War is a game?/ -.-

[Empire]

So you guys think war is a game?

1st question: "Is war like chess?"

Friend#1(no military experience)
"*laughs* what? no. What do you move your knight to kill a taliban?"

Friend#2(currently in military college)
"No. War strategy could be related i guess.....I mean its not directly, you know, taking out chess peaces = killing another guy, but yeah, you could relate war strategy to chess. Not war itself though, *laughs* why?"

Co-worker(vet)
*Stares at me* "Is this a joke?" " No, war is nothing like chess."

2nd question "is war a game?"

Friend#1
"world at war? yeah isn't it like the 5th CoD? Yeah wasn't that good>"(i explain actual war)" Uh no."

Friend#2
" No." (I ask why) "You kill people, duh."

Co-worker
"Are you fucking kidding me?"
---------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion: War is not like chess, and its not a game.

Reasons i found:

1. Well for one, people die at the hands of other people and not by accident.
2. To say war is a game would be the same as saying murder is a game.
3. The vet/military college student say no.
4. There are no "rules" in war.

[ALT©]

It isnt a game to most

edit: thats my opinion

[Mouzie]

Wow, clearly you never even read what I said, you don't even care of what I said, as you simply want to be Mr. Right.

You clearly can't read or even try to read my comments.

As I said a lot to you and you STILL don't read: I was speaking methodically.

And wars do have rules:
List of declarations, conventions, treaties and judgements and on the laws of war:[18][19][20]

* 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law abolished privateering
* 1864 First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field"
* 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive projectiles Under 400 grams Weight
* 1874 Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (Brussels Declaration).[21] Signed in Brussels 27 August. This agreement never entered into force, but formed part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[22][23]
* 1880 Manual of the Laws and Customs of War at Oxford. At its session in Geneva in 1874 the Institute of International Law appointed a committee to study the Brussels Declaration of the same year and to submit to the Institute its opinion and supplementary proposals on the subject. The work of the Institute led to the adoption of the Manual in 1880 and it went on to form part of the basis for the codification of the laws of war at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference.[23]
* 1899 Hague Conventions consisted of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
o I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
o II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
o III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
o IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
o Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
o Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
o Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body
* 1907 Hague Conventions had thirteen sections, of which twelve were ratified and entered into force and two declarations
o I - The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
o II - The Limitation of Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts
o III - The Opening of Hostilities
o IV - The Laws and Customs of War on Land
o V - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land
o VI - The Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities
o VII - The Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships
o VIII - The Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines
o IX - Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War
o X - Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention
o XI - Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War
o XII - The Creation of an International Prize Court [Not Ratified]*
o XIII - The Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
o Declaration I - extending Declaration II from the 1899 Conference to other types of aircraft
o Declaration II - on the obligatory arbitration
* 1909 London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War largely reiterated existing law, although it showed greater regard to the rights of neutral entities. Never went into effect.
* 1922 The Washington Naval Treaty, also known as the Five-Power Treaty (6 February)
* 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare[24]
* 1925 Geneva protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare[25]
* 1927-1930 Greco-German arbitration tribunal
* 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (also known as the Pact of Paris)
* 1929 Geneva Convention, Relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
* 1929 Geneva Convention on the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick
* 1930 Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armament (London Naval Treaty 22 April)
* 1935 Roerich Pact
* 1936 Second London Naval Treaty (25 March)
* 1938 Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War.[26]
* 1938 League of Nations declaration for the "Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War"[27]
* 1945 United Nations Charter (entered into force on October 24, 1945)
* 1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
* 1947 Nuremberg Principles. formulated under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 21 November 1947
* 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
* 1949 Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
* 1949 Geneva Convention II for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
* 1949 Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
* 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
* 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
* 1971 Zagreb Resolution of the Institute of International Law on Conditions of Application of Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict to Hostilities in which the United Nations Forces May be Engaged
* 1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
* 1977 Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* 1977 Geneva Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
* 1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
* 1980 United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW)
o 1980 Protocol I on Non-Detectable Fragments
o 1980 Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
o 1980 Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons
o 1995 Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons
o 1996 Amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices
o Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003, entered into force on 12 November 2006[28]
* 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.[29]
* 1994 ICRC/UNGA Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Time of Armed Conflict[30]
* 1994 UN Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel[31]
* 1996 The International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
* 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (Ottawa Treaty)
* 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002.
* 2000 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, entered into force on 12 February 2002.

[dddrrr]

its not a game although strategy is involved.
politics is b/c its just republicans vs democrats. so nobody cares

[Empire]

War doesn't have rules lol.

