Rules? War has "rules"??

[CDSmith]

People are talking about this issue of war having rules. One side says that it seems ironic that when people are bombing each other and shooting and killing that there should be any talk of "fairness" and rules etc. They say that it is kind of funny that the US administration is "crying" about the underhanded dirty tactics of the Iraqi military regime.

Others point out that it isn't about "crying foul", it is about making it clear that extra punishment will be meted out to those who treat POW's with undue harshness, in hopes that the other side actually decides to keep the POW's alive and reasonably healthy. It is about basic human decency. Rape, for example, is frowned upon even during wartime. Just because people are at war does not mean that all bets are off as far as basic laws, so the world agreed that the precepts put forth at the Geneva convention would be adhered to by ALL nations, including Iraq.


Oh yeah,
Someone on another board mentioned something about RP&P rules, and my question is for anyone "in-the-know" about US miltaryspeak, like theKing etc. What is "RP&P"?

[JFK]

Rules of war........ I think that went out with the Charge of the Light Brigade. Both sides cry foul when it suits them

[bogo]

Originally posted by JFK
Both sides cry foul when it suits them

excactly

[blazi]

sadly, POW's rarely get treated well from what I've read over the years... unless the other country wants something major in return for them...

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by JFK
Rules of war........ I think that went out with the Charge of the Light Brigade. Both sides cry foul when it suits them

I think it more than "suits" the coalition to cry foul when they see footage of POW's being shot in the fucking forhead.

I think it "suits" anyone to cry foul when children and babies are used as cover and human shields.

(does anyone think the Iraqi soldiers would give a shit if they were invading another country and that country used it's children as shields?)

[andi_germany]

One might cry 'foul' when a country tries to invade another with way superior weapons. There is no other way for those people to fight but breaking rules. They simply state that the guy who got prisoner had no business to be there in the first place. Do you really expect those people to feed the prisoners when the US and the UN made sure they have nothing to eat themselves? I seriously doubt that.

Don't get me wrong here. I think that treating war prisoners in a good way is the right thing but I think it is the US that claims war prisoners as terrorists and hold them in a foreign country without any way to defend themselves. I think it is the US that does not honor the international Court and even Bush said that he would get any American out by force if one ever get in front of that court that is exactly there for punishing war crimes. I think crying foul is ok but it has a very bad taste when it comes from the US.

[G Sharp]

"Badges??!! We don't need no steenkeeng badges! We're FEDERALES!"

[fiveyes]

Originally posted by CDSmith
...Oh yeah,
Someone on another board mentioned something about RP&P rules, and my question is for anyone "in-the-know" about US miltaryspeak, like theKing etc. What is "RP&P"?

Rules of Practice and Procedure.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by fiveyes
Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Which means what exactly?

[CDSmith]

TheKing..... where are you?


I want answers...... I want the TRUTH!


I CAN SO HANDLE THE TRUTH!!

[Kohun]

The war don't have any rules and have never been

Mark

[theking]

It is not a common military acronym and in my venacular it would be SOP (Standard Operating Procedure). It has been awhile since I have read the entirety of the Geneva Convention articles but if I recall correctly (and I may not) I think it has a section of Rules of Practice and Procedures. Bottom line, I am not sure, and I do not feel like doing a search.

[CDSmith]

Okay, have a look at this thread: http://www.tunafishbitch.com/forum/s...&threadid=1495

hopefully it might spark an answer. Otherwise I'll have to hold jimmyF at gunpoint til he cracks.

[theking]

Originally posted by CDSmith
Okay, have a look at this thread: http://www.tunafishbitch.com/forum/s...&threadid=1495

hopefully it might spark an answer. Otherwise I'll have to hold jimmyF at gunpoint til he cracks.

Well...I am not sure of how JimmyF was referrencing RP&P but it sounds to me that he is referrencing it in a sardonic way. IE there are official rules (RP&P) but then there are the unofficial rules that are actually practiced, until the practice is brought to light. In Vietnam for example there were zones designated as "Free Fire Zones" and it was SOP to kill virtually every living thing encountered in these zones "free of charge". If I recall correctly Mylai was in a "free fire zone" but was brought to light.

