Ramming Speed!

[G Ned Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

aaaargh! (off topic pedantic rant)

COURT - noun. Nouns can be plural.

MARTIAL - adjective. adjectives not pural, never, no way, nuh-uh. Unless you're watching the Cleveland Browns of course.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. I knew courts-martial was right, but I don't know why I didn't use it.

Thanks Babra. And to think I used to edit and publish magazines...

Greg

------------------

I love the f***ing Army

and the Army loves f***ing me

[Guest PeterNZ]

re: the bombing of that convoy

I believe a large problem with the bombing of that retreating 'convoy' is that quite a significant proportion of it wasn't military at all and so quite a few civilians were getting zapped. Also, why bother killing a bunch of fleeing soldiers? It's not like they were a threat to anyone.

I'm trying to recall where i heard more about that Convoy, probably BBC, but can't be sure.

PeterNZ

[Herr Oberst]

Two more cents (or more like a dollar)

Bombing the retreating troops was done to reduce the troops that SH would have available to him in the near future. Reduction of his material assets was desireable as well. A toothless and clawless maniac is much less dangerous.

IIRC, and that's a BIG IIRC, in some instances, to breach the embankments, MG fire was used to keep the Iraquis in their trench while a dozer followed along behind the fire and plowed in the trench. One particularly asinine reporter asked about the tactic during a press briefing, mentioning that it seemed "Unfair"

The responding military man looked incredulous, then mentioned that the planned ought to be given a medal for eliminating the threat with minimal risk to the US troops.

[William Thiel]

A coupld points of clarification that would not necessarily put Fionn in the minority.

It is a huge leap to compare bulldozing defenders in their fortifications to the use of tactical nukes. Nuclear weapons have physical effects WAY beyond the battlefield and have persistent effects. Nobodys kids died as a result of somebody getting buried to death.

While I agree with much of the sentiment of my compatriot across the Tasman, I beleive the US Army was probably acknowleging that there was the factual basis for a court martial of bulldozing US troops (perhaps for media consumption), they also obviously determined that there was not a possibility of a conviction. I would certainly not convict them or give them medals.

In the case of fleeing troops, I would also sanction the attacks on them if they were carrying (or riding) arms and if they did anything other than flee the battlefield.

Where you have to draw the line is in cases where people were killed (typically close at hand) while not being capable of offering a resistance, such as the recent Chechnyan prisoners.

But most importantly, Charles, can my tanks kill soldiers if I run them over in CM, or are just weapons implacements damaged? You can deal with my actions in my court martial after CMMC.

------------------

Men make wars. Boys fight them.

[This message has been edited by William Thiel (edited 03-01-2000).]

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Humm, the Iraqi troops escaped from Kuwait were later used to suppress internal uprisings and Saddam still stays in power today. "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." -- Morpheus "Matrix"

Not firing on fleeing troops? Well, I suppose Mongomery (sp?) and Patton should be medalled for what they had done in the Falaise Pocket.

"Unfair". Which war is "fair"? Say: Should we outlaw surprise? "Your troops should come out in the main road directly to my defense position! Why do your men flank and encircle my troops? That is not FAIR!" Should we outlaw advanced weaponry development, too? I heard no such complaints on "fairness" against US when bombing using cruise missles, at least during the Gulf War.

War is not kids play, it is not even remotely close to sports like basketball.

Personally, I have not served in any military body but appearant that reporter asking about "fairness" is more ignorant, on what war is all about, than I do.

Pardon me for it seems I am making this thread a little too political.

Griffin @ work.

[Guest Kettle Black]

Re War is run by the media in the US.

Learn from the Russkies. They used the media and "proved" that Chechnyan terrorists bombed civilian homes in Moscow. After "proving" their point in the media they said bug off and invaded Chechnya. The military got to run the war, all journalists where told that they would "probably be killed" if they tried to reach the battlezone. They didn't bother to say by whom. And the new minister of state is now safe and sound at Kreml, public opinion is behind him all the way. He won the war didn't he? And who really put those bombs out? Obviously some (now deceased) Chechnyan terrorist.

And that's how you run a war from start to finish.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Kettle Black, professional cynic.

[Kurtz]

The first Casauly of War is Truth.

