Reply #39: Uh, "rules"??? Helo-oo, it's WAR! [View All]

[TripeOmatic]

Where is this "rules" stuff coming from? I know, I know, there are 'conventions' and such. But really, "rules" are applicable in games like chess - not in war. I mean, what's the point of war? - It's not a prom date, with "rules". Is spying illegally on US citizens "by the rules"? This charade that there are "rules" in war just doesn't make sense on the face of it and we certainly don't adhere to any "rules" other than the ones we expect the other side in any conflict to adhere to and then only rarely those (like when someone's watching). The mere notion that there are "rules" of war is ludicrous just by virtue of the nature of the two ideas. I know full well that there is a popular notion afoot that there is such a thing as "rules" of war. There's also a popular notion afoot that it's possible to be "compassionate" and "conservative" and be named Bush. Then there's the notion that the power shortage in the western states in 2001 wasn't caused by ENRON, and that Kenneth Lay may have actually been unaware of what was going on, and that there are WMDs still hidden in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Bin Ladin, and that the Indonesian Tsunami is God's wrath on sunbathers, and that there's a Santa Clause (that one's true though). Take your pick - they're all as true as the next. If there were "rules" of war, it would obviate the need to do battle because the conflict could just be modeled on a computer with no one getting hurt. Clearly that's not the point. The point of war is to inflict pain and suffering until one side or the other cries 'uncle'. Innocents have always died. Innocents will always die. Otherwise it's not war.