I think you may have to crack JimmyF about his referrence to RP&P.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by theking
I think you may have to crack JimmyF about his referrence to RP&P.

*getting out the aluminum bat*

[Mutt]

of course it seems ridiculous that there are rules to war, like saying there are certain ways to kill people that make it ok.

I'm as pro this war as anybody but I am not going to slag the Iraqi regime for fighting 'dirty' - the U.S. is so militarily superior weapons and training wise it's a complete mismatch. So you can't expect Hussein to fight on equal terms, he'd have no option other than to surrender the first day. That would be nice but it's not how the world works, especially when you're talking about a madman and his private army of thugs and terrorists. Their war they've made no secret will go on forever. It's one of the major reasons this war is being fought, only the fucking stupid ostriches believe this problem was going away or there was any other solution.

But there still have to be some rules, even when you're taking into account a barbarian like Hussein. Civilians, especially children, should never be used. That isn't guerilla warfare by anybody's definition.

War is madness even under the most gallant honorable rules of engagement - dealing with these lunatics it is reduced to complete insanity.

That's why the Coalition has to be allowed to fight the war to win it as quickly as possible, and fight it under the enemy's rules.
And they are I trust, there is alot going on nobody knows about, CIA and Special Forces hunting Hussein and his top guys down ready to kill them with their bare hands if need be.

There is still a chance he's already dead - lotta talk now about this bodyguard who has only ever been seen right beside Hussein is now showing up beside one of Hussein's generals. A sign he is no longer needed by Hussein?

[playa]

Well if Iraqi and Arab news stop crying when their civilians are being killed then you won't hear the US bitching bout playing fair.

You wanna fight with civilian clothes,, wear US uniforms and kill your own. Don't make it a huge issue when your civilians die

[CDSmith]

There was a point made on CNN yesterday about rules of war, unfairness etc. Someone compared the suicide bombings to that of the Kamikaze air attacks during WWII, and asked if those Japanese pilots were also then considered to be "terrorists" violating the *rules of war*.

The answer was no.


When put in that context, the Kamikaze pilots were not considered "terrorists", so neither should the suicide bombers be considered so.


The only difference I can see is that the Kamikaze's were not faking a surrender..... everyone there knew exactly what what was happening.

[rooster]

people should know when they are defeated.


Desperate people that refuse to accept the inevitable leads to things like the use of kamikazees.

[Gutterboy]

Some of you need to open a fucking history book.

When one side is either outgunned or has no desire to fight because of the potential casualties, guerilla tactics and terror have to be used.

The US used those tactics when they bombed Hiroshima

The English used them when they bombed Dresden

The Germans.. Japanese.. French.. Israelis.. all have done it.

Did you expect to invade a country with a vastly superior force and not encounter these sorts of tactics? Did you think they were going to march out onto the battlefield and get slaughtered in a fair, square, by the "rules" fight? Fools.

[CDSmith]

Further to "faking a surrender"...... this is likely the reason that the US generals are decrying the suicide bomber's tactics. Why? Because it puts a horrific slant on the whole concept of people being allowed to surrender safely.

Case in point:

In war, some people/soldiers will choose to or want to surrender. Great, they do so when they come in close enough proximity to "the enemy"..... the coalition forces.

BUT...

Then some suicide bomber fakes a surrender, the soldiers approach in good faith to accept their surrender, and they get blown up.

What happens to all those that wish to surrender peacefully after that??? I'll tell you what happens....... surrendering just got a whole lot harder and more hostile. The coalition soldiers will now shoot anyone who approaches them without first stopping at a safe distance and following instructions to the letter. If some more innocent civilians get killed for not following the procedures, Iraq will then use that as propaganda against the U.S. (of course).

So it is their fault because of the suicide bombings, but it becomes "our" fault for taking stricter precautions. THAT is why it's not *fair* according to the "rules of war".

[theking]

Originally posted by CDSmith
Further to "faking a surrender"...... this is likely the reason that the US generals are decrying the suicide bomber's tactics. Why? Because it puts a horrific slant on the whole concept of people being allowed to surrender safely.

Case in point:

In war, some people/soldiers will choose to or want to surrender. Great, they do so when they come in close enough proximity to "the enemy"..... the coalition forces.

BUT...

