I Simply Don't Get It

AlexLarsen · 01-12-2005, 08:29

Why the hell does the United States follow the Geneva Convention and all that crap about hollow points? First of all, we didn't even sign the damn thing. Second, why shouldn't our soldiers be allowed the most effective method of killing the enemy?

Hell, come to that, I don't even understand that part of the Geneva Convention. Is there something wrong with killing your enemies quickly and efficiently? Are those European liberal idiots so queesy that they can't stand the thought of big internal wounds that nobody but doctors will ever see?

newservicecolt · 01-16-2005, 18:44

Actually it is the Hague Convention.

We pretty much follow it because we want our folks treated right if we ever go against another signitory.
We wouldn't ratify because that would theoretically restrict us from using some weapons that all of the bad guy don't have yet like nukes and gas.

Sam

MP1SG · 01-29-2005, 20:49

Not enough time and space here to go into all of the reasons. Basically, we are Americans and that is what we do.

jay.shebuski · 02-02-2005, 20:06

..no biggy..we make up for it w/shot placement.

..or close air support.

Gotta keep your sense of humor Alex..

Jay

WIG19 · 02-03-2005, 13:48

Quote:

Originally posted by jay.shebuski
....or close air support.

Gotta keep your sense of humor Alex..

Jay

;z
I used to say the only thing good about the Air Force were their chow halls. In 1970 those boys saved my butt on the ground & displayed good shot placement besides. Love 'em forever. I don't care if the enemy wants a fair fight; I'll bring napalm if I can. But, hey, my beloved zoomies still have good chow.
;f

GreenBeret1631 · 02-03-2005, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by AlexLarsen
Why the hell does the United States follow the Geneva Convention and all that crap about hollow points? First of all, we didn't even sign the damn thing. Second, why shouldn't our soldiers be allowed the most effective method of killing the enemy?

Hell, come to that, I don't even understand that part of the Geneva Convention. Is there something wrong with killing your enemies quickly and efficiently? Are those European liberal idiots so queesy that they can't stand the thought of big internal wounds that nobody but doctors will ever see?

I agree! The Germans and the Japanese both used wooden bullets on our troops in WW II, not mention the execution (beheading) of some of our airmen, POW Treatment in general, ( Bataan death march). The currant enemy, is not even covered by any agreement! They are Terrorists!

As I recall it's against that convention to use .50 cal. on ground troops too...that must be the most violated one in the book.

16vmkII · 02-03-2005, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GreenBeret1631

As I recall it's against that convention to use .50 cal. on ground troops too...that must be the most violated one in the book.

Close but not all-together accurate. It is against the Geneva Convention to use .50cal. ammunition against troops. However it isn't against the Geneva Convention to use .50cal. ammo against equipment; ie helmets (on a soldier), rifles (in the hand of a soldier), ruck sacks(on the back of a soldier), etc...you get the picture

**RussP** · 02-03-2005, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by WIG19
;z
I used to say the only thing good about the Air Force were their chow halls. In 1970 those boys saved my butt on the ground & displayed good shot placement besides. Love 'em forever. I don't care if the enemy wants a fair fight; I'll bring napalm if I can. But, hey, my beloved zoomies still have good chow.
;f

When and where in 1970? Were Sandy's involved? Were they out of Thailand?;f

jay.shebuski · 02-04-2005, 05:58

...just for a little historic value, it is OK for our troops to utilize the .50 against enemy soldiers/insurgents.

The restriction, that you quote, was a legacy of the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. Some commanders (ie not to imply that all did this), in an attempt to "conserve" .50 cal ammunition, restricted its use to firing @ equipment only.

..this general order began to grow and became interpreted by the Soldiers..who became the NCOs..as an actual part of the "Rules of War". I also was told this "story" by an NCO around 1986..who was an Americal Division Vietnam veteran.

..but in truth, it is incorrect..and for the most part, has been clarified for our Soldiers who are now fighting around the world.

Good shooting,

Jay