authority is a weak argument. Natural Law and God’s law apply; limiting it to earthly authorities is missing the forest for the trees. Man cannot control nature, yet nature has rules and a life of its own.
Yes, it is begging the question fallacy to ask why everyone else involved with the gassings weren’t executed; the answer is simple: the clean Wehrmacht myth. Albrecht Speer, Hitler’s favorite architect, claimed to have no knowledge of the camps and photos proving he was lying were discovered after he died, not before. And plenty of other men who were involved were imprisoned, rather than executed. Proportionality is key to preventing “rules” from becoming dogma.
For Dresden: civilian casualties are wrong when they are intentional. If something is not intended, then it is not the same as malice. Reality is not a computer, where everything goes according to plan 100% of the time; shit happens and often at random. Acting as if accidents are the same as intentional atrocities is Tet Syndrome. Also, the bombing of Dresden with incendiaries was not deliberate, either, as it was with Japan’s cities. It was driven by a shortage of normal bombs.
The real Morant was not under orders. The movie portrayed it as if he was for the sake of drama (and it was argued by his defense), but the real man was not. The first Boer was taken prisoner and transported about 15 miles before he was shot, which is not how it is portrayed in the film because it’d be less compelling.
Shooting prisoners is wrong when they follow the rules. Otherwise no one could ever be convicted of killing prisoners. The fictional prisoner made no attempt to claim what you suggest, and instead smirked as if to imply “you can’t stop me.” This is not situational ethics, but rather consistency: you tear down the thicket of the law, and when the devil turns upon you where will you run/hide?
Integrity is not assumption without evidence; indeed, men without integrity are exactly towards whom you are directing your wrath. Poland had integrity, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not; Poland outlasted them both. Everyone does eventually, so zero-sum calculations are better-suited to tactical problems than strategic ones.
Man cannot control the tides, but the tides themselves have rules.
Sherman did not massacre every southern family he found. And it wasn’t for expediency; the Confederates around him were incapable of beating him and families fleeing before his army would have sped things up.
So far from imagined assumptions, this is instead challenging a false dichotomy. Do not conflate “rules” with “control,” or assume that moral standards are appeals to imaginary authority. Amorality may win tactical fights (which is consistent with your meme), but wars are more than just killing for the sake of killing. War has a purpose; it exists to impose one’s will upon the enemy, whether by killing him or not. Amoral tactical standards applied to larger war is myopic and the quickest way to lose both the war and the peace that follows.
Wrong use of circular logic fallacy. Actual circular logic would say “rulebreakers prove there are rules.” It sounds similar, but all you did was prove my original wasn’t a tautology. Wrong use of handwaving. Your statement assumes rulebreakers, which assumes rules exist, which is why your entire premise is a tautology.
Imagining rules without an authority is a weak argument. Natural Law and God’s law apply; limiting it to earthly authorities is missing the forest for the trees. Man cannot control nature, yet nature has rules and a life of its own.
More handwaving, coupled with Apples And Oranges Fallacy. There can be no rules without an authority to lay them down. Nature's laws are discovered, not invented, and they exist universally, not unilaterally. So tell the class one universal law about war which may be or has been discovered, and constrains all parties despite their own wishes. It cannot be done, because no such laws exist.
Yes, it is begging the question fallacy to ask why everyone else involved with the gassings weren’t executed; the answer is simple: the clean Wehrmacht myth. Albrecht Speer, Hitler’s favorite architect, claimed to have no knowledge of the camps and photos proving he was lying were discovered after he died, not before. And plenty of other men who were involved were imprisoned, rather than executed. Proportionality is key to preventing “rules” from becoming dogma. So your argument is that there is a statute of limitations to the Rules of War? Explain the execution of Adolph Eichmann in 1960. The fact that punishments were mitigated, and in some cases, excused entirely, argues that far from being "rules" the claimed rules are wholly arbitrary, and subject to expeditious rationalization. This is how Werner von Braun goes from Nazi mastermind behind the V-1 and V-2 rocket terror bombs, to the head of the US space program, without any intermediate stop at the end of a rope. Which proves there were never rules at all, and only claimed to be such as a sop, not as any sort of moral imperative. You've built your castle in quicksand.
