Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is dead

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

As I understand it, Zarqawi was limited in his ability to do this.

You're right, even his rants barely had a leg to stand on.

[Lidless]

I always remember the sketch with Dudley Moore and Peter Cook, where Moore plays a cheerful one-legged man auditioning for the role of Tarzan.

Peter Cook: Now, Mr. Spiggott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan.

Dudley Moore: Yes, right.

Peter Cook: A role traditionally associated with a two-legged artiste.

Dudley Moore: Yes, correct, yes, yes.

Peter Cook: And yet you, a unidexter... are applying for the role.

Dudley Moore: Yes, right, yes.

Peter Cook: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement. Well, Mr. Spiggott, need I point out to you with overmuch emphasis where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?

Dudley Moore: Yes, I think you ought to.

Peter Cook: Perhaps I ought, yes. Need I say with, uh, too much stress that it is in the, uh, leg division that you are deficient.

Dudley Moore: The leg division?

Peter Cook: The leg division, Mr. Spiggott. You are deficient in the leg division to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. It's a lovely leg for the role. As soon as I saw it come in, I said, "Hello! What a lovely leg for the role!"

Dudley Moore: Ah!

Peter Cook: I've got nothing against your right leg.

Dudley Moore: Ah!

Peter Cook: The trouble is, neither have you.

[JewelSong]

I still remember being astounded when, as a young teen, I found out that there were "rules" for war. I mean, war is killing people, isn't it? So it seemed to be ludicrous that there were RULES that had to be followed, as if it were a football game.

Somehow, having rules of war makes the killing seem less...barbaric, perhaps. More civilized. But war itself is inherently barbaric. You put guns and bombs in the hands of young men, some barely out of their teens and tell them to go in and get the enemy. The enemy is...well, who is the enemy? It's not like they're wearing nametags. And with a split second to decide if someone is dangerous or not and the adrenaline rushing and gunshots all around you...

We invaded another country. We sent armed forces in to subdue them. We trained these young men to be ruthless, to kill, to fight against "the enemy." Why are we surprised when the training takes over and "atrocities" happen? Why is it surprising that people die? It's war. War is an atrocity. Having "rules" doesn't make it less so...in fact, I would argue that it makes it more.

[MithLuin]

No, I think we should have rules to war.

War is a horrible thing...better not to have them at all, certainly.

But if people are dead set on having a war, better to make them do it by the rules than have an utter free-for-all.

Because if there are rules, we have the ability to point to cases and say, "this is wrong, even in a war."

Collateral damage and friendly fire are unfortunate by-products of war, but they aren't war crimes....ie, they are war, not worse than war.

Murder is worse than war. You end up just as dead when killed in a war, but you end up just as dead when killed in a car crash, too.


The marines in Iraq were not just given guns and told to shoot people. Their orders were much more specific. "If the car doesn't stop at the check point, shoot the driver." Yes, you kill innocent people that way, by accident...the driver could be frightened, or misunderstand what is happening at the checkpoint. But...this is not the same thing as rounding up people and killing them. My sister's boyfriend did 3 tours of duty in Iraq (with the Marines, as an enlisted man). Yes, his fellow soldiers were not the most mature individuals...a bunch of young men, of course. In boot camp, their main interests were porn and alcohol. But getting shot at makes you grow up, get your priorities straight. On his most recent stint, his job was to question prisoners. I haven't asked him what was involved in this...but I do know that people lobbed explosives into his compound regularly. It is a war zone - not prison in the US.

The rules are different...but at least there are rules.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

I don't think it is that people are dead set on having war, but a large part of human nature is conflict.

[eborr]

the "rules of war" is an interesting concept, more explicit than the rules of war in the modern context are the rules of engagement - these are a seriez of conditions where troops may fire - the rules of engagement differ significantly between the US and the UK armed forces, with the US rules being much more liberal in as to when and at whom and with what they may shoot.

There is in all prefessional armed forces that the force operates within the rule of law, that is the distinguishing feature between armed forces which are the servants of the state and those which seek to be the msaters.