This is what /pol/ believes about the rules of war and their

>>2085917
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.

>>2085917
>sheltered NEETs don't actually know anything


Color me shocked

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

>>2086266
we should nuke japan again for anime ruining so many american youth

>>2086269
>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.

>>2086287
>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

>>2086278
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.

>>2086347
>Morals
Spooky

>>2086332

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

>>2086287
my spookmeter is getting erect.

>>2086278
this is a Mongolian flower dress forum you fucking newfag, get your shit together

>>2086359

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.

>>2086401
Who the fuck are you talking to you borderline shizo shit

>>2085917

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

File: 1409545305469.jpg (1MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2688x1520px

>>2086435
what branch

>>2086440

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

>>2086355
>>2086359
>stirntards trying to imply there's something wrong with morals
stirner was the molyneux of his day, a lightweight

>>2086460
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

>>2085917
>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.

>>2085917
they're absolutely right

and damn famine was right too...

File: 1312651046123.jpg (105KB, 358x477px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 358x477px

>>2086492
>/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.

>>2086486

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

>>2086546
>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.

>>2086578
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.

>>2086641
your post reminds me of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHJbSvidohg

>>2086603
/pol/ is ideologically driven, they don't stress the material causes of societal change, they stress ideals, values, spooks.

>>2086585
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.

>>2086350
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.

>>2086474
There's nothing wrong with morals, but if there's anything to learn from human history then that morals are not binding.

>>2085917
I think you fags should stop obsessing over /pol/ so much

>>2086578
Aren't they far to gullible to be realist?

>>2085917
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.

>>2085917
>>2086249

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.

>>2086843
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?

>>2086266
go be mohammedan

>>2086843
> Point of a war is to win.
War is like a game for you or what?

>>2086889
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.

>>2085917
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.

>>2086923
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.

>>2086750
There was a massive difference between how Germany treated it's POWs compared to it's enemies.

>>2086843
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.

>>2086947
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.

>>2086959
Germans treated Brits a lot better than the Brits treated them.

>>2086948
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.

>>2086971
> 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.

>>2087045
>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.

>>2087020
Fighting to settle the dispute is what's wrong with that.

>>2087045
>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.

>>2086762
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.

>>2087069
>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.

>>2087082
Of course. The biggest players on the world stage don't enforce the rules unless it benefits them in some way.

>>2087075
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,

>>2087102
>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.

>>2087121
>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.

>>2085917

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

/pol/ everyone.

>>2086965

<citation needed>

>>2085917
>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.

>>2087255
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?

>>2087243
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.

>>2087237
For a board that doesn't want to be /pol/, it seems like you guys sure do bring them up a lot.

>>2087263
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.

>>2087255
aren't barrel bombs just massive, crude unguided bombs?

>>2087298

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.

File: lictor bust.jpg (229KB, 1052x1400px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1052x1400px

>>2086258
>thinking war isnt brutal and unfair "heuh heuh those guys are NEETS"
>>2086266
>Projection.
>>2086287
Wew lad. Man IS a "beast" the only "earthly delusion" is pretending we are not.
>>2086923
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??!??!?"
>>2086965
This. but dont try to tell /his/ that they will just scream NAZI and retreat into their cuck closet.

>>2087334
>the concept of a noble warrior is retarded
>except when the krauts do it muh civilisation

>>2087334
>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

>>2087334
>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

>>2086677
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.

>>2087285
>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.

>>2087285
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.

>>2085917
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.

>>2088606
damage control*

>>2086965
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.

File: muh dresden.jpg (115KB, 960x707px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x707px

>>2085917
>say that "war crimes" are a non-sequitur and the only crime is not winning

3/1 they bitch about Dresden on the regular.

>>2088606
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!

>>2085917
Limited warfare and the rules of war are pretty dead since wars are now fought for ideology, not clay.

>>2087334
>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.

>>2086578
>Lad... /pol/ is textbook realist.
...no

>>2088442
>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 4chan, and the number one threat to /his/ culture.

>>2085917
>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.

>>2085917

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

>>2085917
/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.

>>2088442
/pol/ is like 98% redditors from the Pao purge

>>2089113
>probably post on /mu/ and /lit/
>complain about /pol/ being reddit
I've got some bad news for you my wifes son

>>2089115
>>>reddit

>>2089052
>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]

>>2089052
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.

>>2086578
>/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.

>>2089099
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.

>>2089092
Leftypol sjws are the biggest threat to /his/

>>2089159
Describe how Trumps foreign policy could not be realist. As far as I can tell, the media has been criticizing it for being too supportive of "evil" regimes.

File: Amused smug frog.png (12KB, 477x539px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 477x539px

>>2086266
Go to the middle east or vote green party.

>>2089162
>You do realize /pol/ actually has a lot of different opinions right?
That was the point of my comment. Even in that screencap there were different opinions.

File: Tony sotomayor.png (13KB, 477x539px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 477x539px

>>2086352
Im willing to bet 3 dollars on Brazil.

