Is this statement true?

[TheEnforcer]

O'Brien: There are rules, even in war Garak!

Garak: Correction, humans have rules in war. Rules that tend to make victory a little harder to achieve in my opinion.

http://www.stinsv.com/DSn/Garak/weinwar.wav



Are there and should there be rules in war?

[Nickatilynx]

Trust you to bring a knife to a gun fight ;-)))

Seriously though....

as money has grown harder to get the rules changed.

Remember when some evil git decided that CONDOM member sites were allowed consoles?
No affiliate program accepted bulk email......
No one sent bulk email (well admited to it.)

Those tricks are positively passe. ;-))))

Watch what some people do in the coming months to maintain profit margins

in the immortsl words of Bachman,Turner,Overdrive
"baby....you ain't seen nothing yet."

:-)))

You know the "morals which we can afford"....well I reckon some of us are a bit skint ;-))))



Last edited by Nickatilynx at Jul 20 2003, 12:35 AM

[Mike AI]

Nick, I fear you are more right then ever....

We are an industry are going to kill the golden goose. It really pisses me off when I think about it.... a group of cockholsters doing shady things to line their own greedy pockets have the ability to destroy an entire industry.

[Almighty Colin]

Two interesting subjects in one thread (or is it one?).

There are definitely rules in war. Different cultures have different rules however. People sure get upset when other cultures don't play by their rules. Witness the US labelling of some of the Iraqi actions as irregular
or "criminal activity". That activity was called for by Saddam however. Many in the Arab world consider such attacks to brave and noble while many of us in the west consider the same acts to be cowardly and weak. No side is correct. It's just culture.

Not all rules of war make it more difficult to achieve victory, however. A vastly outnumbered side should run away to regroup more often. Throughout history the culture of war has often been to show bravery and honor and stand and fight. In the pre-gunpowder age such a rule lead to getting the battle over quicker. The greek hoplites had such rules of honor.

Even the idea of not targetting civilians is a rule that is sometimes in existence and sometimes not. Why should civilians be off limits? That's arbitrary.

At the beginning of World War II, civilian areas were not bombed. By the end of World War II it was so accepted that nuclear weapons were dropped on civilian areas. After the war the rule "don't use nuclear weapons" became a rule and don't sell nuclear weapons became one too.

[Almighty Colin]

On Nick's branch, I find it interesting the way the rules in our business have changed. Search engine spamming used to be very accepted and then it became less accepted over time. Email spam. I spammed 20 million AOL email addresses back in 1996. My host found out about it and didn't even shut it down. Just a warning to have them check any scripts I was going to use because I crashed their server. Whether email spam is accepted or not is completely arbitrary and cultural. I receive junk mail every single day in my post office box. I just throw it away. Same with my my email box. With a slightly different evolution we might find it to be much more accepted.

Should we use the word Lolita or not? There has been a growing number of webmasters that say no. I think it's arbitrary. We could be completely open to use of the word lolita and still not tolerate child porn.

Bestiality? A little more on the fence for most people. Some majpr TGPs list bestiality galleries. Probably adds to the plus column of acceptance.

Many more I'm sure.

[TheEnforcer]

Gotta admit I wasn't thinking of the webmaster world when I posted this but as Nick and Colin pointed out it certainly can apply!

As expected, some very good replies here in both veins of the discussion.

[*KK*]

Rules of war... interesting... I was reading a book about Henry 2 and Eleanor of Aquitaine... Thomas Becket... not long ago.

One of the primary reasons for Henry's creation of the largest empire since the Romans in the 1100s was the fact that he did not make war in the traditional manner.

Where his opponents were slow and deliberate in their actions and reactions, he was quick to horse and most often showed up on their doorsteps well before they'd even had time to grasp that he was coming.

Of course his undoing was the Becket disaster in the end, but his son John went right on doing things his own way for years and ruled.

