This is what /pol/ believes about the rules of war and their legal enforcement, perhaps unsurprisingly...

This is what /pol/ believes about the rules of war and their legal enforcement, perhaps unsurprisingly. What does Veeky Forums think?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I think the rules of war should be suspended against /pol/ baiters like OP

The rules are decided by the winners when punishing the losers.

>sheltered NEETs don't actually know anything


Color me shocked

Why can't I kill male civilians and take loli sex slaves REEEEEEEE

we should nuke japan again for anime ruining so many american youth

>saying we should nuke Japan on a Japanese kibuchi imageboard
The hypocrisy has come full circle

In civilized society, wars should be fought honorably. Ideologies, like most earthly delusions, turn man into beasts.

>war
>honor

The rules of war:
Our nation must always have the moral high ground

If you kill the other guy's POWs or civilians, they are likely to do the same to you.

Source: Germany

Well tbqh anime isn't the same as what it used to be anymore. It's been overtaken by moe and otakus and since the industries been catering to them the quality has gone down a lot. Very few series are willing to take risks so shows feel stale much like hollywood films today. And just like hollywood the anime industry is trying to save itself by appealing to nostalgia (dragonaball is a major example). I think it is destined to decline in the coming decade. Maybe another country will fill the vaccum.

>Morals
Spooky

death is the purpose of life. one must aim to die in the best manner possible.

my spookmeter is getting erect.

this is a Mongolian flower dress forum you fucking newfag, get your shit together

I assure you I am as free of spooks as I can be.

Yez, because honestly your country has no reason to exist, so when you try to clutch it out using meme weapons the United States deserves some easy oil contracts. Thanks.

Who the fuck are you talking to you borderline shizo shit

Don't intentionally target non-combatants or cause unnecessary damage. If a non-combatant (for example, wife or child of a terrorist leader) is located with them and you have a chance to kill the leader, pull the trigger. The ROE are fucking crazy, we can't shoot spotters if they're unarmed and each drone strike has to be approved by a lawyer first.

Source:

t. intelligence community

what branch

Navy enlisted scum. Out in August, joined up in 2011

>stirntards trying to imply there's something wrong with morals
stirner was the molyneux of his day, a lightweight

Well, someone's gotta do the intelligence work. Army and intelligence tend to be too oxymoronic and air force is too comfy for anything beyond broad analysis

>board built on realism takes the realist stance on the issue
>board that does not actually understand the stance as a legitimate International Relation theory acts as if the other board is retarded
Fucking wew.

they're absolutely right

and damn famine was right too...

>/pol/
>realist
no, it's just the usual internet way of thinking "if it isn't perfect it's totally shit" opposite of truth
yes war is bloody and the first casualty is the truth, but it doesn't mean you then have to the extreme and abandon morality, or if you win you'll not be the same, you will have dehumanised yourself.

Air Force is solid here, although that might be because we have mostly national side missions. AF and Navy are the best, Marines tend to be more tactical, and the Army is far and away the worst. That's my experience at least

>blatantly misunderstanding what realist theory is (regarding the context of international relations) in an attempt to look smart
Lad... /pol/ is textbook realist.

It's all "war crime is an oxymoron" until you're digging your own grave or your house is getting napalm'd.

This. Political realism is basically the belief that material power dynamics are the driving force (or should be, anyway) of politics. Another way to describe it would be political cynicism.

War crimes are basically just tacit agreements between warring nations (enforced in theory by larger third parties such as the United Nations) designed to prevent war from utterly destroying one country or another. They don't have a "real" existence, but neither does any law or idea; they do however have a very real function.

I think /pol/ is populated primarily by young men in that early stage of self-discovery where they believe in some ideas very strongly, but lack the necessary depth of experience or thought to put careful thought into them.

your post reminds me of this
youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg

/pol/ is ideologically driven, they don't stress the material causes of societal change, they stress ideals, values, spooks.

There's an important distinction to be made, and an understanding that a state with power and initiative will not flinch to break treaties and commit international infractions if they believe it to be in the best interests of their state. Establishing regulations and oversight is a net positive, i can't stress that enough, but there's no reason anyone can rest easy just because countries 'say' they're going to follow the rules.

