Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Big G on January 29, 2006, 01:05:47 AM
-
During all my time in the Military, I was always asked the same question.
Usually by wannabes in the bar or chicks I was trying to f###.
"Have you ever killed anyone ?"
And the honest answer was that we fired as a section so I don't know.
The only time I ever fired as an individual was in Iraq in 91, (And Northern Ireland in 89) the Engineers were supposed to have filled a trench in, but they hadn't done the job right as they poured out like ants behind us when we went over.
They (Engineers) had bulldozed the trenches over and as we went over them, the leftovers came out, looking for someone to blame.
So my question to all and sundry is this:
"Where do the rules start and stop ?"
I'm just being nosey here guys.
BigG10
-
Usualy with a double post. :)
-
While I can't answer the question. Curiously enough my sister in law is a lawyer and lecturer and actually specialises in that very subject. Rules of armed conflict in general with a particular interest in how it applies to insurgency.
If you have a specific question I could ask. No guarantee you would get an answer you'd like.
-
It's called the "Law of Armed Conflict"
-
He who departs from the established "rules of war" is the most likely to win.
-
Except for fact that everyone who ignored the rules of war has lost...
-
Really? Revolutionary War in the US was won because of using practices which were not accepted.
Vietnam? Both the French and the US.
Soviet Union in WWII?
There are countless examples which kill that theory, Lasersailor.
-
^^ Yup.
Further, summary execution of wounded and surviving; stunned senseless Japanese soldiers was routine in the Pacific. More than a few american units had similar polices in Europe during WWII. Only thing that could save a wounded enemy soldier from a 'finish' bullet from a passing GI clear though vietnam was a clearly visable 'white flag' formal surrender by a group of enemy soldiers; and even that was no guarantee that all (or any) of the surrendered soldiers would survive the trip to the rear.
War on paper is sanitary, cut and dried; black and white. War in reality is something several orders of magnitude off from the 'paper' version.
Rule of thumb for War.. It's Kill or Be Killed... best you do the killin before the other side gets his chance. The only enemy you can be sure can't kill you later is one thats very, very dead right *bang* NOW.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Rule of thumb for War.. It's Kill or Be Killed... best you do the killin before the other side gets his chance. The only enemy you can be sure can't kill you later is one thats very, very dead right *bang* NOW.
I would say that the rule of thumb for war is "the winner takes it all!" It doesn't matter how you won. If you won you are the person who establish the rules.
If German won the WW2 a lot of English and American pilots would been faced charges for war crimes. You know, bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were a little bit over....
-
Originally posted by Vad
If German won the WW2 a lot of English and American pilots would been faced charges for war crimes. You know, bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were a little bit over....
You make it sound as though the Allies and Axis forces were morally equivalent. It's not only laughable, it's sick.
If Germany had of won the war how many more millions/ tens of millions of people would have died at the hands of that mental midget and his servile thugs? Allied pilots facing trumped-up war crimes charges would be the least of the world's problems.
There's no crime in putting down rabid dogs. It had too be done.
Excel
-
Originally posted by Vad
If German won the WW2 a lot of English and American pilots would been faced charges for war crimes. You know, bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were a little bit over....
Ahhh the sound of someone tainted by the rhetoric of left-wing-tree-hugging-whale-saving-man-hating-vegan-lesbians.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
You make it sound as though the Allies and Axis forces were morally equivalent.
In some cases, they were... or you have you forgotten the Russians?
-
Originally posted by Delirium
In some cases, they were... or you have you forgotten the Russians?
No I didn't forget the Russians
Stalin wouldn't have won any humanitarian awards but imo he was a sodding
angel compared to Hitler.
Excel
-
Originally posted by Vad
If German won the WW2 a lot of English and American pilots would been faced charges for war crimes. You know, bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were a little bit over....
one thing though the axis woulda skipped the kangaroo court war crimes trial business, and woulda got right to the point. While that is a bad thing, isnt Milosivec still on trial? there needs to be a happy medium between the two.