There is always a reason for someone to claim something. Nobody would casually say "Oh, they killed a bunch of POW:s, not that I can prove it though" when you can show "evidence" of every atrocity your opponent has committed, including the murder of JFK.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by William Thiel:

But most importantly, Charles, can my tanks kill soldiers if I run them over in CM, or are just weapons implacements damaged? You can deal with my actions in my court martial after CMMC.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I asked this before, and at least then the answer was no. I guess it wasn't done that often.

[Guest Babra]

Squish 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Guest PeterNZ]

I would agree, that the buldozing isn't really comparable to using a tac-nuke in one respect, (lethality, effect etc etc), but to be the devil's advocate, if a law is broken a law is broken, and severity isn't really the issue.

*BIG NOTE HERE, i actually don't blame nor think the US soldiers did something bad at all, unless there is more information that we haven't got, but as far as i can tell the US army acted pretty damn good against an enemy that frequently didn't when given the opportunity, eg. agains the nth'n Kurds and southern minorities*

But to batter the point some more. Shooting a prisoner is 'illegal', nuking a city is theoretically 'illegal' too.. the severity is much greater in the second case (although maybe not much distinction if you're a victim hehe).. but to the courts, a crime has been commited either way, which deserves punishment.. so the cases could be considered 'similar' in that regard, that's what i meant by comparing different cases of potential breeches.

Anyway, either way those Iraqi's were toast, unless they surrendered they'd of been shelled/mortared/whatever anyway, so its kinda irrelevant, i agree, (unless, again, there were specific events around the situation that were breaches).

As for the convoy, if everyone was a soldier then not a problem, but there are two problems with bombing the convoy:

1) If there are civilians in there, then it's naughty naughty! And it seems there likely were.

2) A soldier that has thrown off his uniform and dropped his weapon and isn't under military command, (or a combination of the above, to a degree) is no longer a combatant (by the definition of the Geneva Conventions) and can't -really- be targeted as a legitimate enemy, (of course, this is all in theory! hehe). (NOTE: Some of you might point out that partisans or revolutionary fighters aren't in uniform as a rule, well the Geneva Conventions state that partisans are 'required' to wear some kind of insignia while fighting, or to accept that if they're carrying weapons, no matter what they are wearing, then they are combatants and therefore targets).

So back to the convoy, *phew*.. on two possible counts it could be 'bad' to bomb it, since in any combination of the above cases there's a pretty good chance you're not really attacking legitemate targets, whether or not it is usefull to do so.

Lets not start a 'well in real war this stuff goes out the window' .. or 'kill em cos they will come back otherwise' etc etc, because i'm kinda debating more on the legal-theory level than the practical level hehe.

But even so, it's worthy remembering that units often travel with Legal Dudes in them, (mate of mine is a legal guy with NZ Defence Force), and at their discrection i guess, they could advise their CO that certain actions might be considered "bad" and make the CO think twice about commiting or continuing an action.

I find this a quite interesting area of international law, since the Geneva Convention gets a bit fuzzy in some areas, such as in the area of Private Military Company (PMC) personnel, (I did a paper on the legal and political issues surrounding PMC's, anyone want it I'll email it to em, dynamo@pobox.com ) and the various rights and rules and regs that apply. (EG. if you're working for DynaCorp, Sandline or some consultancy firm overseas and you get captured, it could be argued by your captives that you are entitled to NONE of the rights engendered to a POW by the geneva convention and that a first class trial followed by a first class execution is what you deserve).

I'm rambling a bit

cos this interests me, and you all have to put up with it a bit hehe

Well to conclude.

A lot of people 'tease' international laws about war and so on, but i'd like to remind anyone who had a relative who has been POW'd during WW2 that their relative might owe their lives to those same silly rules and regs, (of course there are exceptions, esp. in nastier regimes, but MANY POW's did ok, like my mates Granddad). Also the rules try, although maybe fruitlessly in some peoples opinions, to limit some of the excesses of war.. and i think it's a noble thing to try to do, whether or not there's 100% success rate

to end, here's a link that's usefull, scroll down to "Law of Armed Conflict" for the stuff. http://heiwww.unige.ch/humanrts/instree/ainstls1.htm

In particular, check "Aditional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions I" and Articles 35, 36, 41, 43-47

I find them interesting reading, because it's actually a bit of an eye-opener how much of these rules and regs our various Armed Forces have included into their SOP, and bloody good on em i say! Also of note is that they are getting a little dated, and that it's not terribly difficult to come up with situations where the Geneva Conventions get a bit fuzzy, hence lots of desire to get the International Court of Justice going, (or is it ICC, i forget).