For Dresden: civilian casualties are wrong when they are intentional. If something is not intended, then it is not the same as malice. Reality is not a computer, where everything goes according to plan 100% of the time; shit happens and often at random. Acting as if accidents are the same as intentional atrocities is Tet Syndrome. Also, the bombing of Dresden with incendiaries was not deliberate, either, as it was with Japan’s cities. It was driven by a shortage of normal bombs. So Dresden's fate was an "accident"? For days and days of successive bombing? How convenient for your theory. And which US military leaders, USAAC generals, pilots, and aircrew were executed for deliberately firebombing Japan? Your "rules" seem to be asleep, or perhaps they're busy on the toilet.
The real Morant was not under orders. The movie portrayed it as if he was for the sake of drama (and it was argued by his defense), but the real man was not. The first Boer was taken prisoner and transported about 15 miles before he was shot, which is not how it is portrayed in the film because it’d be less compelling. So Morant had no orders at all? He just rode off on his own, amidst a war, and did whatever he'd gotten it into his head to do? Alone, amongst the entire British Army present for duty in Africa? Once again, how coincidentally convenient for your theories.
(cont.) Shooting prisoners is wrong when they follow the rules. Otherwise no one could ever be convicted of killing prisoners. The fictional prisoner made no attempt to claim what you suggest, and instead smirked as if to imply “you can’t stop me.” This is not situational ethics, but rather consistency: you tear down the thicket of the law, and when the devil turns upon you where will you run/hide? This is entirely situational ethics. The prisoner Upham shot was breaking no rules. He was an unarmed man. Shooting him, or any such person under similar circumstances, is a war crime. Military regulations are crystal clear on this point. Those are not immutable rules of war. They are unilateral rules of one side, and observed even by that one side as much in the breach as in reality, and prosecution for same is applied wholly subjectively, and has ever been. The only devil that turns around is when the military justice system arbitrarily and capriciously choses to turn around on someone. This is why there was only one execution for cowardice for all of WWII by the U.S. (even Lincoln commuted every death sentence for cowardice that crossed his desk, saying "The poorest use of a soldier is to shoot him."), and why Lt. Calley alone was singled out among all of MACV from 1965-1973, inclusive. "Accusing someone of murder in Viet Nam is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500." Indeed. Integrity is not assumption without evidence; indeed, men without integrity are exactly towards whom you are directing your wrath. Poland had integrity, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not; Poland outlasted them both. Everyone does eventually, so zero-sum calculations are better-suited to tactical problems than strategic ones. MORE hand-waving. Integrity is as necessary to waging war as bicycles are for fish. Explain the "integrity" of Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Bolivar, Lee, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Custer, Shaka Zulu, Guderian, Rommel, Tojo, Zhukov, Mao, Castro, General Giap, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin. Battles and wars have winners and losers. Integrity of any sort is largely incidental, and wholly subjective. Man cannot control the tides, but the tides themselves have rules. Which implies that the tides are subject to controlling authority, whereas war is not. Sherman did not massacre every southern family he found. And it wasn’t for expediency; the Confederates around him were incapable of beating him and families fleeing before his army would have sped things up. Which, yet again argues that some things in war are expedient, not requisite. You aren't proving the existence or necessity of rules, but rather the axiom that all things are not expedient at all times.
(cont.) So far from imagined assumptions, this is instead challenging a false dichotomy. Do not conflate “rules” with “control,” or assume that moral standards are appeals to imaginary authority. Amorality may win tactical fights (which is consistent with your meme), but wars are more than just killing for the sake of killing. War has a purpose; it exists to impose one’s will upon the enemy, whether by killing him or not. Amoral tactical standards applied to larger war is myopic and the quickest way to lose both the war and the peace that follows. Your entire argument proceeds from a tautological assumption, and then flails about in vain without ever proving itself. This descends to mere gainsaying. Name a rule of war, state the authority that makes it so, and illustrate the universal failure that invariably follows when it is violated. Absent the existence of any such thing, your assumption is a religious belief, incapable of being disproven, and therefore wholly outside the realm of all reason, logic, and rational disputation. Your personal moral or religious beliefs are not under discussion here. The reality of war is. There is no place in war for imaginary rules which rises beyond mere expediency. However much that may upset or annoy you, it is an inescapable fact.
