Replies

There were more civilians killed in WW II than people in uniform. Those that decided war was killing only troops was the "just" way to operate did us no favors.

The Geneva Conventions (there's more than one) provide a rational standard for limits which the international community agrees should apply to the ruthlessness which inheres in war. The problem with the Geneva Conventions is that the international disapprobation which the Conventions call for are applied cynically. The UN (Oil for Food, Darfor, Rhwanda, . . . ) is notoriously cynical, and it is typical of the generally.
The problem is not that the international community respects the Geneva Conventions, but that it does not. When people speak of American "violations" of the Conventions, they beg the question as to whether those conventions apply at all. The conventions apply to the treatment of people who are ensnared is the toils of war and who themselves adhere to the rules of the conventions). People who are noncombatant civilians or, if not, are uniformed combatants in the service of a government with an address and carrying their weapons openly.
Al Qaeda is perfectly cynical about the Conventions, and so is American "objective" journalism, and so is the UN. I think it is fair to say the the US has never fought against a country which was serious about adhereing to the Conventions. Saddam's Iraq, with its legions of ununiformed suicidal attackers and its use of American uniforms to trick unreliable troops into surrendering to people who summarily executed them, use of all mosques, hospitals, and schools as defensive points and/or ammunition dumps . . .
During WWII the Roosevelt Administration pretended to be avoiding bombing civilians. The Norden bombsight was declared to be super-accurate in a way that was at the time technically impossible for high-altitude level bombing, and the mothers of bomber crews were assured that only miltary targets were being hit. It was a lie, never more so than in the firebombings (and ultimately nuking) of Japanese cities. The problem is not rules, but the cynical application of rules. American "liberals" promote the idea of rules upon rules, because they intend that the enforcement of those rules shall be one-sided against Republicans. Like Al Qaeda they like rules because they are scofflaws and the rules constrain them not at all.
Just as criminals like gun control laws.

It surprises me that there haven't been more atrocities. In previous wars, particularly the ones in Europe and Korea, the enemy was a soldier. You'd look across the battlefield and realize that the kid in uniform was like you: When the war was over, if he survived, he'd go back to his job in the foundary, or the general store, or on the farm.

In this war, these people are animals. They are not ordinary soldiers, there's no one to hold accountable for their atrocities. You can't even get morale up by marking battlefield progress. The battlefield keeps moving.

Sum it up in one point can I, rules in warfare are useless. They apply to only those with conscience. Those with a conscience are unlikely to commit or stomach those that commit atrocities.

I remember being a teenager learning about the war crimes trials after WW II, I thought they were stupid then, and now I know why. War is the killing of the enemy, by any means necessary. Playing by the rules is a sure way of getting your own people killed. The winner of the war is the one that survives and destroys more of the enemy. Isn't abiding by rules a way of leveling the warring field? Isn't that a trick and code word for "everyone should be a winner?"

We all know who started that, and who spouts it to their dying breath......Commies, and todays Democratic party.