PeterNZ

*/babble mode=ooff*

ps. if you made it to the end, you deserve a pat on the back.

[This message has been edited by PeterNZ (edited 03-01-2000).]

[Guest PeterNZ]

good god, i'm turning into Fionn?! :>

*grins mischeviously*

PeterNZ

[Kurtz]

Killing civilians is "OK" as long as the bad effects from this is in proportion to the good effect of killing the military target nearby.

You know, the "collateral damage" stuff.

Besides, military presence can void the civilian´s protected status.

If there is a FO or a sniper in a church tower it´s OK to blast away at the church!

[Colin]

Just my .02 dollars. US did the right thing with the bulldozers. What if the Iraqi's in the trench had killed 10 or 20 or even 50 Americans? Would the reporter have said that was unfair? See the problem with the media in the US is: It's only concerned with the US. The Olympics in Atlanta were a major example of this.

Okay back to the bulldozing. If you're an Iraqi somewhere else and you hear about this you're not gonna wanna face these Americans are you? No, you don't wanna be buried alive. If you're an American you're fighting to be the first to buy these engineers a beer. They probably saved at least 15 American lives in the process. Hell maybe they even, perversly, saved some Iraqi lives by using an opposing tactic like bulldozing a trench.

I say go bulldozer guys. YA! Just wouldn't wanna be in the trench. War isn't fair.

So just my two cents on the issue. I've found this a very interesting thread so far. Let's not turn it into a discussion of poo or release dates. This is the first intelligent conversation on this board for months.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Fionn]

Couple of comments:

Shooting prisoners is illegal. I never advocated it.

Killing civies on purpose is illegal. I never advocated it.

What I DID advocate was the use of legal military might to achieve the mission objective in as "cheap" a manner as possible. I also was VERY clear that this would involve ONLY the deaths of combatants in the enemy army. It is also my understanding that the use of engineering vehicles against troops in fortifications IS LEGAL. It is only the media's search for a story that leads to any question mark being given rise to here.

Peter,

I do NOT appreciate you mentioning TacNukes and genocide and the shooting of POWs and intimating (albeit in a roundabout manner) that I would condone genocide. I think you might wish to state publicly that you know I wasn't advocating genocide etc.

I DO advocate the mass murder of the enemy's soldiers SO LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO RESIST. This means that once they surrender they shouldn't be shot but also means that so long as they have the gun in their hands it is ok to shoot them with an M16A2 or call in an Arclight mission on their specific trench or call in bulldozers or run them over with tanks or disintegrate their body in a hail of 30mm cannon from an A10.

So long as they resist then anything short of a TacNuke, chem or bio weaps or weapons systems SPECIFICALLY proscribed by the charters is ok.

As for the highway incident... Sure there were some civilian administrators of "Kuwait Province" in those convoys.. When the Germans retreated from France many senior officers brought their mistresses with them in the convoys. Didn't stop the Allies from bombing them...

If the convoy was predominantly civie then it might not be a good target but it sure looked like most of the people in those convoys were military and were obeying Saddam's orders to retreat into Iraq. Now, as far as I am concerned this means that unless I kill them now they will be available and willing to fight another day hence it is quite right to bomb them all to death so long as "reasonable" care is taken not to purposely target purely civilian sections of the convoy (I'll leave it up to each pilot to decide how sure he is that the particular section he is attacking is mostly military).

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I started this thread just asking about whether you could use vehicles in CM to run over infantry and it has degenerated into the politically-biased "rules of engagement" arguement. I was going to stay out of it, but I could'nt take it anymore.

I am with Fionn and a few others.

Basically, WAR is HELL! To win a war, you do everything in your power to inflict the most casualties on the enemy with the least amount of casualties of your own.

IIRC, in the Gulf War, the US-led coalition was out to cut-off and destroy the Iraqi army. So what if the poor dumb bastards in the trench weren't smart enough to vacate the premises! The main objective was to WIN, not play Vietnam all over again. WIN and QUICKLY WIN. The US lost something of about 100 soldiers and some change and they said that that was 100 or so too much.

