War Crimes?

is it preposterous to suggest that waging a war is morally correct but that acts of genocide within that war are repugnant?
What is the object of a war other than to impose and destroy all objections to that imposition?

Fascinating question, Esmeralda.

We are a communal animal, by nature, and as such we have a certain glue which holds us together as a society, and that is called “morality.” Morality differs from society to society, and so, I guess morality is whatever said society agrees it is. The agreement is tacit, as it has undoubtedly sprung from thousands of years of living together. However, when one societies morality differs with an other, in a diametric way, then we have conditions which can breed war.

Our “Western” world seems to believe that war is fine, so long as it is done within certain parameters, with certain rules. These rules seem to be born out of our own “morality;” which again, is unique to our society. Yet, these closely held principles fall by the wayside when we are faced with an enemy who refuses to play by our rules. So, we have two factions, two sets of rules (morality)…let the fighting commence.

OK, so is all really fair in love and war? No, because if we flaunt our own principles then we rock the foundation of our society, and in a practical sense change our society. This change alters us as people, and then demotes us to a state of anarchy. There will always be grey area in any moral code, and there must be, but a societies moral code is the only thing that maintains some kind of humanity. Therefore, we must hold other societies, with other moral codes, to our own standing; that we might preserve the fabric of our own.

Karadzic has breached not only the West’s moral code, but his own societies moral code, as well. Therefore, in order to maintain the status-quo, that being communities living together in relative agreement, Karadzic must pay for stepping out of bounds. He must face the Hague’s version of STD; and the consequences meted out should be aligned with just how far he has breached the societal contract. In other words…hang the b astard; or at least put him away for good.

Of course, as you well know Esmie, this question would need a library of books to even scratch the surface, but I did my humble best on a sleepy Friday morning.:)

Stephen1

When it’s war you got to do whatever it takes. You cant have a war without people getting hurt or offended but that’s what the british government tries to do thats why Iraq has gone on for so long. We have got i situation where Battle Tanks have to pass emision tests so they dont polute the enviroment ffs.
As far as “War Crimes” go there is no such thing. There are no rules in battle the days of rolling your sleave’s up for a queensbury fistycuff are long gone. It’s kill or be killed thats the nature of war and if you don’t like it dont start one.

Of course theres rules more so now than ever cause we need to be seen as not barbaric and there are limits to how far we SHOULD go to win