Ever notice how the "victor" is the one who makes the "laws" past in the end?

Also might wanna check this mouzie before putting all the "rules."

War has no rules
1. If you can disobey them, and have no consequence are they rules?
2. The winner makes the rules in the end, but the one who starts the wars often don't have to go by the rules.

You see mouzie, war has "laws" but you don't have to obey them. Hell, Vietnam sure as hell didn't obey them and after the U.S. withdrawed look what happened to them, nothing. Because whoever wins, gets to say what is the "crimes" you committed.

Notice how its obvious people committed "crimes" in africa during their wars, yet no one gets punished because they broke them.


Just because America makes rules for itself so that its "ethically" correct in what it does, doesn't mean the "rules" apply to everyone else.

Also, not to be just plain obvious, but every country has its dark side. Its obvious America "broke" the rules, yet low and behold no punishment.

Even those who impose rules on themselves see it more as "guidelines".
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lets get back to the subject. WAR doesn't have rules because WAR is not bound by anything.

[dddrrr]

there are no rules. u might say things like why dont we bomb: enter country here.
its because everyone is too powerful and if you attack anyone u can get destroyed.

also in regards to the treaties. war might make rules but doesnt have them

[Mouzie]

its not a game although strategy is involved.
politics is b/c its just republicans vs democrats. so nobody cares

RTS is a game, you see strategy.


Flanking someone in an FPS is strategy.

As I said a lot of times and nobody is reading: I am speaking methodically

War doesn't have rules lol.

Ever notice how the "victor" is the one who makes the "laws" past in the end?

Also might wanna check this mouzie before putting all the "rules."

War has no rules
1. If you can disobey them, and have no consequence are they rules?
2. The winner makes the rules in the end, but the one who starts the wars often don't have to go by the rules.

You see mouzie, war has "laws" but you don't have to obey them. Hell, Vietnam sure as hell didn't obey them and after the U.S. withdrawed look what happened to them, nothing. Because whoever wins, gets to say what is the "crimes" you committed.

Notice how its obvious people committed "crimes" in africa during their wars, yet no one gets punished because they broke them.


Just because America makes rules for itself so that its "ethically" correct in what it does, doesn't mean the "rules" apply to everyone else.

Also, not to be just plain obvious, but every country has its dark side. Its obvious America "broke" the rules, yet low and behold no punishment.

Even those who impose rules on themselves see it more as "guidelines".
---------------------------------------------------------------

Lets get back to the subject. WAR doesn't have rules because WAR is not bound by anything.

Acutally, you're wrong, did you know that the Geneva Convention was created by someone of a neutral status and he wasn't a part of the war he was in, he saw how terrible war as and created it.

1. Yes, there is, I am positive that if a country broke these rule, there will be a lot of countries boycotting or even doing more direct actions.
2. No, there isn't, a lot of the rules you see are an outcome of such actions of war.

I never said you have to obey them, did I? I said there is laws, rules, and all that junk that is there. But did I say you have to follow them? No, but you'll get in a shit load of troubles if you do.

Vietnam? Notice that a lot war crimes committed was not from the NVA, but the Viet Cong and other Communist groups. But, United States did a lot of war crimes to the Vietnamese, so you can't really say that.

Please ask your vet friend this:

Can he kill prisoner of wars?
Torture and abuse?
Rape?
Looting?
Mass killing?
Is child soldiers are allowed to be appointed?

The answer is no, because you have laws, and laws are a system of rules.

And to your question about Africa: Yes, they do, the Rwanda Genocide was a prime example, they capture and arrested those responsible. Remember that Africa is HARDER to control than what you say.. America, because most African nations are jungle, very poor areas. (not saying all, but most). Also political corruption is also higher there.

[tdct]

Empire your incredibly naive, have you ever played god's playing field? it's a game, but there is no consequences because there is no rules, the entire purpose of the game is to kill everyone, nuke the earth, wipe out all life, and throw god down an elevator to the dead planet, but it's still a game.

[Empire]

Empire your incredibly naive, have you ever played god's playing field? it's a game, but there is no consequences because there is no rules, the entire purpose of the game is to kill everyone, nuke the earth, wipe out all life, and throw god down an elevator to the dead planet, but it's still a game.

Uh....... i'm incredibly naive because i don't see reality as a flash game?

Jee, You are 100% right, i am naive! I never thought that me not playing a single flash game would make me naive! Golly, you sure are smart mr. spoiled 14 year old!
(that was sarcasm case you didn't notice)

So a flash game has you play god, and that means war is a game? are you retarded?
------------------------
Mouzie
So in the end its not a game because you were speaking methodically,

then stfu about it and stop arguing.

[okiba93]

war isn't a game...
maybe for some kids it could be...that's why many people wants to join the army...
but people really dies...
it's not a game

[Mouzie]

Uh....... i'm incredibly naive because i don't see reality as a flash game?

Jee, You are 100% right, i am naive! I never thought that me not playing a single flash game would make me naive! Golly, you sure are smart mr. spoiled 14 year old!
(that was sarcasm case you didn't notice)

So a flash game has you play god, and that means war is a game? are you retarded?
------------------------
Mouzie
So in the end its not a game because you were speaking methodically,

then stfu about it and stop arguing.

Then fucking leave, this is why it called a debate, I am allow to express my views. It is you who fails to grasp that concept a long time ago.

I said war is like a game because you have rules, layouts, etc. A war is like a game, did I say what kind of game? No, I been there and done that, I know war in a realism view that it is not. But, you trying to be Mr. Right all the time. It does not hurt to be wrong (and I am not saying I am right). It is better to lose a debate and learn something than to keep arguing and not learn anything.

[Empire]

True, but you didn't say "i'm speaking methodically" so in the first part all i can assume is your as stupid as tdct in saying its a game.

My bad on that though, well off to buy a game.

[Maddoc]

This is both to Mouzie telling Empire to ask his vet friend if he could torture, kill prisoners of war, loot, mass kill and all that, and also to tdct regarding the flash game comparison to real life.

Mouzie:
Are you telling me that Empire's vet friend can't do all that just because of the law? There are also emotions that should be involved in this, but I haven't seen any mention of what a normal person would do if asked to do all that. Just basing the human life on rules and formality's isn't what you should do: you need to think about how someone would feel doing this.

tdct: You are sick. How could you compare that game to real life? If you have actually considered that game as something you'd do in real life, then you need some real help. Killing everyone in the world, destroying all life and throwing god down an elevator to a dead planet is something that shouldn't even be considered possible by the normal human.

Also, you told us about that flash GAME, but have you really even considered that phrase? Game, as in not real, in some cases fun (although this case, disgusting), having winners + losers.

It's on a computer, so how could you believe that this is what someone would do if given the chance?

[tdct]

Uh....... i'm incredibly naive because i don't see reality as a flash game?

Jee, You are 100% right, i am naive! I never thought that me not playing a single flash game would make me naive! Golly, you sure are smart mr. spoiled 14 year old!
(that was sarcasm case you didn't notice)

So a flash game has you play god, and that means war is a game? are you retarded?
------------------------
Mouzie
So in the end its not a game because you were speaking methodically,

then stfu about it and stop arguing.

You said war wasn't a game because It has no rules, I was just showing you that your wrong, if you can't understand simple concepts such as that you shouldn't be debating with such concepts so clearly above you, yet beneath my five year old cousin.

This is both to Mouzie telling Empire to ask his vet friend if he could torture, kill prisoners of war, loot, mass kill and all that, and also to tdct regarding the flash game comparison to real life.

Mouzie:
Are you telling me that Empire's vet friend can't do all that just because of the law? There are also emotions that should be involved in this, but I haven't seen any mention of what a normal person would do if asked to do all that. Just basing the human life on rules and formality's isn't what you should do: you need to think about how someone would feel doing this.

tdct: You are sick. How could you compare that game to real life? If you have actually considered that game as something you'd do in real life, then you need some real help. Killing everyone in the world, destroying all life and throwing god down an elevator to a dead planet is something that shouldn't even be considered possible by the normal human.

Also, you told us about that flash GAME, but have you really even considered that phrase? Game, as in not real, in some cases fun (although this case, disgusting), having winners + losers.

It's on a computer, so how could you believe that this is what someone would do if given the chance?

At least your post topped empires, and you clearly strained yourself in typing this
now here is why your wrong:
Game, as in not real, in some cases fun (although this case, disgusting), having winners + losers.
football is real, and war does have winners and losers and I'm not sick, I just value perspective, thought, reason, and excelling higher than most, perhaps in higher than anything else, but maybe not, I'll have to consider that.

[Empire]

You said war wasn't a game because It has no rules, I was just showing you that your wrong, if you can't understand simple concepts such as that you shouldn't be debating with such concepts so clearly above you, yet beneath my five year old cousin.

Lol says the guy who compares war to a flash game.

I mean cmon, you can't even compare CSS to a flash game.