The PROBLEM was that Pres. Bush "chickened-out" in the end when the allied forces were less than a hundred miles from Bagdad. That's why we are still DICKIN' with Saddam to this day. We should have finished the damn job!

Point is, wars need to be fought by the military and not by the politcians and media.

Besides, as for the media representative asking if burying the poor Iraqis was "Unfair". They never heard of the old universal proverb, "All's fair in Love and War."

And just try to argue about the dropping of the A-Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have probably never talked to a vet of the Battle of Okinawa. With estimated allied casualties of an invasion of the Japanese mainland over 1,000,000 and with every man, woman, and child taking up arms to defend Japan. Boy you talk about casualties! So what's a couple ten-thousands of dead compared to millions?

So please! You do whatever is necessary to stay alive and win a war. Just like my old Signature said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country, he won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

------------------

"Cry Woe...Destruction...Ruin and Decay. The worst is Death...and Death will have His day."--Gen. Chang

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 03-01-2000).]

[Username]

Just as a side note:

The M9 ACE is a miserable system. It is a armored/dozer/dump truck leaking POS. Its also loud slow and hard to see out of.

I'm glad someone found a good use for it.

Lewis

PS Theres a big empty cargo space behind the blade that you usually fill with dirt for ballast. You can lift the blade up and push this dirt out the front with a ram built behind the cargo area. If you fill this area with dead bodies AND dont lift the blade AND use the ram... a nice cruchy sound gets made...hmmmmm who could I put in there?

[G Ned Anderson]

I am in agreement with Fionn et al. War is war - its not pretty. I don't like stupid rules attached to something that, while it may or may not be stupid, is very serious.

Here are some other dumb "laws" of war we soldiers are supposed to abide by:

1. You cannot use any weapon larger that 7.62mm in diameter against personnel. Weapons such as 12.7mm, 14.5mm and 25mm guns are anti-materiel weapons. To get around this in the Army, should we ever use it, we just say "Oh, we weren't targeting the enemy soldier, we were aiming for his uniform (or rifle, or canteen, etc.)"

2. You cannot shoot an enemy soldier when assaulting a killzone - i.e. no double tapping. This makes sense at first till you've actually assaulted through a killzone - is that soldier in front of you already dead, wounded, or is he faking it to shoot me in the back? I'd rather shoot first if you know what I mean. The way you assault a killzone is that you basically spring an ambush and run through the general vicinity of the targets. Upon reaching 10-20 meters beyond the killzone, you form a 360 degree perimeter, THEN call out the POW/Search, aid/litter, and demo teams. You do NOT stop in the middle of the killzone to check each and every enemy body. That kind of defeats the whole idea of assaulting...

3. This isn't an actual law of warfare, but rather a new policy set fourth by the army. You cannot utilize smoke grenades (of any sort) without donning your protective (gas) mask.

Hope this isn't too off topic.

Greg

------------------

I love the f***ing Army

and the Army loves f***ing me

[G Ned Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZ:

re: the bombing of that convoy

I believe a large problem with the bombing of that retreating 'convoy' is that quite a significant proportion of it wasn't military at all and so quite a few civilians were getting zapped. Also, why bother killing a bunch of fleeing soldiers? It's not like they were a threat to anyone.

I'm trying to recall where i heard more about that Convoy, probably BBC, but can't be sure.

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no civillians were found to be in the convoy. There were Iraqi soldiers driving pillaged and looted Kuwaiti Mercedes Benz and Rolls Royces, but by and large the Iraqis were still using military vehicles. We bombed them not necessarily because they were retreating, but rather because they were retreating WITH their weapons. There is a semi-famous picture of the "Highway of Death" showing a Chinese made Type 59 MBT blown onto the highway divider. There were also many shots of charred bodies, etc. that made an unfavorable impression on the American public and bombing was halted. So, because of this, the Iraqis managed to pull out some 10,000 troops before the 24th Infantry Division cut off the Kuwait-Basra highway.

Greg

------------------

I love the f***ing Army

and the Army loves f***ing me

[Lorak]

You forgot that pointed shaped blades/weapons are not allowed. Only Flat blades can be used. So the wounds inflicted on your enemies will heal faster.