>>2089162
we would like to do it with there own shekels
but any tread on the subject gets kind of nasty real fast between
a) the people that want it wiped out
b) the people that are zionist "cucks" that would starve to fun the chosen land
c) the people that are kind of indifferent but don't see why we need to fund them
d) that one fag that keeps posting IDF girls to compensate for the hooknose that stood him up in high school

>>2089171
It is exactly his unwillingness to view Russia as a natural rival that makes his foreign policy not-realist. Trump may not put much stock in geopolitical theories, but you better believe the Kremlin does. If Trump follows this policy of friendship he is insinuating, then I fear Russia will be playing to win and we won't. To Trump's credit, he treats China as a rival, but I don't think that's informed by any theoretical understanding of foreign relations. Like so much of Trump's policies, his foreign policy is actually pretty hard to pin down right now. Probably because he doesn't fucking know enough about it yet to have a meaningful opinion.

>>2089092
/pol/ is alright now that /pol/harbour took us down a tone. It's not like we are plotting about taking over boards anymore.
The one thing that does bug me is the constant automatic /pol/ calling on anyone that you don't like and think form the post might lean right.
I mean I've got other interests then gassing the jews and yes I'l go to other boards to talk about them. Ever tried having a conversation on baking pies on /pol/? 8 posts to jew pizza.

>>2089199
trump is the kind of guy that will cut you a deal. But the moment you fuck up the deal will hunt you down to the end of the solar system.
The thing we need to fear is the next president vasalating as any previously made deal gets torn up.
that being said I think he see foreign policy more as an aid to domestic policy.
So a deal with Putin could help him save money to spend back home and being tough on china could get him trade benefits (back off on stuff that cost you nothing for better conditions)

>>2088637
This shit gets me every time

>>2088401
Except in this case you can easily ignore them, but okay

>>2089199
Actually, since the world is currently monopolar, Trump has no reason to view Russia as a rival because the reality is that they aren't.

>>2089145

I do believe in the noble savage delusion, to an extent. I am talking about hunter gatherers though, everything past the neolithic revolution I consider civilized.

War crime is not an oxymoron, rather, it's redundant.

>>2086871
You are incorrect.

Diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means.

>>2089177
What does Jill have to do with loli sex slaves?

>>2085917
They are kinda right - the winner and the dominant power does decide what does and does not constitute a war crime. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing, nor that it can't be accused of atrocities, but that's how it is, any way you try to slice it.

>"You should pay for your war crimes!"
>Make me.

>>2087069
>The vast majority of the time, international treatise are upheld.

Yes... and the USA and numerous other countries display a flagrant disregard for all sorts of treaties and laws whenever it suits them.

>>2090614
>flagrant disregard for all sorts of treaties and laws whenever it suits them
It's not that we disregard them, it's that we were generally never subject to them in the first place. The treaty clause of the constitution coupled with our inability to be bipartisan means that it's extremely rare for us to actually ratify a treaty and thus be subject to it. It's the same reason we didn't join the League of Nations after WWI.

File: 1480188998814.jpg (5KB, 298x169px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 298x169px

>>2085917
>Against subversive (((forces))) or uncivilized nations (muslims, africa), no rules are necessary.
>Since i have declared myself civilized, i don't actually have to act civilized
This is what people don't like about /pol/ types. They constantly bitch about degeneracy and moral high grounds against people they consider inferior (minorities) but they have taken every measure to prove that they are distinctly less civilized than any other group.
It's also bulshit how /pol/ treats the designation of "civilized" is treated like a moral absolute but having to actually act the part is considered a spook.

Why are we debasing ourselves by making and discussing threads about /pol/ entirely of our volition?

You guys only come off as obsessed, and help whatever cause you might disagree with

Rules of Engagements and International laws for War evolved like this for a reason.

1. It's not just beneficial for the underdog to want them. An invading army can be very easily be defeated in detail when half the army is raping and plundering it's way across the countryside. Armies need discipline and focus and rules of engagements and laws make these clear.

2. Only a few wars ever have been fought till the bitter end (3rd Punic is the only example I can come up with now). In all other cases, the victor wanted something from the defeated. If this was land/trade/change in political aparatus there needed to be goodwil from the local population. Enforcing your soldiers to treat the enemy civilians well made sure goodwil was achieved a lot more easily.

3, a very ruthless enemy could look forward to an alliance of enemies next time they come around. Treating enemy non-combatants well made sure you didn't lose face diplomatically.

>>2093626
>The definition of the true savage is that he laughs when he hurts you; and howls when you hurt him. - G. K. Chesterton
/pol/ is full of savages. I really like the way G. K. Chesterton defined being a savage because it's based on mental self-awareness rather than lifestyle.

File: nazis.jpg (100KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 600x699px

>>2085917
>"Only the victors get to decide what a war crime is."
>"REEEE DRESDEN FIREBOMBING!"

/his/ is gay tsundere for /pol/