[Almighty Colin]

KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 20 2003, 01:07 PM
KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.
I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today :)

[Peaches]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 20 2003, 07:11 PM
I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today :)
Great book - read it last year. :bjump:

I'm still working on finishing Harry Potter. :P

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by *KK*+Jul 20 2003, 06:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Jul 20 2003, 06:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 20 2003, 01:07 PM
KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.
I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today :)[/b][/quote]
KK,

You going to Miami show?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Jul 20 2003, 12:49 AM
Nick, I fear you are more right then ever....

We are an industry are going to kill the golden goose. It really pisses me off when I think about it.... a group of cockholsters doing shady things to line their own greedy pockets have the ability to destroy an entire industry.
MikeAI,
I totally disagree....

what you saying is...advocating SOCIALISM!

why would one should care about the industry and his/her competitors?

fuck 'em all,
make the score and move to other pastures.

does Microsoft worries about "the industry" or Microsoft?
(Fed Governement and states were claiming "microsoft",
and they grew to be the richest company in the world with 45 billions in cash and no debt not because they were advocating socialism)

you sound like rawalex in this one
;-)))


if you care about the "industry",
make sure that every webmaster board out there prospers..

I personally can't give a flying fuck,
they all can perish tomorrow,
as long as Oprano is standing.

"Do your best and fuck the rest" was very very good for me
;-))))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jul 21 2003, 06:34 AM
fuck 'em all,
make the score and move to other pastures.
And there you go .. tragedy of the commons ;-)

[Almighty Colin]

Could be wrong but I don't think it's altruism that is motivating Mike. I'd say its that he prefers making $x/year for 10 years than $2x/year for two years.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin@Jul 21 2003, 07:18 AM
Could be wrong but I don't think it's altruism that is motivating Mike. I'd say its that he prefers making $x/year for 10 years than $2x/year for two years.
bullshit.....

...and Babenet and Company didn't make x2,
they made x20,000
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggg gggggg difference, Colin,
think about it.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Jul 21 2003, 07:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Jul 21 2003, 07:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 21 2003, 07:18 AM
Could be wrong but I don't think it's altruism that is motivating Mike. I'd say its that he prefers making $x/year for 10 years than $2x/year for two years.
bullshit.....

...and Babenet and Company didn't make x2,
they made x20,000
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggg gggggg difference, Colin,
think about it.[/b][/quote]
Yes, you can counter-example this all you want by just changing the numbers.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 21 2003, 08:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 21 2003, 08:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Serge_Oprano@Jul 21 2003, 07:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 21 2003, 07:18 AM
Could be wrong but I don't think it's altruism that is motivating Mike. I'd say its that he prefers making $x/year for 10 years than $2x/year for two years.
bullshit.....

...and Babenet and Company didn't make x2,
they made x20,000
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggg gggggg difference, Colin,
think about it.
Yes, you can counter-example this all you want by just changing the numbers.[/b][/quote]
..and you can argue all you want that 20,000,000 over 10 years is better than 200,000,000 over 5...

best of luck, Colin
;-)))

try beat me on the math,
you'll need it
;-)))

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Colin+Jul 21 2003, 01:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Jul 21 2003, 01:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -*KK*@Jul 20 2003, 06:11 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Colin@Jul 20 2003, 01:07 PM
KK, that's interesting. Immediately after that was the empire of Genghis Kahn and the Mongols, another great group of innovative horse riders.
I've always been immured of those who choose their own path... spending a Sunday afternoon reading about Seabiscuit today :)
KK,

You going to Miami show?[/b][/quote]
Yep, drop me an email :)

Serge, you're making way too much sense on a Monday morning... I'm definitely smiling!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 21 2003, 08:59 AM


Serge, you're making way too much sense on a Monday morning... I'm definitely smiling!
KK,
only because I know what I am talking about
;-)))

...and I haven't read it in the book somewhere somehow...

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Jul 21 2003, 06:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Jul 21 2003, 06:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--*KK*@Jul 21 2003, 08:59 AM


Serge, you're making way too much sense on a Monday morning... I'm definitely smiling!
KK,
only because I know what I am talking about
;-)))

...and I haven't read it in the book somewhere somehow...[/b][/quote]
Haha, I don't think some of that will ever turn up in a book ;)

[Vick]

I'll never understand the concept of "Rules of War"

The goal of a war is to win, you do that by killing your enemy (or at the very least inflicting damage until your enemy surrenders or is beaten into submission)

[JR]

i was thinking last night that there should be rules for the instigators or attackers and no rules for the attacked.

[*KK*]

That would certainly make for some interesting battles JR.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Vick@Jul 21 2003, 09:39 AM
I'll never understand the concept of "Rules of War"

The goal of a war is to win, you do that by killing your enemy (or at the very least inflicting damage until your enemy surrenders or is beaten into submission)
In many ways - and by no means all - it is more powerful countries that try to create such rules in order to increase their advantages.

Even the very idea of what constitutes a "win" at war varies from culture to culture. One nation may consider survival at all to be a "win". (Saddam, 1991).

[JR]

Originally posted by *KK*@Jul 21 2003, 07:50 AM
That would certainly make for some interesting battles JR.
flag waving aside, i found it to be a little odd that there was a big deal made out of the fact that the Iraqis were showing captured and killed soldiers on TV... "War Crimes are being committed by the Iraqis....blah blah blah"

i am not saying it was pleasant or entertaining or that i enjoyed it. i am not saying i think its a good thing and that it should happen.

but... what would you do as you watched an attacking force roll into your town, shooting up buildings, blowing stuff up, dropping bombs, killing innocent people etc? how do the two compare to each other? innocent people get killed and its "collateral damage" which is totally ok. show captured soldiers on TV and its a war crime. something about that struck me as being really wrong and unbalanced. what a great idea right? you have technological superiority in everyway... and you severely cripple your opponents ability to use the most powerful weapon he has.. propaganda.

like Colin said... the "rules" often exist because they were created by the most powerful countries and they usually serve to give those who created them, the advantage. the "rules" are increasingly unfair as military might in most areas of the world gets increasingly lopsided.



Last edited by JR at Jul 21 2003, 09:31 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR@Jul 21 2003, 09:41 AM
i was thinking last night that there should be rules for the instigators or attackers and no rules for the attacked.
Sounds fair to me.

Interesting that even in 1991 Saddam didn't use chemical weapons against the US though he had just used them in Iran/Iraq war. His decision to not use them was very wise and permitted the soft backout.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Jul 21 2003, 08:50 AM
..and you can argue all you want that 20,000,000 over 10 years is better than 200,000,000 over 5...

best of luck, Colin
;-)))

try beat me on the math,
you'll need it
;-)))
I'm not changing the numbers, you are. In my example my math wins.

$1 million/year for 10 years is $10 million.
$2 million/year for 2 years is only $4million.

You are not going to make $4million be more than $10million no matter how hard you try.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JR+Jul 21 2003, 12:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JR @ Jul 21 2003, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--*KK*@Jul 21 2003, 07:50 AM
That would certainly make for some interesting battles JR.
flag waving aside, i found it to be a little odd that there was a big deal made out of the fact that the Iraqis were showing captured and killed soldiers on TV... "War Crimes are being committed by the Iraqis....blah blah blah"

i am not saying it was pleasant or entertaining or that i enjoyed it. i am not saying i think its a good thing and that it should happen.

but... what would you do as you watched an attacking force roll into your town, shooting up buildings, blowing stuff up, dropping bombs, killing innocent people etc? how do the two compare to each other? innocent people get killed and its "collateral damage" which is totally ok. show captured soldiers on TV and its a war crime. something about that struck me as being really wrong and unbalanced. what a great idea right? you have technological superiority in everyway... and you severely cripple your opponents ability to use the most powerful weapon he has.. propaganda.

like Colin said... the "rules" often exist because they were created by the most powerful countries and they usually serve to give those who created them, the advantage. the "rules" are increasingly unfair as military might in most areas of the world gets increasingly lopsided.[/b][/quote]
I agree with everything you said.

Interesting. Remember when the media and then the US and UK governments made strong statements that Iraq must follow the Geneva Conventions and protect those POW's? Immediately after Tariq Aziz was on television promising they would not be harmed (I don't believe they were). The opinion of the world can be very powerful and what is acceptable to the world can have great effect even on regimes such as Saddams.