I'm sure there are many others. While I'm all for rules for warfare (POW'S,ect). Battle ground rules are insane.(when using conventional warfare). As for firing on retreating units... They are not POW's! they are retreating.The whole reason you retreat is to regroup so you can fight again.

Just my .02

Lorak

------------------

-------------------------

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. Without my rifle I am useless. Without me, my rifle is useless...

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[Guest R Cunningham]

GNA,

Much of that is the Army's interpretation of what some of the clauses in the Geneva Convention state. I was instructed that weapon .50cal and above could not be used in an anti-personnel role (but you could shoot at web gear etc as you mention). I have looked at the GC (it is on the web in many places) and nowhere does it have a rule like this. The US (perhaps other countries as well) have decided that .50cal bullets violate the clause about causing undue suffering.

The one about assaulting in a new one on me. Care to elaborate on what you've been told/trained?

Is this promask issue a local policy for your unit? I've never heard of that one. We'd be in sorry shape when the divisional chemical company rolls out to provide a screen.

[Guest Babra]

I have to wonder how the Marines/Army would have fared in the South Pacific without recourse to flame and dozers. I agree with what was said above: Rules of War are fine, but Rules of Engagement are stupid. Bury the bastards and forget 'em.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Major Tom]

Well, I'll add my bit.

From what I know of the event regarding the end of the attack on the Convoy was that it was too successful. The appearance of a BRUITAL coalition of Allied nations was not what they were after. The main point of the operation was the liberation of Kuwait, not the destrouction of Iraq as a military power.

Also, lets say, they did make it all the way to the Capital, destroying every military unit in sight, this would result in Iraq becoming a sub military power, instead of the centre of power in the Middle East. This would have thrown off the balance of power so much you could have been experiencing MULTIPLE aftershock wars. Iran might see this as their time to strike back, from the war in the 80's, other nations might try their bid to become the dominant power at the expense of others. Iran is still a more fearsome nation to the West than Iraq will ever be. There is a bigger picture that many military commanders do not, or chose not to see (Patton in 1945-46). The death's of minorities within Iraq is a compromise to the deaths and the instability that would have erupted after the total defeat of Iraq. Or, the US could station an army of occupation of a few hundred thousand for the next 50 years in order to keep the balance of power. But, then wouldn't this appear to be exactly what Iraq did to Kuwait?

Bulldozers? War is war, kill them before they can kill you. (note: I still do not condone the use of nuclear or biological warfare, it is an entirely different topic)

On the topic of Nukes. I say Nuke every Nuke on the Goddam planet! We have NO use for them. Same with biological weaponry. I don't see why military organizations would be so stupid as to think that they needed any more effective way in killing people than the Gun or the Bomb. Tell me why the US and USSR had to have tens of thousands of Nuclear weapons?! It was/is just plain idiocy! Creating such small and individual things that can do so much damage is just asking for trouble.

[Guest PeterNZ]

Few points to cover, but firstly, last I heard the US, (and Ireland) had signed the Geneva Conventions so saying these rules are silly is.. well silly, because everyone here has military forces that -actively- use them in their day to day operations.

KURTZ: Yeah, that's a really good point. If the bad guys strap civilians to their tanks and you inadvertantly kill them in destroying the tank, well then the bad guys have commited a war crime. The whole civilian/combatant bit is a bit fuzzy, but interesting!

COLIN: Yeah, i got no problem with the Bulldozering, seems people here who are more knowledgeable about the situation have said it was 'all ok' so to speak.

FIONN: Don't disagree the media influences the conduct of war, such is life! Has done since Adam. I know you wouldn't advocate genocide, i was being a touch provocative perhaps? .. I was trying to make some kinda point i expect.

In regards to the quote "I DO advocate the mass murder of the enemy's soldiers SO LONG AS THEY CONTINUE TO RESIST".. well, again the Geneva Conventions say that that is Naughty Naughty! In particular examine articles 35 and 36 of the Protocols Aditional (1) to the Geneva Conventions For those who can't be arsed, i'll copy-paste them...Article 35.-Basic rules

<u>

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

</u>

sure you can kill them Fionn, but not too much There's some details about what is essentially 'overkill' and that it is bad somewhere else in the Conventions, but i forget where.

