I'm happy as long as they model me:).

- - - - - - - - - - -

I again find myself utterly at a loss to understand the "war crimes happen all the time and as such are OK"-rhetoric.

Sadly, yes. Until we can get a system that succeeds in punishing all war criminals, not just those of the victors, the winning side needs not fear punishment for breaking the law.

Even if that was true, correlation does not equal to causation.

The Allies, to my knowledge, did not committ more war crimes than the Axis. And it's certainly not the war crimes that won them the war.

Indeed. But to state that all war crime is justified because of Hiroshima is a non-sequitur fallacy.

It should also be mentioned that the USA could perfectly well have first demonstrated the fire-power of the atomic bomb by dropping it over an unpopulated area, and then dropped the next bomb or bombs on military installations. It was, quite frankly, totally unjustified to go straight to a big city.

You truly have no understanding whatsoever as to why the people in Iraq are fighting. To think that totally disregarding civilian deaths is going to lead to an earlier peace is utter poppycock.

Utilitarianism and the year 2006 don't go well together in my eyes.

OK, let's assume for a second that following the rules equals a shorter fight. It's a black-and-white statement, but let's just assume it's true in this scenario. Is it then justified to go out and kill civilians if it means less soldiers will die? No, it's not. Civilians are not part of the conflict, and to kill them in order for less soldiers to be killed is just not justified.

Last time I checked, Bush and his party did have the stomach for war crimes. Remember the White Phosphorous over Fallujah? Have you heard of the torture of internees at Abu Grahib, Guantánamo and whatever secret camps there are out there? Did it ever reach your ears that the very invasion of Iraq flies right in the face of the UN, International Law, and the majority of world opinion?

I'm sure Dubya needs no further encouragement to committ his heinous acts of terrorism. No worries, buddy.

What a lovely philosophy.

OK, let me make one thing very, very clear: I have no idea of where this fad of quoting non-existant Geneva Conventions rules comes from, but as an active and paying Red Cross member, I do not approve of it.

I admittedly did not know what the 'Conventions had to say on parachutists, but my buddy Google led me to http://www.genevaconventions.org/, which let me search the conventions for "parachutists". This revealed:

Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1)

Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2).

I advise you to also read what they have to say on lifeboats. You'd be surprised.

Put yourself in their place. If you were escaping a hostage situation, would appreciate it if the SWAT team gave you a chance to surrender, or would it be OK to you if they just took you out because you were a potential "Tango"? You know, "to end the hostage situation faster"?

Here we go with this topic again.

[edit] bah, I'd actually really like to tone this down in agreement with Neal. :(

I will say that I'm certainly applauding Safe-Keeper on this one, but I think it's best we not pursue it any further. Let's remember, this is a game.

On the other hand, let's also remember fundamental human rights for which Western society stands.

Thank you, you have made my point for me, parachutists who eject from damaged a/c are FLIGHT CREW, as opposed to Paratroopers who are combatants and liable to be shot under canopy.

The same applies to troops in boats, the crew can be considered to be in lifeboats, but given that the Japs routinely made their amphib landings in those same boats, soldiers who can get to shore are fair game.

Nice try though, now why not go read the conventions?

Hey Safe-Keeper, I appreciate your points. But you have to understand that my argument is simply that the greater good is served when wars are ended as quickly as possible. That, unfortunately, can only be achieved by all means possible. Also understand that we as humanity must work to not allow wars to start in the first place. Because once the genie is let out of the bottle it can only be put back in it by the ultimate ugliness.

That is how WWII was fought. That is how the Afghan/Iraq situation is not being fought. And that is why Afghanistan and Iraq (only two countries) are still hot spots five years later while the entire world conflict of WWII was almost over in five years.

War is hell. End it as quickly as possible by all means possible.

This thread is hell. Should one of the mods lock it, or should the original poster be immolated with a flamethrower?

I didn't mean to attack him in any way. I wasn't even commenting on whether his behavior was right or wrong; just that, since many game companies like to avoid controversy, it is not likely that they would want to include him and thus hurt sales.

As for the incident itself, there is still a dispute about what actually happened. The sub's crew said they received small arms fire from one of the boats; I'm sure that the Japanese, OTOH would deny this. It may never be possible to learn what happened because all of the witnesses (assuming they're still alive) would have had one sort of bias or another...

All ya'll need is a couple of beers and some boxing gloves ... Great arguement ... We would be glad to have it over here ...

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175

Respect the men that had to do what they had to do and remember we all get judged someday. :cry:

That is not entirely true. In fact, I was just sitting back, thinking about how happy I am that this is not on the forum that I moderate. I see the 137th rehashing of this topic as fruitless, and without productive merit. Furthermore, we have a version of it on this SHIV forum, and do not need a duplicate. Be prepared to see any migration of this topic locked with prejudice.

Back to your discussion.

Bit of a difference between WW2 and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

After 5 years of war the Germans had been pushed closer to home from foriegn lands while the homeland had been bombed into submission

5 years of war in Afghanistan may have relieved the countries rulers but the majority of the people dont want foriegn forces on their soil
A war that can never be one

In WW2 you could see the enemy
Not so in Afghanistan or Iraq

For your argument to stand up why hasnt either of those countries been bombed into submission
Sure it would be ugly but it would end the war quickly

NOT

You really expect me to read your post 100% accurately at mid-night while I'm suffering from the phenomenon known as "fatigue" brought about by Visitation Service Training, 60 minutes long travel to and from school, and exam preparations? How was I supposed to register that it specifically said "paratroppers"?

Give me a break. Grumble, grumble.

(OK, OK, I'm sorry:p)

As for shipwrecked marines, however:

Abstract

[S]hipwrecks
Shipwrecked combatants are afforded protections by the Second Geneva Convention, regardless of the cause of the wreck and including forced landings at sea or from aircraft. (Convention II, Art. 12)

Entire article

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are at sea and who are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, it being understood that the term "shipwreck" means shipwreck from any cause and includes forced landings at sea by or from aircraft.

Such persons shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Parties to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

Only urgent medical reasons will authorize priority in the order of treatment to be administered.

Women shall be treated with all consideration due to their sex.

So the way I read it, while you can shoot paratroopers descending in distress, you can't shoot shipwrecked marines. Please feel free to point out mistakes, though.

If you are an armed soldier in a boat that can get you ashore into the combat zone (the very same boats that the Japs used in their amphib landings in many cases) then you are not shipwrecked.

It is exactly the same principle as the difference between Paratroopers and Parachutists.

You could arguably boil it down to the fact that they were armed and close to the (land) combat zone.

lifeboats
Lifeboats have the same protections under the Geneva Convention as hospital ships . However, for long distances and on the high seas only hospital ships of over 2,000 tons should be used for transport. (Convention II, Art. 26)

I belive Mortorn did'int do it. It is not proven. Just as there where as manny reported U-Boats MG'd suvivors but wasint comfermed. The Wahoo didin't do it if it is not comfermed.

Hospital ships may not commit acts harmful to the enemy, or use or possess a secret communication code. If they do, they lose their protections under the Geneva Conventions after due warning has been given and a reasonable time limit has passed. (Convention II, Art. 34)



Those 'lifeboats' were capable of landing armed troops into a combat zone = 'acts harmful to the enemy', they also fired at the sub. take your pick.

The MG mounted on the stern(bow?) I belive thats a Warship. :hmm: