Wouldn't it be cool if they modeled MUSH?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by geetrue

I just want to see Don Rickles as the cook ...

You hockey puck................:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[TheSatyr]

Killing survivors in lifeboats is never justified. Funny how it's ok for us to do it,but if an enemy does it it's a warcrime.

Not too mention that there were POWs from India in some of those lifeboats that the Wahoo destroyed...and flat out murdering anyone who tried to surrender.

The man was no hero,he was a war criminal,pure and simple.

Next thing you know,you'll be telling us how torture is justified.

[Quagmire]

OHH, my poor little thread

All I wanted was some historical flare to the crew since so much effort is going into the historical flare of the sub. And now this. But since you started it...

War is criminal, war is hell, war is barbaric, war is everything awful you can think of. In all wars the winners are the victors and the losers are the war criminals. Crimes are committed on both sides, and the side that commits fewer crimes is usually the side that loses. Sure the Nazis were absolutely awful in every respect. But do realise that the Allies killed just as many civilians in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, culminating with the wholesale eradication of Hiroshima. So technically you can say that the Allies commited more crimes than the Axis and consequently they won.

Now I am an American and I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with the actions of my government during WWII. Why? Because you have to fight fire with fire or burn to ashes trying. In fact, ending a conflict as brutally and completely as possible, as quickly as possible, actually SAVES lives in the long run. We all know what would have been if the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands. The Hiroshima death tole would pale in comparison.

Well, fast forward twenty years after WWII and you have the swingin' sixties with the wonderful in your face, live from the battlefield, American media. Now the "crimes" of war are exposed for all to see. The politicians get scared that the majority of the historically uneducated electorate will not vote for them and they begin to pull back so as to appear "kinder and gentiler" of the tube every night. The war then drags on into a protracted, bloodier conflict since more people are killed over the years of "police action" than would ever have died in a short (yet brutal) total victory.

Fast forward thirty years after Vietnam and you have good ol' Iraq. Once again, America finds herself losing more people and staying longer in a conflict than she should since the mission is not to vanquish the enemy, rather to win "hearts and minds". Yes that vanquishing requires civilian casualties. Do you think civilian casualties were considered when Gen. LeMay planned the firebombing of Tokyo?

War is hell folks. When Mush Morton shot at those lifeboats he shortened the war by weeks, maybe months. If he had let them return to their homes the war would have claimed even more lives just by the fact that it was still active that little bit longer.

In conclusion, am I advocating war crimes? I an a way, yes. However, am I also advocating war? NO! My advocation of war crimes is only for the greater good of ending the conflict as soon as possible. Ironically humanity is served with far fewer deaths.

If politicians today do not have the stomach for war crimes, than they have no business going to war in the first place. Someone should have told MR. BUSH that...

Sorry for the rant but I have had the need to get that off my chest for some time now. Americas politicians and media are getting more people killed worrying about votes and ratings respectively than if they bit the bullet and supported a quick and total victory.

It makes no sense to prolong a conflict to save lives...

Mush Morton, I salute you!

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by TheSatyr

Killing survivors in lifeboats is never justified. Funny how it's ok for us to do it,but if an enemy does it it's a warcrime.

Not too mention that there were POWs from India in some of those lifeboats that the Wahoo destroyed...and flat out murdering anyone who tried to surrender.

Just as it is lawful to shoot paratroopers who jump from a burning plane, it is lawful to shoot soldiers in boats who could go into combat ashore.

Try reading the Geneva conventions before you quote them.

The PWs were a mistake in combat, but the GC allows for mistakes too - you aren't required to check the personal ID of every man you fire upon in combat.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm happy as long as they model me.

- - - - - - - - - - -

War is criminal, war is hell, war is barbaric, war is everything awful you can think of.

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

In all wars the winners are the victors and the losers are the war criminals.

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.

Crimes are committed on both sides, and the side that commits fewer crimes is usually the side that loses.

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

Sure the Nazis were absolutely awful in every respect. But do realise that the Allies killed just as many civilians in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, culminating with the wholesale eradication of Hiroshima. So technically you can say that the Allies commited more crimes than the Axis and consequently they won.

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.