-
adapt or die :cool:
-
If German won the WW2 a lot of English and American pilots would been faced charges for war crimes. You know, bombing Dresden and Hiroshima were a little bit over....
I've no doubt the Germans would have murdered a great many allied soldiers, after all they did so for things such as escaping from POW camps, conducting commando raids, etc, which were all normal (and perfectly legal) practices in war. But there was no justification for such actions.
The allies, of course, did not execute German pilots, or even their commanders, for things like Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Warsaw etc. (and it's worth noting that as many civilians died from air attack in London as Dresden)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
He who departs from the established "rules of war" is the most likely to win.
If we are to take that statement literally, than one could say that the terrorists have already won as they don't play by any rules.
So on that point, I would have to disagree.
-
For all you guys that say the "winner makes the rules" and "kill or be killed" tell that to the US Servicemen that are now in prison for violations of said "law of armed conflict" while fighting for their country.
-
Guns, would you like to hear it from all the servicemen who ain't in jail?
Fact: Wounded, stunned japanese were routinely killed in the pacific; not at all unusual for a wounded Jap to get a kill shot from a GI. Legal? Nope. Routine? You bet. Successful Japanese surrenders were damn few; more tried than you might think. Some units in Europe operated with a similar policy.. even a formally surrendered german had a 50/50 chance of making it to the rear alive... even less if he was from an SS division.
Vietnam? I know for certain fact that tossing prisoners out of Hueys wasn't just a rumor. And, in a similar disgusting case I seem to recall Lt Calley was pardoned by the President.
War sucks.. especially if yer on the losing side. These days, with imbedded press and cameras everywhere the battlefield is just a little bit less dangerous for a surrendered soldier.. if it's one of theirs. One of ours is likey to get gutted, denutted, and dragged through the streets alive with film at 7:00 on Al Jezzeria.
Heluva world, enh?
-
imo he was a sodding
angel compared to Hitler.
Excel
Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million. Hitler can be blamed for about 42 million deaths, which includes war dead.
Twentieth Century Hemoclysm (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm) War and Hate sucks, but sometimes man can not stand by and let evil reside.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Guns, would you like to hear it from all the servicemen who ain't in jail?
Fact: Wounded, stunned japanese were routinely killed in the pacific; not at all unusual for a wounded Jap to get a kill shot from a GI. Legal? Nope. Routine? You bet. Successful Japanese surrenders were damn few; more tried than you might think. Some units in Europe operated with a similar policy.. even a formally surrendered german had a 50/50 chance of making it to the rear alive... even less if he was from an SS division.
Vietnam? I know for certain fact that tossing prisoners out of Hueys wasn't just a rumor. And, in a similar disgusting case I seem to recall Lt Calley was pardoned by the President.
War sucks.. especially if yer on the losing side. These days, with imbedded press and cameras everywhere the battlefield is just a little bit less dangerous for a surrendered soldier.. if it's one of theirs. One of ours is likey to get gutted, denutted, and dragged through the streets alive with film at 7:00 on Al Jezzeria.
Heluva world, enh?
So true.
Karaya
-
Hang I guess I was speaking in more or less present day tense. As you said the nature of warfare has changed alot.
The Marine that shot an Iraqi insurgent who was suspected of playing dead comes to mind. He was almost charged for that.
-
Originally posted by Excel1
No I didn't forget the Russians
Stalin wouldn't have won any humanitarian awards but imo he was a sodding
angel compared to Hitler.
Excel
he killed more people than hitler during his reign.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Except for fact that everyone who ignored the rules of war has lost...
I think you'll find that's only really because the winners get to write history.
-
Originally posted by parin
Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million. Hitler can be blamed for about 42 million deaths, which includes war dead.
Twentieth Century Hemoclysm (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm) War and Hate sucks, but sometimes man can not stand by and let evil reside.
Those are mind boggling figures. Thanks for posting the link.
Excel
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
he killed more people than hitler during his reign.
Only because Hitler was cut off in his prime. There were so many to exterminate... he hadn't even finished with the European Jews.
I'm not trying to minimise Stalins brutality. I just happen to think that of the two, Hitler was far more vile.
Excel