Rules of War

If one people attack another people it is considered a crime, but if they announce the attack before, it’s ok. All weapons are made to kill, yet only those who kill fast are allowed. It’s always ok to kill an enemy combatant, but a physician, that can bring back numerous otherwise defenseless soldiers into battle, must always go free.

Why bring legitimacy to war at all. Why not prohibit it all in all. War always brings suffering and death, without exception. Why isn’t the whole thing in itself forbidden. Why can’t you accuse a person in court for starting the war, because it’s just that action that leads to all the other things. And they know, when they make the proclamation, that people is going to suffer and die, no doubt about it.

I do believe that violence is sometimes necessary but it must be sanctioned by the UN. Separate countries can not be allowed to go into other countries and start burning and killing. USA had no right to go into Afghanistan or Iraq. Russia had no right to go into Georgia and Israel had no right to go into the Palestinian territories. These countries should be punished for the fact they went into other countries with the intention of killing its citizens, not only for the single atrocities committed.

I know the rules are there to decrease the suffering. But sometimes the whole situation is so absurd that I don’t know what to think. There is no war without “war crimes”. It’s in the nature of a war to include “war crimes”. Yet the war is allowed but the “crimes” are not.