ibm9000 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 2:45 pm
...
"Total war", from what hat did you get that concept?
Well, here is one example where that concept is discussed:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... ar-beta
...military clashing with military, with civilians merely expected to
You are kidding, right?
How do you think the Greek cities fought?, what do you think was happening to the citizens of a fallen city?, not to mention the slaves or the barbarians. How was Rome fighting?, the Mexica?
About the Christian way of killing (only applied to Christians killing Christians, of course), during the Middle Ages the Church tried to "impose" some rules... How well do you think it went?, do you think the Cathars were the only exception?
The 30 Years War?, the devastation it brought to Europe? Again, who cares about the rest of the planet?
Just wars, maybe History disagrees with you... after all.
You left off the ending as to what civilians were "expected to do." You then pose questions which can be answered in the context of those expectations. Sure, an outcome of any particular war might have involved being subject to slavery. By modern standards slavery is repugnant. Do you want to bring back slavery as a normalized institution?
Paying of tribute was another possible outcome. Today, we do pay taxes. In part that is still a matter of paying tribute to the winning side, and in part that can be seen as providing for the mutual defense. In the real world, that might become entangled, but as conceptual categories, I would think that they are clear enough.
So, history even prior to the twentieth century did involve efforts to "impose" rules by your own admission.
There are often those that violate any given rule that is developed. In fact, the origins of any rule come from a recognition of the need to regulate bad conduct. We don't conclude that the fact that some bad conduct continues means that we should therefore not promulgate such rules. At least, only anarchists might make such arguments. Even some anarchists can understand a moral argument against certain actions conceptually discussed as war crimes.
Your approach of false equivalencies and continued what-about-isms seem designed to eliminate or distract from an analysis as to whether war crimes have even occurred. A distraction that tyrants like Putin love to see.
In the sixties and seventies the assertion was made concerning social and environmental ills that if you are not a part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Continual distractions from the question of war crimes that may have been committed in the Ukraine is part of the problem. Do you really want to continue to go there?
Please remember to relate any response that you may give to the situation in the Ukraine.
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill
