When breaking the rules of engagement is right

The Washington Times ^ | April 12, 2017 | Roger T. Hill

[Lockbox]

Let's make war humane? Why? Doesn't that just cause more wars if the attacker knows that no matter what, the loser will be treated humanely? Make war so deadly that only the crazy will start one and then nuke them!

Question, if America losses a war, do you expect you and your family will be treated fairly? Do you believe that your kids will not become slaves, your wife will not be raped and you shot (or head chopped off) in front of them to show who's in control?

The reality is war is the absence of humanity.

[Dr. Sivana]

Let's make war humane? Why?

Perhaps because we didn't like how it worked out before rules about war were agreed to. I will agree that the rules are more likely to work when both sides of the conflict share the same values (European wars of the medieval period). Terrorists, Muslims and even WWII Japanese didn't have the same underpinnings, so at best the rules become part of the political aspects of war. Christians at war, regardless of agreements or treaties, are not allowed to perform evil acts (e.g. rape). Killing the enemy in a just war is not an evil act. The Soviets planting bombs disguised as toys designed to main but not kill in Afghanistan is another example of something that ought not be done.