Not counting the news outlets or websites along the full range of accuracy and veracity, I follow multiple actual individuals' handwritten blogs. (Bot news aggregators don't thrill me.) Looking them over, many are current serving or former military and a couple are some variation of high-speed low-drag elite forces ninjas. Or just funny as all. Because life without humor is just despair. So in other words, the same folks I trusted in the military not to wet the bed, sh*t themselves, or otherwise run around like headless Nancys, are the same folks I trust on the interwebz, for demonstrating pretty much the same trustworthiness and circumspectly responsible behavior. Color me shocked.
Comments are fully moderated, due to idiots and trolls. Grown up discussion here will appear just as soon as I have the time to push it through. ANONYMOUS UNSIGNED COMMENTS WILL BE AUTO-DELETED WITHOUT MERCY, and the url added to the spam filter, or mercilessly mocked at the bloghost's sole discretion. If you're too chickensh*t to come up with an alias for online purposes, you're not tall enough for this blog. Pick a name, and stick with it, and you're good. Get cute, and you're wasting your time and my electrons, and your masterpiece will never see the light of day. No warning shots will be fired. If you can't maintain decorum and polite behavior, I won't toy with you, I'll squash you. If one of your comments disappears, YOU f**ked up. If all of them do, it's time for you to go. Disagree with the points made, on the merits, and you're good. Go after me personally, or other commenters, and your comment will never see daylight here. My tolerance for skirting the line is at absolute zero, and will remain there. Don't f**k up.
21 comments:
If there are no rules, then there is no such thing as a war crime. That’s a dangerous rabbit hole in the age of moral relativism and equivocation.
Illustrate your theory.
Winners write the history books. To put it another way, in a properly handled self defense situation there should only be one version of events in the courtroom...
There are victors and victims. Don't hate on the truth. The left and the RINOs have completely discarded adherence to the social and political norms. The only way to have liberty in America again is to fertilize the tree of liberty... Either their blood or ours.
That Meme reminds me of several Science Fiction Novels by Eric Flint, Jerry Pournelle, Leo Frankowski, and H. Beam Piper.
RD
Rules of War do evolve.
Remember one the big reasons Woodrow "He kept us out of War" Wilson dragged us into WW1 a few weeks after his Second Inauguration? Germany practiced "Unrestricted Submarine Warfare," meaning they sunk merchant ships and passenger liners without warning. That was a big no-no. The rule was you had to give the crew warning and a chance to take to their lifeboats before sinking the ship. Of course that rule was from the time before wireless radios, airplanes, and submarines.
When the US joined WW2? We immediately announced unrestricted submarine warfare, because after two years of WW2 with unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and everyone else? The old rules were dead. They died in WW1.
RD
PS: Now do indiscriminate aerial bombing of cities.
If someone can arbitrarily decide "no rules" for anything, then what prohibits them for deciding no rules for everything? Good and evil is a genuine delineation. Bellum iustum is not required to be a suicide pact, but it also separates us from them.
I know that you are a brother, and that means that their are things that we corporately know are beyond the pale. In fraternity, I would encourage you to elaborate more extensively so that weaker amongst us do not assimilate a "turbulent priest" modality.
Well, there are rules galore. It's just that they are only observed as long as they don't interfere with winning the war, so they are simply theatre to appease the feelings of the dim.
The German's WW1 von Schlieffen plan that required the violation of Belgian neutrality as a fundamental premise and was worked on for decades is a good example of how rules are followed in wartime.
War crimes are whatever the winner says they are.
Compare and contrast the Nuremberg trials to scientists from Unit 731, Operation Paperclip, and others.
The rule is to win
Those of you who think there are rules in war lose this one.
If they change, they aren't rules.
Rules would also imply a controlling super-authority.
Games have rules.
War is not a game.
War is a struggle.
Struggles have outcomes.
As a microcosm, Trayvon Martin may have thought he was wrestling under standard rules.
George Martinez recognized it was not wrestling, but a life-and-death struggle.
One casualty, one survivor. QED
In war, there are no winners. There are survivors, and there are casualties.
Hint: Casualties don't make rules.
Test this yourself: During combat, stand up and shout "Hey! That's not fair! You're cheating!"
Tell us how it works out for you.
There may be a thing or things either side (or all sides) chooses not to do, for good - or stupid and naïve - reasons.
Those are not rules.
Those are expedients.
Survivors, or those who want to be, understand the difference.
Casualties die with a surprised look on their faces.
We recommend the former state, not the latter one.
You will not get there if you do not grasp the truth of this meme.
Alternative views? Suture self.
