You seam like a decent chap to be stuck in a steel tube with. I misjudged you too.

By the way, you said "when European armies began to cease to bayonet the
enemy wounded on the field".
Isn't it still standard practice to bayonet wounded enemies? I know I would!
Either he isn't badly wounded, in which case he might shoot me or he is badly
wounded, in which case I am doing him a mercy. There isn't really a in between
or any time to judge.

^ Thats just off topic btw, I'm not trying to make any point about anything.

Well, yes and no. There are many reasons why people do bad things, but no
excuses.

The man twisted by his experience lashes out in the same way that the abused dog
mauls a child, this is an excuse for the dog's behaviour, but not the mans.

The difference is that, unlike dogs, man is able to generate his own experiences
through his ability to think, reason, reflect upon him self and thus shape his own
characters in a way that other animals are unable to.

I think it is this that gives us our sense of morality, justice and empathy. It is,
however, very much a double edged sword.

I certainly do not think man is inherently good or that there are no bad men.
There are only reasons why people do bad things, no excuses.

Most very true.

Much like the "life of its own" that authority systems develop.

Even if everyone in the books where perfectly pleasant, Yossarian would still have to
fly another 20 missions in "Catch 22" and Winston would still have to speak newspeak
in "1984" because they are in that position, not because of unpleasant people, but
because of normal people just doing their job in a system that perpetuates its self
without anyone intentialy keeping it that way.

Pack mentality and self perpetuating authority systems have a lot to answer for.

Letum
 

"bayonet the enemy wounded on the field" - Sorry I was not clear in that statement. I was referring to the practice of killing wounded enemy after the battle was finished and the bodies were being cleaned up.

I should add some disclaimers to: first the practice of doing this was somewhat the result of armies not having sufficient means to care for masses of their own wounded, much less the enemy. Some of it in European wars may have been due to an attempt to put the worst wounded out of their misery. Most of it came from the fact that since these men had ben there to kill one's own soldiers and had they been in health might have attempted to still fight, it really was logical to finish them off just like nations then also executed certain felons. However this practice went all the way back in to very ancient times and was nearly universal - except in many primitive tribes - like some American Indian tribes where it was the practice of the women of the winning side to visit the battle field when the fighting was done to slowly torture and cut up the wounded enemy. American troopers back in the Indian wars most feared falling into the hands of such women and so they always reserved one bullet for themselves if they were wounded in a battle they lost. Of course this practice of the Indian women had to do with their religion and belief about meeting enemies in the after life. I should add that the Native Americans always thought it was funny how the whites screamed and cried as they were tortured, as Indians were taught never to cry from very young and thought it silly that warriors would cry out under torture.

I think my points were simply build around the fact that humans do not exist as individuals. Likely they do tend to have a moral code built in to them not unlike other primates. Humans are just a tall primate. As I said, when you meet anyone from around the world one on one they tend to be easy to get along with (generally), but the problem is always groups, societies, and civilizations. Except for the few lost children found in the wild who were raised by wolves or monkeys, humans are a product of their super-personalities (groups) and most everything they believe or practice is tied to that. Everything I was referring to about war had to do with this fact - people do not come from jars floating in space. They are products of their super-group. So the question for me is simply WHAT HAVE THE SUPER-GROUPS been up to for the last 20,000 years? ANd will they likely change outside a Utopian view? Except for a genetic fix to human individuals, I doubt it.

Of course I do believe somewhat of a fix could be attained through political means. But history dictates that all empires fall and all law systems are subverted. It's inevitable. ALtering the beast that is civilization or socieites is not something humans really know how to do simply because THEY ARE UNDER CONTROL OF THESE ENTITIES and their very mind was a product ot these entities - their language, their customs, their whole way of seeing things. Worst than that 99.999% of humans are UNAWARE OF THIS. Some people are able by several means to disconnect themselves from these super-minds (to a point). BUt as was shown in the US army studies as to why so many of their soldiers so easily gave in to North Korean propaganda in the Korean war, they found that 96% of humans have almost no ability to resist propaganda and authority figures. (likely this is what has made mankind the perfect animal to adapt to massive colony (hive) like social systems. However it is still not a perfect system and the last 6000 years proves this.

What is normal? The last 200 years? A real scientist would state that you take all the data and find the averages. Thus - taking the last 6000 years we find that these super-creatures (civilizations) have major tendancies that indicate that Utopia is highly unlikely.

Back to my original theme: as things stand now, I feel that international rules for war will rarely work more than 20% of the time. Nor do I think winning countries sould be applauded when they use their victory as an excuse to hold court trials for surrendered enemy troops. Such a court is never fair and is almost always a monkey trial anyway. Take the recent example where the US handed Saddam over to his enemies - the whole trial was a circus.

Killing the wounded after the battle makes more sense. It makes your soldiers hard and merciless, making them even more terrifying to their foes. Plus, it also sends a message to the enemy that tends to weaken their will to fight, making it easier to defeat them. As for cleaning up their bodies, well, that's something I would not do. Show them the shame they'll face even in death. Show them that they will not even be granted the right to a decent burial. It also weakens their will to fight.

The condition of war is made by the combantants and how they choose to pursue it.

You did not solely speak of conditions of war but went further to say that no moral restraints should be made in war so no one would want to go to war in the first place.

Comment not pointless.:p

It could easily have the opposite effect and stiffen resistance since the enemy knows his fate at your hands if he looses...

Could, but then again you need to know and remember who you're fighting. In the case of the Iraqi's it worked!:rotfl: :rotfl:

What did? Bayonetting wounded enemy troops? When did we do that?

don't forget Nagasaki too ...
it was bombed the next day
almost as many people died

some were roasted so badly you could not tell if it was a man or a woman.. the eyeballs were hanging out and black blood was dripping on the ground... they were walking around with hands out forward.. just like Mummies.. (and these were the people that had survived the blast, .. not the tens ouf thousands who vanished without a trace.. into thin air)

watch out, its a necro thread!

Where's the zombie icon?:dead:

Anton:
Many consider it bad manners to drag posts back up to the front page when they have been inactive for more than a few months.


Necro thread!
Have some necro things I made a while ago.

*edit*
It is fun reading through old posts tho.

*edit2* this is the second time this thread has been necroed it was started in 2007. :o
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694b.../deathblue.gif
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694b...athbaloon2.gif

Proud Worshiper of the Greek Pantheon right here.

We dwindled because for like 1400-1600 years we'd be burned for not being Christian, this only became so because of some Roman Emperor making Christianity the state religion and forcing it on everybody. I don't know for sure but back in the glory days of rome (Before Emperors) Religion was only forced if you were in the legions.