Reader's View: War doesn't jibe with 'laws of war'
Many scholars in America claim the U.S. has the right to attack Syrian forces if they continue to violate the "laws of war." Yet where were these scholars when the U.S. attacked Iraq in 2003, which was an act of aggression that I felt violated the "laws of war?"
How does anyone acquire the freedom to "war" if done within the "laws of war?" How does Assad on the rebels he's fighting get the freedom to kill anyone if done within the "laws of war?" How do they get these "laws of war" on their side, from nothing more than shooting at each other?
The "laws of war" promote "war;" those at the Geneva Conventions must have been on drugs. Thanks to these "rules" they wrote up, all you need to do to "war" upon people is not do "war" crimes.
The Geneva Conventions gave "all parties within a war the right to use appropriate force to achieve their aims." But how can all parties in a conflict have equal rights because some murderous aggressor attacked someone who was simply minding their own business?
But the Geneva Conventions made all of these even more insane. They also said "anyone who starts a war of aggression is committing a war crime." So how can "all parties have the right to use appropriate force" when the "war starters" are already criminals who should be locked up?