Prior to 1990 (the end of the USSR and the cold war), the US military was the last bastion of discipline and tradition. The military is generally regarded as the soul of a nation (a reflection of the society that it serves).
As a society declines (deteriorates), so will it's military...but the military will be last (due to it's discipline and traditions).
The next time you watch an old "black and white" television horror film from the 1950s/1960s, notice how all of the civilians are running from the monster or atomic radiation, and the military has to guide, treat, transport the civilians & then destroy the monster (probably King Kong or Godzilla). This was an example how the "regimentation" (discipline & tradition) enabled the military to have on hand the "Food, Vehicles, Weapons, Know How, and Determination" to handle chaos & tragedy.
The pre-1990 US Military demanded "tradition", "order", "discipline", and "OBEDIENCE", without which the military "would not be" a military. Prior to the 1990s; Police Officers, Doctors, Pilots, Teachers, Sheriffs, FBI, etc. CAN QUIT WHEN DANGER CONFRONTS THEM...prior to the 90s, not so the military men (Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Soldiers); they were societies last bastion...and they had to hold the line...at the cost of death.
During a 1700s naval battle, British Admiral Horatio Nelson put a telescope to his "blind eye", later claiming he did not see the orders from the flag ship (hoisted flag signals). He was victorious in the pending battle and became a hero; but had he failed, he could have been shot (for disobeying orders).
During the Vietnam War, a Drill Sergeant stated to his new recruits (and strictly referring to infractions); "Men, you can do anything you want in this man's army; but you better not get caught!"
The Rules of War
The rules of war; during Vietnam...UCMJ/Uniform Code of Military Justice. War's have rules, just like anything else...driving a car, marriage, divorce, baseball, ice-skating...anything and everything has rules. No rules=No civilization However, the old saying of, "all's fair in love and war" simply means that sometimes those rules are over-looked, forgiven, or pardoned.
1) we should stay at home 2) we should never open lights in our homes as it can attract the fighter planes's pilot to throw a bomb at them ans by : Abhinav Jain
War is like a jail War is like a broken heart War is like hell
Germany.
rules of warfare
Rules are guidelines or principles that prescribe boundaries for behavior. While rules are intended to maintain order and promote fairness, there may be situations where they can be challenged or revised if they are perceived as unjust or ineffective. However, breaking rules should be done thoughtfully and with consideration of the consequences.
It obviously depends which 'rules' were broken.
yes they do. War does never mean that you can forget the disciplane and the rules. War should be fought with dignity.
you get a detention
Your game could be broken or it should work
The rules are flexible and there is no precise definition of when they can be broken. In informal situations it is more likely to see them broken. You can always break the rules when quoting exactly what someone says.
Rules, my dear fellow, rules! :D
Yes, it has rules that we cannot change and other rules. the rules that we cannot change are God's rules (like you only die one time, nature (wether, disasters, desease), the technology of the time, etc, etc) The rules that human make (each indivudual his own), are like : will you have mercy when youre enemy ask, (if you have choise) what weapons use, who do you want to kill and who not, captured men and women's destiny, When a country mocks you will you use terrorists?, etc etc The rules of war are, Stop-the-fire, peace, exchange of (captured enemy) man, Who is the leader, human rights, Can you use nuclear weapons etc etc I think war should have rules. Rules of mercy, not rules of ignorance, etc
nothing
Haley Longford
Jack has broken at least three rules for effective listening and speaking. He interrupted the speaker, judged the speaker's ideas before fully hearing them, and failed to show empathy or understanding towards the speaker's perspective.