okay, so im clueless....

[johncomic]

but this completely mystifies me...

here's a quote i read on CNN's site today:

Members of the group [Saddam's personal army] have caused problems for coalition forces in some areas, where they have disguised themselves as civilians to ambush troops or pretended to surrender and opened fire -- acts the United States have called "serious violations of the laws of war."

now seriously here... how the hell can a war have any laws? who enforces these laws? [yeah yeah, i know, "whoever wins"...] for example, with all the talk nowadays about injuring civilians, which i gather is a no-no... then that would mean that in ww2, the london blitz was "illegal", and so were hiroshima and nagasaki.

so they were illegal -- big deal, they still happened. and the japanese bombings brought victory, so the "war-criminal" americans were never charged or brought to trial for what they did. and they never will be. and from what i gather, vietnam was riddled with "illegal warring" on both sides, the ultimate war of dirty tricks. does this concept really have any meaning?

in war, people do whatever they need to in order to win -- it's where that old "all's fair" saying comes from, eh? where is the referee in all this? boxing is "combat in accordance with rules of battle", in part because there is someone there to see to it that all combatants comply. but war between nations? laws? sorry, it just strikes me as someone's self-delusional hooey.

but feel free to correct me, please, im always willing to learn...

Comments

[ginsu.livejournal.com]

it just strikes me as someone's self-delusional hooey

Are you sure you're clueless? 'Cause...