@Aesop when the German and Soviet armies invaded Poland, both committed atrocities against civilians. When the Nazis were dragged to Nuremberg, the Allies convicted them of crimes against humanity. If there are no rules, then on what basis we’re these war criminals convicted?
There is a delineation between battles and war overall (which is bigger than just battles). Using mustard gas on an enemy trench line is different from using it against civilians. Massacring prisoners and the Rape of Nanking are also instances of “breaking the rules.” Claiming there are no rules in a fight by definition means that nobody can be justly punished for any of the above. Winning a lopsided firefight is not the same as committing crimes against humanity during a war.
Anonymous 1201
Did the soviets also get judged at Nuremberg? If not then the trials were an expedient method of getting rid of the worst actors that shouldn't be allowed to be free among us and /or getting some public revenge that might satisfy the populous of the victorious nations.
Sometimes it is useful to not do something so that the enemy might not be emboldened to do it back to you. So not a rule, but a calculation of the psychology of the enemy.
They were convicted on the basis that "might makes right", i.e. because they lost.
Nothing else.
Mustard gas never killed civilians? Show your work.
Explain why that's bad, but firebombing Dresden and most of Japan in the next war was okay.
There are a host of things one side may choose not to do, but they are expedients, not rules. Learn the difference.
If you can document one single incident of something so egregious and heinous that lightning struck the perpetrator on the spot, or the ground opened and swallowed them up whole, I will concede the point that there are "rules", and the requisite controlling authority acting as referee.
If not, you're talking about applying judgements to things after the fact on the basis that it could be done, not because it had to be done. We blow people to pieces, shoot them in the face, and drop fire on them. This includes dropping bombs and napalm on civilians, even children. The fact that it is inadvertent is wholly irrelevant to those so harmed. That is war.
We do not, however, run up, arrest them, and give them lethal injections and a pillow to rest their heads, after following the precepts of the Holy ACLU and Marquis of Queensbury Rules. The idea that we should is beyond retarded.
We hang "war criminals" because it makes us feel good about what we've just done. (cf. Breaker Morant, or the trial of the camp commandant of Andersonville.) It serves to make a point, but the idea that it serves actual cosmic justice is ludicrous, and morally indefensible. It's a salve for the conduct of all sides in a war, and pretty thin gruel to make into moral absolutes.
Watch actual films of US troops cheerfully using flamethrowers to root out Japanese soldiers from caves, or napalmed children running in Vietnam with their skin coming off in a sheet after a napalm splash, or just watch the fictional scene in Saving Private Ryan where Mellish gets knifed in hand-to-hand combat, followed by Upham shooting a surrendered prisoner (and if you think neither example ever happened IRL you're a fool), and talk to me about "rules" in war, and I'll tell you you're speaking fluent bullshit and nonsense.
All war is ultimately a crime, and people who talk about rules and moral authority after conducting one are attempting to pick up and hold a giant turd by the clean end with their bare hands.
More proof, if you needed it: nota bene we prosecuted the Nazis who ran prison camps and did unspeakable horrors. But not any of the people who built the gas ovens, manufactured the Zyklon B, or ran the trains to those camps. Not. One. Single. Person.
WTAF?
(That's before we transplanted their V-2 rocket scientists to America wholesale, under Operation Overcast/Paperclip. You could look it up. Prosecutions for that facade? Nil.)
So...srsly? "War crimes"?? It is to laugh.
The naïvety and self-delusion necessary to maintain the necessary mental facade is staggering.
The realities of any war is, I suspect, why veterans on any side who've been there generally STFU afterwards. Some things are best left unspoken of.
Rulebreakers do not prove that rules don’t exist. Demanding Thor smite bad guys with lightning the instant they break the rules is a reductio ad absurdam argument.
Yes, actually, one of the manufactures of Zyklon B was convicted at Nuremberg because he knew the gassings were happening. Butthurt Wehraboos like to claim he was falsely accused on Gab.
Fire bombing Dresden and Japan were aimed at destroying industry, not exterminating civilians. This is not the same as German troops pushing villagers into a barn and then burning them alive for the crime of existing/being “subhuman.” Intent does matter, otherwise everybody develops Tet Syndrome.
Breaker Morant was guilty, the reason we sympathize with him is because the Boers broke rules all the time (particularly feigned surrender like the Japanese). When a man surrenders, killing him is only acceptable if he games the system. Your example from “Saving Private Ryan” involves a man who surrendered and then rejoined the fight (I.e., gaming the system). Upham did not massacre every prisoner who surrendered just because it was “expedient.”