And unfortunately the Geneva Conventions don't have to specify weapon systems that are banned, (although in many treaties/conventions they have been), because article 36 says ya have to determine whether its [a weapon systems] employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

As for the ww2 counterexample, sure, ****e Happens, but also it's worth pointing out that the Geneva Conventions weren't signed until 1947 and aren't retrospective, (the allies were WELL aware of certain issues that could have been raised had they been!)

Ol' BLOOD AND GUTS: Ya can't run people over in CM Can we carry on now, this is interesting

O I have a consipracy theory to re: end of the war, I reckon it's much easier for the west to havea nice enemy in the Middle East, means pointing the finger is easy and scaring the rest of the arab world into buying more of your guns and doing what you say is much easier. I mean if Husein was taken out what then? Hard to justify large armed presence etc. I really don't know how accurate my idea is, but it amuses me. Also, better the devil you know than the devil you don't eh! (just look at Latin America for examples of errors there *shudder*).

*Groan* A-bombing Nagasaki, expected that to come up -eventually-. Well personally, i don't have a problem with it. It was a war, they had a weapon, they used it, such is life. As for talking to vets? Yes i've done it. Have a grandma with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from being bombed nightly as a little girl, and come from a country which per-head of pop contributed massively to a war it didn't start or have much interest in. Lets all avoid pointless "my view is more authentic than yours"

G NED: Doesn't matter whether you like the rules or not, most countries in the world have signed 'em and believe in em. War is hell, sure, but it's hell with rules! Yes, it's strange, but perhaps that's appropriate with the insanity that is a good war. Those examples are interesting, i've heard of slightly similar with the NZ Army and weapon systems.

O, and thanks for the Info on the convoy. Given more information sounds like the actions taken by the coalition forces were appropriate. Bassically it's like i said, if information says that it pretty much was all soldiers withdrawing, I'm not going to argue it was wrong.

LORAK: I know that the Maori Battalion's night trench raids were eventually put a stop to by British command because they were seen to be a bit too viscious! In ww2 the Maori Battalion would shout out a Haka (war dance you see the All Black rugby team do) at night, strip down till nearly naked and raid trenches armed with shapped stone clubs, ('mere') shovels, etc etc.. killing lots and taking no prisoners.

BARBRA: Interesting point . Mostly i'm just examining and discusing the Rules of War, which have their place, i believe.

I think a lot of people here have come up with the idea i'm some kind of peacnik hippie, army-hating lefty goody-two-shoes revisionist bastard .. well, i'm not, I just find it an interesting field to look at. I'm not saying the rules are perfect, work or are even relevant or realistic, but they -do- exist and have been signed so we should consider them!

PeterNZ

ps. Great post Major Tom

[This message has been edited by PeterNZ (edited 03-02-2000).]

[G Ned Anderson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R Cunningham:

GNA,

Much of that is the Army's interpretation of what some of the clauses in the Geneva Convention state. I was instructed that weapon .50cal and above could not be used in an anti-personnel role (but you could shoot at web gear etc as you mention). I have looked at the GC (it is on the web in many places) and nowhere does it have a rule like this. The US (perhaps other countries as well) have decided that .50cal bullets violate the clause about causing undue suffering.

The one about assaulting in a new one on me. Care to elaborate on what you've been told/trained?

Is this promask issue a local policy for your unit? I've never heard of that one. We'd be in sorry shape when the divisional chemical company rolls out to provide a screen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Compassion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

If the convoy was predominantly civie then it might not be a good target but it sure looked like most of the people in those convoys were military and were obeying Saddam's orders to retreat into Iraq. Now, as far as I am concerned this means that unless I kill them now they will be available and willing to fight another day hence it is quite right to bomb them all to death so long as ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it happens, my mom taught kids of lots of chopper pilots (though not anymore, she moved to another school, and they closed the local Ariforce bases, both of which had healthy representation by Army Aviation). I had an opprotunity to talk to an Apache (or Cobra... can't remember... was like 8 years ago, now) pilot that put a Maverick in the side of a fleeing mercedes. He said that it was wholesale murder. There was som sense of... passion I guess when they cam on that line of vehicles, but they soon became apprehensive about killing all these passenger cars. There were orders to go back to the "highway of death" as some magazine called it several times. He said that most of the pilots involved that he talked to were sick of it in short order.

The best word that describes his feelings would be ambivilance.

FWIW