Yes he would, because those actions would still not be all that bad. He already made a conscious and deliberate decision to do those things. My point was that they are not that bad. He was not trying to kill civilians, they would have been collateral damage with the leadership.

Genocide makes him unable to fight anymore. Even in WoT, dead people don't fight. QED. And that might be the purpose of war in some anti-war textbook, but the REAL purpose of war is force your enemy to do what you want. "War is politics by other means." You fight to make an enemy do what you want, regardless of the capability he possesses to fight. If he chooses to withdraw from the territory you want with his soldiers intact, you are not obligated to pursue until he can't fight anymore. If he is unable to fight anymore, but refuses to acede to your demands, you have a perfect right to keep going, assuming you had a good reason for fighting in the first place. Suppose France & Britain had invaded Germany after Germany invaded Poland in 1939, attacked and fought hard, smashed the German Army, and rendered it unable to fight. If the Germans still refused to withdraw from Poland, the Western Allies would have had a perfect right to keep on going until they did get that! No rule of war or morality would require them to turn around and leave just because the German army was hors de combat.

And so? You need more than labels to actually make a point. The idea that a weapon may not be used because it kills TOO MANY soldiers is absurd. Just because quarter MAY be given after a fight does not requrie you to go easy on them in the fight! As long as there are one more enemy on the field than Rand, he is free to fight as hard as he wants. There is a difference between "slaughter to the last man" and kill them all quickly. Rand was not proposing to hunt them down to the last man, but to destroy major troop concentrations and especially, the places of the leadership. Why should some pint-sized little egomaniac be off-limits because she is a woman? Are you less dead if the soldiers who attack you do so at the command of a woman? Striking at the head of the snake is a perfectly valid tactic.

Maybe if that question made sense I could answer it. In any case, they have marched thousands of miles from where they have any business being. If they did not choose to fall out or desert somewhere before this, they are not entitled to ANOTHER chance to surrender.

Well, too bad. He didn't put them there, so they are not his responsibility. There are 4 rulers, two of them are women and the other is really old. How hard could it be for the soldiers to effect a regime change? How can their rulers realistically keep them against their will. If there are a minority held in the southlands against their will, that is not Rand's responsibility, because he did not make them come, and did not put them in this situation. He has to get rid of his enemies, and he can't allow them to hang around and terrorize the southern lands because they have human shields.

Except he was not displacing an entire population and was not enslaving ANYONE. He was proposing to kill soldiers! That is what soldiers are for.