In the end, rules are about integrity, not arbitrary (looking at you, Marquis de Queensbury) standards. Men without integrity are men without honor; they’re a swarm. And war is often divine punishment for a nation’s sins- Britain lost America as punishment for conquering Quebec, Mexico lost California and Texas for secularizing, and America’s civil war was punishment for slavery. Demanding instant divine intervention is to misunderstand God.
Rulebreakers do not prove that rules don’t exist.
Circular Reasoning Fallacy. -10 yard penalty.
Demanding Thor smite bad guys with lightning the instant they break the rules is a reductio ad absurdam argument.
Imagining that there are rules without a controlling over-authority is a failure of basic logic and grammar. -10 yards.
Yes, actually, one of the manufactures of Zyklon B was convicted at Nuremberg because he knew the gassings were happening. Butthurt Wehraboos like to claim he was falsely accused on Gab.
One contrary example begs the question: WTF happened to the other 50,000 culpable parties??? Begging the Question Fallacy. -10 yards.
Fire bombing Dresden and Japan were aimed at destroying industry, not exterminating civilians. This is not the same as German troops pushing villagers into a barn and then burning them alive for the crime of existing/being “subhuman.” Intent does matter, otherwise everybody develops Tet Syndrome.
Difference Without A Distinction. Dead civilians is either wrong, or right. It doesn't become right simply because someone claims they were aiming for the factories. And citywide firestorms obviate any argument that anyone was aiming for the industrial capacity, by wiping the entire city off the map. That's simply delusionally risible. -10 yards.
Breaker Morant was guilty, the reason we sympathize with him is because the Boers broke rules all the time (particularly feigned surrender like the Japanese). When a man surrenders, killing him is only acceptable if he games the system.
Pretending he was the only one guilty yet again Begs The Question: Why didn't they execute the whole command that gave Morant his orders? Begging the Question. -10 yards.
Your example from “Saving Private Ryan” involves a man who surrendered and then rejoined the fight (I.e., gaming the system). Upham did not massacre every prisoner who surrendered just because it was “expedient.”
Assumes facts not in evidence. Perhaps he ran into a German patrol before the Allies, and thus and had no choice. That's not "gaming" anything, it's how it works. Either summarily shooting unarmed prisoners is either wrong, or it's right. It cannot be both, nor situational, and still be a "rule". To claim otherwise is to make a mockery of language, and a gibberish of the word "rule". Situational Ethics Fallacy: -10 yards.
In the end, rules are about integrity, not arbitrary (looking at you, Marquis de Queensbury) standards. Men without integrity are men without honor; they’re a swarm.
Assumes facts nowhere in evidence, and Circular Reasoning Fallacy. Again. - 10 yards And war is often divine punishment for a nation’s sins- Britain lost America as punishment for conquering Quebec, Mexico lost California and Texas for secularizing, and America’s civil war was punishment for slavery.
Appeal To Imaginary Authority Fallacy. -10 yards.
Demanding instant divine intervention is to misunderstand God.
Appeal to imaginary Authority fallacy again. -10 yards.
(cont.)
(cont.)
That's 90 yards of losses in 9 attempts.
Probably 2-3 Own Goals in there.
Stringing together three paragraphs of serial fallacious reasoning is no substitute for undertaking to prove the unprovable point.
But at least it was grammatically correct. 1 point.
To have Rules, war would have to have an overall controlling authority.
By definition, war is chaos.
And it's a zero sum; the more cogently prosecuted by one side, the greater the chaos inflicted on the other side.
{cf. Gulf War "Highway To Hell".}
Anyone claiming that inflicting chaos has "rules" is like claiming one can rule the tides or the weather. It's quite simply physically impossible for human beings to do that.
Hence Sherman's truism: "War is all Hell."
Spoken by a man who had practiced it, and seen it, up close and personal, for years at that point.
"Rules" in warfare are a security blanket/snuggly teddy bear to salve the souls of those that unleash it. But the blanket is always spattered with the blood of its owners' victims, and never completely makes the nightmares go away.
Anyone who clings to that blanket is self-deluded.
Put away the childrens' toys, and embrace Reality.
War has expedients. It has tactical principles and precepts. But is has no "Rules".
The very idea is absurd.