Someone who believes war crimes are an oxymoron is more likely to keep vigilant and develop defenses against worst case scenarios. Someone who believes that a nation will follow international order in warfare will be unprepared when their enemy shrewdly does everything in their power to win.

There were no obligations on either side. People won't treat each other nicely without treaties.

War is (usually) an extension of politics. It is usually in your self-interest not to kill prisoners, if you win you can use them as a bargaining chip to get your own soldiers back, if you lose you can return them safely, avoid being hanged, retire somewhere and write your memoirs about the war.

Even if you are up against ISIS you can use the captured soldiers for propaganda and intel, possibly negotiating with ISIS commanders who aren't as keen on the whole "we desire death" philosophy as the war comes to a close.

There's nothing wrong with morals, but if there's anything to learn from human history then that morals are not binding.

I think you fags should stop obsessing over /pol/ so much

Aren't they far to gullible to be realist?

they are right

Rules of war are retarded. Point of a war is to win. You don't wage a war to entertain the opposition. Things like treating prisoners humanely, not killing non-combatants - it turns it into a game, desu.

The problem about rules of war is that they don't seem apply to the winner. Yet there should be, war is only a continuation of diplomacy, and diplomacy has to have some rules.

You shouldn't escalate conflict more than would be possible for you to handle. Don't use nukes, when you can get nuked back, etc.

The point of war is never simply to win. There are always goals above the mere defeating your opponent, goals that may be compromised by defeating your opponent at any cost.

Just think about a full-blown nuclear war that was started to gain hegemony in a certain area of the world. If 98% of the populations on both sides got killed in the process, could one really call that "winning" and would that be desirable?

go be mohammedan

> Point of a war is to win.
War is like a game for you or what?

That's a fairly meta example. At the end of an engagement people still die. It's still a conflict where lives are lost. Adding legalities to the matter only tells me that people acknowledge the necessity of conflict, which is extremely defeatist if you consider that people will still condone war but condemn certain aspects of it.

The first poster is correct. Arbitrary rules for the benefit of both parties are something that has to be followed by both parties, otherwise one side is just handicapping itself for no real reason.

Rules of engagement is a game. Geneva Conventions pretends the world is like a playground where they classify you by grades one to five, and limit certain things you can't do, like no punches to the head or nuts. But you can still beat the living shit out of each other.

There was a massive difference between how Germany treated it's POWs compared to it's enemies.

The point of a war is to win political objectives. If excessive force during wartime hinders the achievement of political objectives, an adjustment has to be made. Likewise, if the political objectives are flat out retarded, no amount of force can win you a war.

/pol/ has edgy opinions because nobody below the age of 30 has ever partaken in a massive total war. At least the Nazis had edgy opinions born out of fighting in the trenches. All the /pol/tards have done is roam around in a Humvee in Iraq at the most or just watched LiveLeak videos.

Germany treated the western Allies just fine because they were obligated to do so by treaties. Germany treated Russians like shit because they didn't have to treat them nicely, and Russia didn't treat Germans nicely either.

Germans treated Brits a lot better than the Brits treated them.

I never specified win. Not sure why people are interpreting wins as casualties. There are a variety of ways to "win" a war. Political objectives are one of them, sure.

/pol/ is retarded because they assume war is an "every last man" scenario. All I'm arguing is in a conflict with two parties, if you can agree on the rules of engagement why even have a war in the first place? It's retarded. That first /pol/talian is an example of why "rules" you settle between each other are stupid, if you can just cease the dispute. It's like fighting someone but saying "No punches to the head". Why even fight in the first place if you're already negotiating? Just negotiate to not fight.

> It's like fighting someone but saying "No punches to the head". Why even fight in the first place if you're already negotiating? Just negotiate to not fight.
You are band of robbers and have a dispute with the group's leader over who's going to lead the group. One of you decides that he isn't going to back down, so settling the conflict through talking will just stagnate the conflict.
Both of you decide to settle the dispute through a fistfight, the whole band hears that commitment. Both of you agree not to pull out guns or knives.

I don't see what would be wrong with that.

They're not wrong. The "rules" of war only apply to the losers. The US and numerous other countries display a flagrant disregard for all sorts of treaties and laws whenever it suits them.
If the warring parties have an agreement and they respect it then that's just wonderful. It's fucking idiotic to expect a nation to adhere to the terms of an agreement that their adversary clearly doesn't care about though.

>flagrant disregard for all sorts of treaties and laws whenever it suits them.
The vast majority of the time, international treatise are upheld.
Of course, they are broken from time to time, just like how civil law is broken from time to time, but just because they are broken from time to time and as long as they are upheld in the vast majority of cases, one cannot claim that they don't apply.

Fighting to settle the dispute is what's wrong with that.

>The US and numerous other countries display a flagrant disregard for all sorts of treaties and laws whenever it suits them.
I think that is because they're too powerful to be subject to law, ever since 1991 they've acted with impunity.

That's not a good lesson to take from history, but it's telling. Nothing personal, I take it as a sign of the times.

>The vast majority of the time, international treatise are upheld.
If you're not talking about the US and it's allies then I would agree.

Of course. The biggest players on the world stage don't enforce the rules unless it benefits them in some way.

Well, what's the alternative, if negotiations and alternative means of force (such as threatening to leave the band) have broken down?

It's either this ritualistic conflict resolution (the fight) or some sort of force or going all out due to not agreeing on a method,

>If you're not talking about the US and it's allies then I would agree.
I mean them, too. Media coverage paints a different light, of course, but if one actually studied all the areas in which international law exert effects (such as the WTO), one would see that they are far more effective than commonly believed.

>but if one actually studied all the areas in which international law exert effects (such as the WTO), one would see that they are far more effective than commonly believed.
Bullshit. Post some evidence that the US has suffered economically because of war crimes. Banana republics and Russia effectively placing sanctions on themselves do not count.

>war crimes don't exist
>CHURCHILL AND HARRIS ARE WAR CRIMINALS! REMEMBER THE 965477 GORRILIAN MURDERED IN DRESDEN!!!!! REEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

/pol/ everyone.

...

>muh barrel bombs

Is the US the most hypocritical piece of shit state in existence? Who was it that used White phosporous in civilian areas in Iraq?

>Using depleted uranium rounds

Stop pretending to have the moral fucking high ground.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Who else can focus the world's attention of human rights violations better than the US throwing its weight around in the UN?

I'm not a Nazi sympathiser, if that's what you're getting at.
Source was a BBC documentary about the Battle of The Somme that was on earlier this year.
The German army was very well disciplined and regulated.

For a board that doesn't want to be /pol/, it seems like you guys sure do bring them up a lot.

I'm pointing out that the lie the US perpetuates about actually caring about human rights is just that; a facade. At least the russians don't have the gall to pretend what they are doing is in the name of post enlightenment principles of some love for fellow man.

aren't barrel bombs just massive, crude unguided bombs?

Yes. They're literally a barrel full of explosives with an impact detonator. Throw it out of a helicopter and it'll explode when it hits the ground. Maybe they're a little more advanced now but that's the original concept from the start of the Syrian civil war.

>thinking war isnt brutal and unfair "heuh heuh those guys are NEETS"
>Projection.
Wew lad. Man IS a "beast" the only "earthly delusion" is pretending we are not.
Im sure youll look really superior when your looking down the barrel of a gun saying "haha i dont even have to win! what do you think this is some kind of game??!??!?"
This. but dont try to tell Veeky Forums that they will just scream NAZI and retreat into their cuck closet.

>the concept of a noble warrior is retarded
>except when the krauts do it muh civilisation

>Projection.
No, that's regular stormblr fantasy, it's not some mystery, pol is open for public viewing my newfriend
>thinking war isnt brutal and unfair
Literally no one discussed whether it was or wasn't, get those voices in your head to relax

>Im sure youll look really superior when your looking down the barrel of a gun saying "haha i dont even have to win! what do you think this is some kind of game??!??!?"
You have some type of spectrum disorder m8

On the contrary, /pol/ believes many things, the things that matter to them anyways, are above ideology. You're not entirely wrong in stating that /pol/ leans toward realist constructivism, but the overarching IR /pol/ idea is the same as Thucydides: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. That's textbook realism.

