Quote:
Originally posted by MadDogMe
Does it make it OK to commit inhuman acts against civilians because their military have commited inhuman acts?, while in Rome et al, eh?, would we have been justified in gassing millions of Germans after we took power of their country?...
.
I have sorrow for nearly everything mankind has done...
|
Interesting.
I think that the only rule of war (or war ethic) at the time was that civilians couldn't be deliberate targets, so they became marginal casualties.
Things were a lot different in WW2, in terms of technology. The bombing of Japan solved one major problem, which was landing troops on Japan soil: an amphibious assault was (and still is, to a lesser extent) 100 times more complicated than a simple border war, and a very high number of casualties was very likely.
If one thinks about much older battles, like the conquests of Genghis Khan, where civilians were deliberately assassinated AFTER an area was conquered (to instill fear, and impose authority), then we can see that there has been an evolution in how civilized armed combats have become.
It is never the less, always a sad thing, when a human being takes the life of another human being. Accountability was lacking then, but not anymore, since the creation of the war crimes tribunal.
In the spirit of Christmas, I suggest that we pray that we can all live peacefully, and that we won't have to resort to armed conflicts to solve the problems of the world.