Wrong use of circular logic fallacy. Actual circular logic would say “rulebreakers prove there are rules.” It sounds similar, but all you did was prove my original wasn’t a tautology.
Imagining rules without an authority is a weak argument. Natural Law and God’s law apply; limiting it to earthly authorities is missing the forest for the trees. Man cannot control nature, yet nature has rules and a life of its own.
Yes, it is begging the question fallacy to ask why everyone else involved with the gassings weren’t executed; the answer is simple: the clean Wehrmacht myth. Albrecht Speer, Hitler’s favorite architect, claimed to have no knowledge of the camps and photos proving he was lying were discovered after he died, not before. And plenty of other men who were involved were imprisoned, rather than executed. Proportionality is key to preventing “rules” from becoming dogma.
For Dresden: civilian casualties are wrong when they are intentional. If something is not intended, then it is not the same as malice. Reality is not a computer, where everything goes according to plan 100% of the time; shit happens and often at random. Acting as if accidents are the same as intentional atrocities is Tet Syndrome.
Also, the bombing of Dresden with incendiaries was not deliberate, either, as it was with Japan’s cities. It was driven by a shortage of normal bombs.
The real Morant was not under orders. The movie portrayed it as if he was for the sake of drama (and it was argued by his defense), but the real man was not. The first Boer was taken prisoner and transported about 15 miles before he was shot, which is not how it is portrayed in the film because it’d be less compelling.
Shooting prisoners is wrong when they follow the rules. Otherwise no one could ever be convicted of killing prisoners. The fictional prisoner made no attempt to claim what you suggest, and instead smirked as if to imply “you can’t stop me.” This is not situational ethics, but rather consistency: you tear down the thicket of the law, and when the devil turns upon you where will you run/hide?
Integrity is not assumption without evidence; indeed, men without integrity are exactly towards whom you are directing your wrath. Poland had integrity, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not; Poland outlasted them both. Everyone does eventually, so zero-sum calculations are better-suited to tactical problems than strategic ones.
Man cannot control the tides, but the tides themselves have rules.
Sherman did not massacre every southern family he found. And it wasn’t for expediency; the Confederates around him were incapable of beating him and families fleeing before his army would have sped things up.
So far from imagined assumptions, this is instead challenging a false dichotomy. Do not conflate “rules” with “control,” or assume that moral standards are appeals to imaginary authority. Amorality may win tactical fights (which is consistent with your meme), but wars are more than just killing for the sake of killing. War has a purpose; it exists to impose one’s will upon the enemy, whether by killing him or not. Amoral tactical standards applied to larger war is myopic and the quickest way to lose both the war and the peace that follows.
Wrong use of circular logic fallacy. Actual circular logic would say “rulebreakers prove there are rules.” It sounds similar, but all you did was prove my original wasn’t a tautology.
Wrong use of handwaving. Your statement assumes rulebreakers, which assumes rules exist, which is why your entire premise is a tautology.
Imagining rules without an authority is a weak argument. Natural Law and God’s law apply; limiting it to earthly authorities is missing the forest for the trees. Man cannot control nature, yet nature has rules and a life of its own.
More handwaving, coupled with Apples And Oranges Fallacy. There can be no rules without an authority to lay them down. Nature's laws are discovered, not invented, and they exist universally, not unilaterally. So tell the class one universal law about war which may be or has been discovered, and constrains all parties despite their own wishes. It cannot be done, because no such laws exist.
Yes, it is begging the question fallacy to ask why everyone else involved with the gassings weren’t executed; the answer is simple: the clean Wehrmacht myth. Albrecht Speer, Hitler’s favorite architect, claimed to have no knowledge of the camps and photos proving he was lying were discovered after he died, not before. And plenty of other men who were involved were imprisoned, rather than executed. Proportionality is key to preventing “rules” from becoming dogma.
So your argument is that there is a statute of limitations to the Rules of War? Explain the execution of Adolph Eichmann in 1960. The fact that punishments were mitigated, and in some cases, excused entirely, argues that far from being "rules" the claimed rules are wholly arbitrary, and subject to expeditious rationalization. This is how Werner von Braun goes from Nazi mastermind behind the V-1 and V-2 rocket terror bombs, to the head of the US space program, without any intermediate stop at the end of a rope. Which proves there were never rules at all, and only claimed to be such as a sop, not as any sort of moral imperative. You've built your castle in quicksand.
