CDZ Rules Of War

[Damaged Eagle]

The military operates today under the UCMJ Uniform Code Of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. However there have been rules to war for a long time. Everyone knows that a white flag means a call for truce, so the two opposing parties leaders can talk while their troops hold fire, and in some cases surrender. When surrender is offered by one side to the other terms are generally discussed and agreed upon by both sides.

Today the term traitor is being slung about by some people for soldiers who over one hundred fifty years ago were given quarter and terms. The terms were accepted by both sides and the men of the losing side were allowed to go home and resume their lives. Some of the losing side were even were incorporated into the army of the winning side because that side had other issues in other areas of the country. Many of these people went back to their lives and in some cases became instrumental in the reunification of a war torn country.

Is it just to not honor the terms of surrender?

Yes the men on the losing side were traitors but they were given amnesty and allowed to return home and assist in the rebuilding and reunification. If we are going to tear down memorials and rewrite the history to suit an agenda then it is nothing more than a perfidy by the United States. If we are going to do this one hundred and fifty years afterwards how can those who are the descendants be sure that they are not to be held guilty for the sins of the father? If this is how we are going to operate as a nation then...

Why not mete out to criminals of the civil justice system the old style justice instead of taking the chance of rehabilitation?

Why should we not go back to the old ways of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life?

Why should we honor the amnesty given to the deserters who fled to other countries to avoid the draft of the Vietnam War?

Why should anyone surrender to the United States in the future?

In what way does this make us more civilized?

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Ariel Durant

*****RESTLESS SMILE*****

 

[Augustine_]

I think reconstruction was a mistake. An important job was left unfinished and so it still plagues us today.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I think reconstruction was a mistake.

What makes you think it was a mistake?

An important job was left unfinished and so it still plagues us today.

What job would that be?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Vastator]

Ghengis Khan got it right. And when another like him arises; today’s modern armies will follow suit, or be tilled under.

 

[anynameyouwish]

View attachment 349614

The military operates today under the UCMJ Uniform Code Of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. However there have been rules to war for a long time. Everyone knows that a white flag means a call for truce, so the two opposing parties leaders can talk while their troops hold fire, and in some cases surrender. When surrender is offered by one side to the other terms are generally discussed and agreed upon by both sides.

Today the term traitor is being slung about by some people for soldiers who over one hundred fifty years ago were given quarter and terms. The terms were accepted by both sides and the men of the losing side were allowed to go home and resume their lives. Some of the losing side were even were incorporated into the army of the winning side because that side had other issues in other areas of the country. Many of these people went back to their lives and in some cases became instrumental in the reunification of a war torn country.

Is it just to not honor the terms of surrender?

Yes the men on the losing side were traitors but they were given amnesty and allowed to return home and assist in the rebuilding and reunification. If we are going to tear down memorials and rewrite the history to suit an agenda then it is nothing more than a perfidy by the United States. If we are going to do this one hundred and fifty years afterwards how can those who are the descendants be sure that they are not to be held guilty for the sins of the father? If this is how we are going to operate as a nation then...

Why not mete out to criminals of the civil justice system the old style justice instead of taking the chance of rehabilitation?

Why should we not go back to the old ways of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life?

Why should we honor the amnesty given to the deserters who fled to other countries to avoid the draft of the Vietnam War?

Why should anyone surrender to the United States in the future?

In what way does this make us more civilized?

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."
Ariel Durant

*****RESTLESS SMILE*****

right

and for the past 160 years those LOSERS who were given AMNESTY CONTINUED to fight that war.....

just not OPENLY....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

right

and for the past 160 years those LOSERS who were given AMNESTY CONTINUED to fight that war.....

just not OPENLY....

So there's soldiers who are approaching 180 or more years old still fighting?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Ghengis Khan got it right. And when another like him arises; today’s modern armies will follow suit, or be tilled under.

Had it right in what way?

*****SMILE*****

 

[Oddball]

Yes the men on the losing side were traitors but they were given amnesty and allowed to return home and assist in the rebuilding and reunification. If we are going to tear down memorials and rewrite the history to suit an agenda then it is nothing more than a perfidy by the United States. If we are going to do this one hundred and fifty years afterwards how can those who are the descendants be sure that they are not to be held guilty for the sins of the father? If this is how we are going to operate as a nation then...

Wrong....The secessionists weren't traitors....They didn't stay within the nation and turn against it, they peaceably went their own way and started their own country.....The shooting didn't start until the Union refused to leave Ft. Sumter, which the Confederacy had a legit territorial claim to.

But you are right in that the Union is now reneging on the terms of surrender of the Confederacy.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Wrong....The secessionists weren't traitors....They didn't stay within the nation and turn against it, they peaceably went their own way and started their own country.....The shooting didn't start until the Union refused to leave Ft. Sumter, which the Confederacy had a legit territorial claim to.

But you are right in that the Union is now reneging on the terms of surrender of the Confederacy.

I tend to agree with you on the traitor issue but then it is a point of perspective on how the subject it's viewed.

You did nail my point with your last line.

*****SMILE*****

 

[jwoodie]

The Confederates were no more traitors than the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Secession was an open Constitutional question in 1860, and Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln called for an invasion of the seceding states. That being said, the chicken hawks in South Carolina had no cause to fire on Fort Sumter other than to inflame the situation.

Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have have quickly folded under a federal blockade of its ports.