doing X with fairness

and to win the war will you leave 90% of your army? no you wont because winning and surviving is more important than honor

Not if your goal is be honorable in the win. Though that rarely is the goal.

So, you do not recognize honorable conduct or rules of war in warfare?

https://www.facebook.com/gamersdb/videos/532121207262060/

can I post this here

Self evidently.

you can handle opponents with honor after you have won like respecting prisonors etc but winning? noone takes compromises for honor at the cost of winning

and you wouldnt either

Speak for yourself, please.

You may decide genociding a nation is a proper victory, but I do not.

can you quote me on genocide?

Rules of war, such as not firing on unarmed combatants is part of honor. People do comply to that even when trying to win.

Reason why there are POWs. If you wanted to win, it would be more effecient just to kill them.

"Honor is war is a luxury few can afford."

i wouldnt say o as pow's can be traded and makes people more eager to surrended etc

the reason we dont shoot surrendered is because it will lead to other soldiers refusing to surrender

there are indeed rules of war but those aren't based on honor as much as they are based on humanity

there goes alot more into not shooting a civillian than just protecting your honor

Treating prisoners humanly is something that is encouraged by rules of war, but seldom seen.

thats is an entirely different topic but i cant disagree

in ww2 for example alot of soldiers who captured germans had alot of built up anger for them, so even from the allied side there where quite a bit of war crimes

Yeah. Especially as the (Western) Allies occupied into the Reich and found the German "Camps".

yes and i can completely understand why they did it i dont agree with those people but i understand why

the russians went at it aswell

The Soviets have never abided by the rules about humanly treating POWs.

yeah

but point is nobody is perfect enough to fignt an honorable war

as well just resort to what helps us the most

its in our human nature

Soviet "Advisors" went into Vietnam to "Question" (Torture) US pilots downed over the North.

And, according to Insane, all of these actions were justified by the realities of war and the Soviets couldn't and shouldn't be held morally responsible for them.

It was simply their nature.

The KPA was never a signatory to the Laws of War, the VC were never signatories either... the Red Army was a willing signatory. So it is one of those things where they took up that mantle.

Alright, so you'll recognize the illegitimacy of oathbreaking.

So, then, the actions of the VC were not morally wrong, due to the necessities of warfare.

Of course, by Insane's reasoning, oathbreaking is also an acceptable act if it is judged to be a part of attaining victory in war.

The VC had a habit of murdering whole families of Civilians for the reasons of ideology. So I would say that is well outside of the "Acts of war."

Right, but the torture of men, the sacrifice of civilians, blending into them, the use of children, I believe?

All a legitimate part of wartime strategy.

And of course, the big one.