"conventions" of war possible?

>> the idea of fighting war in a
>> "fair manner" is really kind of hopeless. . .war is hell,
>> and makes hellish persons of anyone involved (or most
>> involved). The point is to avoid war in the first place. . .
>> (and certainly not to court it . . )

>Agreed somewhat. There are various ways to make it less
>damaging, though, and more of a formality. The Geneva
>stuff seems like a good idea in that sense. Also, in the
>Taoist poets one can get hints of a sort of respect for
>the necessity of war, and take some sense nobility from
>that. Certainly, though, it all points to abstinence
>from frivilous wars, which the war in Iraq certainly is.
>It points to restraint from war where possible, and in
>the case of Iraq it was. Boiling it down, though, the
>jihadists are certainly worse than we.

On the surface, it seems that way.

But think about it: putting aside the beliefs we're fighting for,
i.e. both side thinks they're "in the right", and only looking at the
tactics. From that point of view, the balance of power is so off, we
have so many ways of fghting them: laser-guided bombs, better
communications, not to mention economic, and other "cold" forms of
warfare.

What do they have? Only the dirty stuff.

I'm not defneding them really, just asking, if a gorup of people believes
in something and wants to fight for it, they'll use what's at their
disposal, what other choice to they have?

We can abide by the Geneva convention and still win. they can't. they
have to fight dirty. But then, that means to defend ourselves we need to
fight dirty also. If an insurgent drives an ambulance with a bomb in int,
we have to blow up the ambulance. and so on.

For another example, I'm no expert on the American Revolution, but I
think if we had fought the British according to the norms of warfare at
the time, we probably would have lost (?) Instead, we turned to all
sorts of stealth and guerilla tactics to win. We fought "dirty". We
were, relative to the time, insurgents, terrorists. Correct me if I'm
wrong about this.

Again, my point is to defend neither the USA's aggressive war, or the
insurgents' nasty tactics; only to point out that, once the ball is
rolling, there ain't no stopping it. . .and nobody has the "high ground".

cb,

All points well stated.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@m...> wrote:
> Again, my point is to defend neither the USA's aggressive war, or the
> insurgents' nasty tactics; only to point out that, once the ball is
> rolling, there ain't no stopping it. . .and nobody has the "high
ground".

"There never was a good war or a bad peace." - Benjamin Franklin in a
letter to Josiah Quincy, 11/9/1773

Jon

> >> the idea of fighting war in a
> >> "fair manner" is really kind of hopeless. . .war is hell,
> >> and makes hellish persons of anyone involved (or most
> >> involved). The point is to avoid war in the first place. . .
> >> (and certainly not to court it . . )
>
> >Agreed somewhat. There are various ways to make it less
> >damaging, though, and more of a formality. The Geneva
> >stuff seems like a good idea in that sense. Also, in the
> >Taoist poets one can get hints of a sort of respect for
> >the necessity of war, and take some sense nobility from
> >that. Certainly, though, it all points to abstinence
> >from frivilous wars, which the war in Iraq certainly is.
> >It points to restraint from war where possible, and in
> >the case of Iraq it was. Boiling it down, though, the
> >jihadists are certainly worse than we.
>
> On the surface, it seems that way.
>
> But think about it: putting aside the beliefs we're fighting
> for, i.e. both side thinks they're "in the right",

Of course.

> What do they have? Only the dirty stuff.

If I knew I couldn't win by force without using dirty stuff,
I might try to fight another way.

> For another example, I'm no expert on the American Revolution,
> but I think if we had fought the British according to the norms
> of warfare at the time, we probably would have lost (?)

Perhaps. Of course nobody really knows.

> Instead, we turned to all sorts of stealth and guerilla
> tactics to win. We fought "dirty". We were, relative to
> the time, insurgents, terrorists. Correct me if I'm
> wrong about this.

Err, not really. We had an army, run by a governing body
which had declared war, allied itself with the French, etc.
Militia activity did occur, but wasn't terribly important
in winning. The most famous breach of protocal is
Washington's crossing the Delaware on Christmas Eve, or
some such. Pretty nasty, and apparently effective.

-Carl