We all know what would have been if the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands. The Hiroshima death toll would pale in comparison.

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.

Fast forward thirty years after Vietnam and you have good ol' Iraq. Once again, America finds herself losing more people and staying longer in a conflict than she should since the mission is not to vanquish the enemy, rather to win "hearts and minds". Yes that vanquishing requires civilian casualties. Do you think civilian casualties were considered when Gen. LeMay planned the firebombing of Tokyo?

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.

In conclusion, am I advocating war crimes? I an a way, yes. However, am I also advocating war? NO! My advocation of war crimes is only for the greater good of ending the conflict as soon as possible. Ironically humanity is served with far fewer deaths.

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.

If politicians today do not have the stomach for war crimes, than they have no business going to war in the first place. Someone should have told MR. BUSH that...

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.

The PWs were a mistake in combat, but the GC allows for mistakes too - you aren't required to check the personal ID of every man you fire upon in combat.

What a lovely philosophy.

Just as it is lawful to shoot paratroopers who jump from a burning plane, it is lawful to shoot soldiers in boats who could go into combat ashore.

Try reading the Geneva conventions before you quote them.

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"?

[Onkel Neal]

Here we go with this topic again.

[CCIP]

[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.

[Harry Buttle]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

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.

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?

[Quagmire]

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.

[Hylander_1314]

Unless you've had to do the dirty deeds, you aren't qualified to comment or remark on them.

This thread needs to be locked. And this topic should not appear anymore.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by xrvjorn

It's been over 4 months since I last was here, and I thought I wouldn't have to see threads like this if I stayed clear of the general forum. Well, sometimes things have to turn to the worse before they can improve. I the level of aggression is lower next time I stop by which, I'm sorry to say, won't be anytime soon.

Many people are fond of pointing out that Subsim in general is one of the friendliest, most helpful boards around. I'm not happy about the direction this thread has taken, but this is one of many hundreds, and it's the only one like this right now.

I'm less worried about the level of aggression here than I am about your level of condescencion. If the only time you stop by is to tell us how bad we are, then maybe you're right and it's better if you stay away.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Abour Mortorn MGing suvivors....
Taken from a lookout on the brige.

"The distant rattle of machine-gun fire came to my ears.
"Damm him" Mortorn voive roared. "Roger, have the gun crews knock that machine gun in the motor launch out of the watter"
"Aye, aye sir" Lt. Pane replied.
"Commence firing on the motor launch"
This was follwed by sevral rounds from the deck gun and the rattle of the 20 millmeters.
A sharp explosion by the 20 millimeters caused me to jump. I looked down and saw the barrel pointing in the air and Gerlacher stagered dazedly from the gun. Glinski was sitting on the deck and looking stupidly at his right foot. The shoe lether was brutally torn and I could see blood spurting from his right foot.
"Pharmacist mate to the brige! on the dubble" O'Kane yelled down the voice tube.
A yell went up from the deck-gun crew. I gathered that the motor launch had been hit.
"Cease fireing, cease firing"

The MG on the moter launch had wounded 2 of the Wahoo's crewmen. And only the moter launch was shot at.

[BH]

Well if you want to be technical, the whole U.S. Submarine force doctrine of unrestricted submarine warfare (attack without warning on merchants) was illegal and violation of Geneva Convention. The U.S. reasoned that 1. The Pearl Harbor attack was Illegal 2.Germany was already committing these attacks. However, to my knowledge the British never gave the order to perform unrestricted warfare and this came back in the Nuremberg trials. there was no love in Britain for the u-boats and there was a push for severe punishment for those that ordered the attacks. They wanted Dontiz to hang and because the Americans had performed similar acts in the pacific and because they received some pressure from the U.S. to give him a light punishment, he was spared.

War is hell though, even though we play war simulations we can not experience the true emotions that go along with those events. One simulation that I thing gets close is B-17 Flying fortress. The whole mood of the game is depressing reflecting the mood of the bomber crews that knew that either they would be killed or that they were about to create a firestorm over the civilian population that would kill thousands. Bombs from high altitudes were not precise then. There really is nothing civilized in war and the destruction and death, both military and civilian is one of the reasons we have not seen a large global conflict since World War II.