>Be inna neighborhood.
>Have an asshole neighbor
>bring up asshole a lot in discussions.
>Omg you guys sure bring them a lot, you're assholes too right.
/pol/: not even once.

I agree, this board's culture revolves around not being /pol/ sort of similar how Canada's is not being the US. It's as if contrarians here are jumping onto being against the status quo, despite 95% of the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, nearly all forms of media) championing an anti /pol/ message.

There's an important distinction to be made here.

The kinds of people who think Rules of Engagement are necessary are usually the type who would get their people lined up in a ditch and shot.

The kinds of people who think Rules of Engagement are unnecessary are usually the type who would go through a war tribunal for telling their people to line the enemy's people up in a ditch and shoot them.

It's a delicate balance between the pragmatism that wins wars, and the compassion that builds and maintains societies in between those wars. It's sort of like that saying that Russians have about the Soviet Union: Those who don't miss it have no heart, and those who want it back have no brain.

The concept of war crimes is just another one of those things that will probably be ignored a lot but should still be formalized and agreed to as a form of Dave control. Think 60 mph speed limits and texting while driving being ticket able offenses.

damage control*

The german prisoners sent to Canada during WWII had such a good time that they moved to the country en masse after they were returned to post-war Germany.

>say that "war crimes" are a non-sequitur and the only crime is not winning

3/1 they bitch about Dresden on the regular.

I am entirely for Dave control. All Dave owners are racist, sexist, homophobic, and Islamophobic sexual prudes who think children should bring Daves to schools. It's almost 2017, people! You don't even NEED a Dave!

Limited warfare and the rules of war are pretty dead since wars are now fought for ideology, not clay.

>Wew lad. Man IS a "beast" the only "earthly delusion" is pretending we are not.

Only in civilized societies the other is seen as someone to be exterminated. While the savages did kill, children included, they only did so when survival was at stake.

So a civilized man should realize that a dishonorable war is not worth fighting for. He would only be degrading himself, becoming a bloodthirsty tool for some God or some ideological pipedream.

>Lad... /pol/ is textbook realist.
...no

>It's as if contrarians here are jumping onto being against the status quo, despite 95% of the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, nearly all forms of media) championing an anti /pol/ message.
Except /pol/ mostly comes here from reddit and twitter, and even if they didn't locality matters. /pol/ is the status quo on Veeky Forums, and the number one threat to Veeky Forums culture.

>This is what /pol/ believes
The first and third posters had more different and nuanced positions, from the rest, so which post/ideas are you referring to?.

Also, the board that labels everything they don't like as "spooks" and has daily "X country shouldn't exist" suddenly acts all moral and compassionate.
Give me a break.

>people who have never experienced war outside of movies and television they were raised by, try to tell others what war is about

/pol/ are fucking morons, typical authoritarian """traditionalists""" who wouldn't know an actual tradition of thought if it said howdy and gave them a firm handshake.

/pol/ is like 98% redditors from the Pao purge

>probably post on /mu/ and Veeky Forums
>complain about /pol/ being reddit
I've got some bad news for you my wifes son

>>>reddit

>Only in civilized societies the other is seen as someone to be exterminated. While the savages did kill, children included, they only did so when survival was at stake.

[citation needed]

This is completely false, ancient humans slaughtered each other without much need of doing so as resources were typically plentiful. This reeks of Marxist delusion that pre-civilization, humans lived in relative peace.

>/pol/ is textbook realist
>/pol/ supports Trump's foreign policy though!
I'm going to be more fair than I have to and admit that Trump's transition up to now has gotten its fair share of criticism from /pol/. However, the majority of posters are still willing to go to bat for his foreign policy which means they are clearly not realists.

You do realize /pol/ actually has a lot of different opinions right?

And saying a country shouldn't exist due to ideological reasons is not abandoning the realist thought but in a way confirming it. /pol/ might say Israel shouldn't exist because da Juice but they respect it does and can exist because it wields power to defend itself.

Leftypol sjws are the biggest threat to Veeky Forums