- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Thank you for taking my bait. I had no idea it would be so easy.
Another example would be what if the Canadians launched preemptive nuclear strikes at the US with the intent to kill everyone? At that point we certainly have the right to respond in kind to try and survive. The usually accepted rules of war go right out the window.
If a nuclear exchange occurs, then both participants will be committing war crimes, whether they are justified as self-defense or not. The "rules" don't go anywhere. How can you possibly miss this?
BTW, I think your argument to Reality Kid is absurd, and sounds to me like a familiar neocon tough-guy talking point with no basis in reality. Since when does following the "rules of warfare" consistently and inevitably give the non-rules-following enemy the advantage? What strange rules are these?
If the enemy slaughters civilians and you don't, it's true that the terrorized civilians may avoid helping you. But if you respond by slaughtering civilians as well, you lose. It's a child's argument you make, not one made by an adult with any knowledge of warfare or history.