For Dresden: civilian casualties are wrong when they are intentional. If something is not intended, then it is not the same as malice. Reality is not a computer, where everything goes according to plan 100% of the time; shit happens and often at random. Acting as if accidents are the same as intentional atrocities is Tet Syndrome.
Also, the bombing of Dresden with incendiaries was not deliberate, either, as it was with Japan’s cities. It was driven by a shortage of normal bombs.
So Dresden's fate was an "accident"? For days and days of successive bombing? How convenient for your theory. And which US military leaders, USAAC generals, pilots, and aircrew were executed for deliberately firebombing Japan? Your "rules" seem to be asleep, or perhaps they're busy on the toilet.
The real Morant was not under orders. The movie portrayed it as if he was for the sake of drama (and it was argued by his defense), but the real man was not. The first Boer was taken prisoner and transported about 15 miles before he was shot, which is not how it is portrayed in the film because it’d be less compelling.
So Morant had no orders at all? He just rode off on his own, amidst a war, and did whatever he'd gotten it into his head to do? Alone, amongst the entire British Army present for duty in Africa? Once again, how coincidentally convenient for your theories.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Shooting prisoners is wrong when they follow the rules. Otherwise no one could ever be convicted of killing prisoners. The fictional prisoner made no attempt to claim what you suggest, and instead smirked as if to imply “you can’t stop me.” This is not situational ethics, but rather consistency: you tear down the thicket of the law, and when the devil turns upon you where will you run/hide?
This is entirely situational ethics. The prisoner Upham shot was breaking no rules. He was an unarmed man. Shooting him, or any such person under similar circumstances, is a war crime. Military regulations are crystal clear on this point. Those are not immutable rules of war. They are unilateral rules of one side, and observed even by that one side as much in the breach as in reality, and prosecution for same is applied wholly subjectively, and has ever been. The only devil that turns around is when the military justice system arbitrarily and capriciously choses to turn around on someone. This is why there was only one execution for cowardice for all of WWII by the U.S. (even Lincoln commuted every death sentence for cowardice that crossed his desk, saying "The poorest use of a soldier is to shoot him."), and why Lt. Calley alone was singled out among all of MACV from 1965-1973, inclusive. "Accusing someone of murder in Viet Nam is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500." Indeed.
Integrity is not assumption without evidence; indeed, men without integrity are exactly towards whom you are directing your wrath. Poland had integrity, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia did not; Poland outlasted them both. Everyone does eventually, so zero-sum calculations are better-suited to tactical problems than strategic ones.
MORE hand-waving. Integrity is as necessary to waging war as bicycles are for fish. Explain the "integrity" of Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Bolivar, Lee, Jackson, Grant, Sherman, Custer, Shaka Zulu, Guderian, Rommel, Tojo, Zhukov, Mao, Castro, General Giap, Pol Pot, or Idi Amin. Battles and wars have winners and losers. Integrity of any sort is largely incidental, and wholly subjective.
Man cannot control the tides, but the tides themselves have rules.
Which implies that the tides are subject to controlling authority, whereas war is not.
Sherman did not massacre every southern family he found. And it wasn’t for expediency; the Confederates around him were incapable of beating him and families fleeing before his army would have sped things up.
Which, yet again argues that some things in war are expedient, not requisite. You aren't proving the existence or necessity of rules, but rather the axiom that all things are not expedient at all times.
(cont.)
(cont.)
So far from imagined assumptions, this is instead challenging a false dichotomy. Do not conflate “rules” with “control,” or assume that moral standards are appeals to imaginary authority. Amorality may win tactical fights (which is consistent with your meme), but wars are more than just killing for the sake of killing. War has a purpose; it exists to impose one’s will upon the enemy, whether by killing him or not. Amoral tactical standards applied to larger war is myopic and the quickest way to lose both the war and the peace that follows.
Your entire argument proceeds from a tautological assumption, and then flails about in vain without ever proving itself. This descends to mere gainsaying. Name a rule of war, state the authority that makes it so, and illustrate the universal failure that invariably follows when it is violated. Absent the existence of any such thing, your assumption is a religious belief, incapable of being disproven, and therefore wholly outside the realm of all reason, logic, and rational disputation. Your personal moral or religious beliefs are not under discussion here. The reality of war is. There is no place in war for imaginary rules which rises beyond mere expediency. However much that may upset or annoy you, it is an inescapable fact.
Post a Comment