|
#71
●
11-18-2016, 11:41 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: SERGEANT Poster Rank:1052 Male Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 635 Mentioned: 2 Post(s) Quoted: 302 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
You are absolutely and completely correct. The belief that the vaunted "fifty" and many other larger caliber canons, cannot be used against humans and other soft targets is just ignorance. There are treaty's that prohibit things such as discouraging the use of special types of ammo (I.E. Hague against deep expansion ammunition). Or things such as mines or lethal chemicals. But the United States hasn't ratified anything, especially anything denying the use of any small arm against any target. That is how the United States fights, we throw explosions/bullets against a general direction or target until its gone. However to be as clear as possible I should say that many country's HAVE ratified treaty's that prohibit different things, or state they will abide by to the best of their ability many different circumstances. The United States has signed some, but they have nothing to do with anything less than Nuclear Warheads. Hell we use them 155mm M109's and serve bastards 24 pounds of TNT for soft targets. Now that is extraordinary in terms of kinetic and potential energy dispersal when compared to "extremely inhumane" rifle calibers. When it comes to the "fifty" it is used because nothing else will go that far, especially with good speed and BC. the closest other possible cartridge widely available is the hilariously inept at longer range M193 which is a quickly driven .22.... (Yes I am aware of the 308 (7.62x51) but it isn't widely chambered, only about three percent of a division's small arms are true rifles in the concept of specific built for long range and accuracy, usually sniper rifles). There are a lot of really good reasons the vaunted "fifty" is not used MORE for soft target elimination, a lot of it due to weight and transport, so its often mounted either on a tripod or vehicle, not individual uses. Anyway And besides nobody is having this conversation except people who has never been shot at, nor will ever be shot at. They don't understand it but think they are doing something "good"  |
|
#73
●
11-19-2016, 09:43 AM
| ||||||||
| The Candyman With the Windowless Van Poster Rank:143 Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 11,456 Mentioned: 32 Post(s) Quoted: 6077 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
You got it! "War criminals" are those guys on the other side who you want to go after, when you have safely won the conflict and can put them in the dock. For instance, had the Germans won World War 2, "Bomber Harris" of the RAF and many other leaders on the Allies side would have been prosecuted as war criminals. The evidence against some of them would have been every bit as good as that against some (not all) of the Germans who were prosecuted at Nuremberg. Often whether or not somebody is a war hero or a war criminal depends upon who won the war.
|
|
#75
●
11-20-2016, 06:30 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT Poster Rank:372 Dickless Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,178 Mentioned: 18 Post(s) Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
So your statement that "all is fair in love and war" only applies to the winners? The U.S. got its ass kicked in its invasion of Viet Nam. Why weren't McNamara or Nixon tried as the war criminals they were? They certainly lost the war.
|
|
#76
●
11-21-2016, 07:00 AM
| ||||||||
| The Candyman With the Windowless Van Poster Rank:143 Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 11,456 Mentioned: 32 Post(s) Quoted: 6077 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
Fair point. However, by "losing" the war I meant a complete defeat such as that suffered by Germany in WW2 where the victorious armies march in, occupy, and take over the governance of their defeated enemy. Thus the victors can do whatever they please, including designating anybody they want to as a "war criminal" and acting accordingly. (I'm not implying that some of those so designated haven't earned the label; however, that isn't necessary for the victors, merely convenient.) Obviously, the U.S. did not suffer that sort of defeat in Vietnam. Hence the people you mention were not subject to prosecution. There were no victors in a position to put them in the dock. The above is tangential to the WP situation discussed on this thread. I stand by my claim that it is a joke to try to regulate the niceties of how to kill people in combat. I would reserve the designation "war criminals" for those who slaughter non-combatants. |
|
#77
●
11-22-2016, 11:49 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT Poster Rank:372 Dickless Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,178 Mentioned: 18 Post(s) Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
For combat and for pows, the German's who had signed the Geneva Convention agreement, were better than the Japanese. I think. No mustard gas for example. Maybe one day Bush and Obama will be tried for their war crimes, but, I agree, it is not likely.
|
|
#78
●
11-22-2016, 11:52 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT Poster Rank:372 Dickless Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,178 Mentioned: 18 Post(s) Quoted: 2028 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
We did kill maybe two million non combatants in Viet Nam. William Calley certainly didn't pay for his slaughter of women and children.
|
|
#79
●
11-23-2016, 06:56 AM
| ||||||||
| The Candyman With the Windowless Van Poster Rank:143 Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 11,456 Mentioned: 32 Post(s) Quoted: 6077 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
Just so. Nobody will ever know the exact numbers as it wasn't a thing that they liked to keep track of. Yes, I was there. I understand the reasoning in some cases. However, understanding is not the same thing as condoning. When a known (from reliable intelligence) enemy controlled village was taken on the line of march, but no obvious VC combatants found (they did a good job hiding their weapons and looking like ordinary farmers) the unit knew that if they left the place as is they would have an enemy force at their rear as soon as they marched on. Thus the temptation to preemptively destroy the village was strong, for some too strong to resist. In some cases that destruction was total.
|
|
#80
●
11-23-2016, 07:04 AM
| ||||||||
| The Candyman With the Windowless Van Poster Rank:143 Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 11,456 Mentioned: 32 Post(s) Quoted: 6077 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Iraqi Victims of White Phosphorus
You are correct regarding the difference between the way the Germans and Japanese treated POW's. If you were going to be a POW it was far better to be a prisoner of the Germans, as they at least made an attempt to abide by most portions of the Geneva Convention. Late in the war when they were running short of food and supplies for their own troops POW's were severely short changed - no surprise there. However, they did use mustard gas in combat in WW1. The allies then retaliated in kind. This last fact is not often mentioned in the standard histories.
|
