The Red Coats lost quite a few battles to their aged tactics against the Patriots. So much so that officers complained about the ungentlemanly conduct routinely in their correspondence.

As far as our modern, temporary notion of “rules of war,” go, it’s because it suited the victor and gives them what they feel is an edge and an air of superiority. I don’t say this to be smug either, just look at how well the Geneva Suggestions worked out for the North Vietnamese or the Taliban. They ignored the and won.

Like it or not, the modern nation-state’s notions of Rules of War are going to quickly become a bygone relic of a simpler time, as was a formal British fighting line.

▲

the_af 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah, yes, the USA is the underdog here, they cannot win at war unless they ignore the conventions of war.

▲

antonymoose 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Arguably, yes?

Had the US somehow magically lost WWII, the firebombing atrocities would almost certainly have had a few Air Corp generals executed by the victor.

We could just as well look at the systemic atrocities committed against the Vietnamese civilian population and yet we still lost that war.

Excepting the Gulf War, how far back to we go to find something America has won (somewhat) cleanly?

	▲	IAmBroom 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your statement presumes that the US fights dirtier than others. Who is this magical war-winning nation that only fights fairly? I'm not saying one can't win without war crimes, I'm saying it simply doesn't ever seem to happen.
	▲	the_af 11 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Arguably, yes? No. The USA is the strongest military power in the world. They are not the underdog. If they resort to war crimes or unfairness, it's not because they are the underdogs; it's because this is what top dogs do. Let's not make excuses for them.