Winning or losing depended on strategies and tactics to bring the confrontation to a successful end. That meant, allowing the enemy to collect their dead and wounded after the battle, or respect POW's by treating them humanely etc. By the end of the 20th century, those rules started to break down. There were abuses outside the conventional war rules.
In the 21st century, rules almost disappeared, thus bringing the end of conventional wars on all sides. That means, IED's, suicide bombers, horrific executions of POW's, torture interrogations and civilian exterminations.
Election campaigns are fought just like wars. They all have a basic strategy to win, then they apply tactics to achieve the main objective. The solders are lined up at opposite sides of the field and fight the war, conventionally and sometimes unconventionally. To attack the enemy is not necessarily a bad thing if you want to win a war. Whether, it's a fair or an unfair attack is always due to interpretation. One side may interpret it as fair, the other may qualify it unfair. Who'll be the judge? The public, who may be siding with one or the other, watching the fight intensely . The same public, will decide who won the war, by voting.
Perhaps the rules of Election campaigns are breaking down just like the rules of war. We saw that in the most recent presidential elections: Willy Horton ads, Swift-boat veterans for truth etc
To whine that being attacked is unfair, is childish and self serving. How can you win a war if you don't attack? Or, if you win this battle by whining, how you expect to win the next battle, when you're going to be attacked with hard ammo?
That is just my two cents, on this day we celebrate, or mourn all those who fought and died in past wars. I'd like to hear your opinion on this subject!