Then some suicide bomber fakes a surrender, the soldiers approach in good faith to accept their surrender, and they get blown up.

What happens to all those that wish to surrender peacefully after that??? I'll tell you what happens....... surrendering just got a whole lot harder and more hostile. The coalition soldiers will now shoot anyone who approaches them without first stopping at a safe distance and following instructions to the letter. If some more innocent civilians get killed for not following the procedures, Iraq will then use that as propaganda against the U.S. (of course).

So it is their fault because of the suicide bombings, but it becomes "our" fault for taking stricter precautions. THAT is why it's not *fair* according to the "rules of war".

The Japanese soldiers were not really into surrendering but because of dirty tactics (faking a surrender) used by some Japanese soldiers early in the war there after our forces would not accept a surrender unless they came out naked bearing a flag of surrender.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by theking
The Japanese soldiers were not really into surrendering but because of dirty tactics (faking a surrender) used by some Japanese soldiers early in the war there after our forces would not accept a surrender unless they came out naked bearing a flag of surrender.

That's what I'm thinking is going to be required of the Iraqis before long..... coming out, hands up, stopping 50 yards away and stripping down, turning around a few times, then the soldiers move in and take them into custody.

One false move and it's machine-gun city.

[Gutterboy]

Saddam uderstands that this is a public relations battle as much as anything else. He doesn't have to win, he just has to make it long and bloody enough that international & domestic pressure rises and forces Bush into a position of having to commit political suicide to continue the war.

Whether he can put up still enough resistance to do that remains to be seen, but the reports of supply shortages, low morale, and 'pauses' have already begun to spread.

Somewhere in a bunker, Saddam is laughing. I think this war is going pretty well for him so far.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by Gutterboy
Somewhere in a bunker, Saddam is laughing.

That's because his bodyguards are tickling him.

[Rochard]

It does sound odd that there are "rules" when it comes to war.

These come from the aftermath of WWII. Civilians died by the hundreds of thousands (if not millions), and most of Europe was destroyed. POW's were treated poorly; Then of thousands died after they were captured. Most of Europe was destroyed; Entire cities leveled to the ground.

Even in US people in jails have rights, which is ironic - They are put in jail to have their "rights taken away from them" but there will always be some certain rights that you just cannot take away.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by RocHard
It does sound odd that there are "rules" when it comes to war.

....but there will always be some certain rights that you just cannot take away.

Yes.

Their side uses shit like metal cots connected to car batteries to deliver basic human rights to POW's, while "our" side gives POW's food, water and a place to sleep.


Interesting how their propaganda campaigns have even a leg to stand on.

[FlyingIguana]

i can understand the 'rules' for POW's and not dressing military as civilians. but things like suicide bombers aren't breaking rules unless they're killing civilians.

most of the rules are suppose to try and minimize civilian casualties.

[berg.the.red]

Originally posted by Gutterboy
Some of you need to open a fucking history book.

When one side is either outgunned or has no desire to fight because of the potential casualties, guerilla tactics and terror have to be used.

The US used those tactics when they bombed Hiroshima.

gee ... now that you've admitted to opening that history book, you should have read the part that is WAS because of the potential casualties on BOTH sides that the U.S. dropped nucs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. they knew the Japanese would fight possibly to the last man if we invaded. it was to avoid more loss of life that your so deemed "guerilla tactics and terror " were used.

... and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor would be considered what in your opinion ? ...

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by CDSmith
Yes.

Their side uses shit like metal cots connected to car batteries to deliver basic human rights to POW's, while "our" side gives POW's food, water and a place to sleep.

Could a metal cot hooked up to a car battery really hurt? I got shocked by a new car battery last week, and while it was definitely unpleasant, it was nothing that would make me 'talk.'

Sounds like US propoganda to me.

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by berg.the.red

gee ... now that you've admitted to opening that history book, you should have read the part that is WAS because of the potential casualties on BOTH sides that the U.S. dropped nucs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. they knew the Japanese would fight possibly to the last man if we invaded. it was to avoid more loss of life that your so deemed "guerilla tactics and terror " were used.

... and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor would be considered what in your opinion ? ...

Killing 150,000 civillians with a nuclear bomb is terrorism, plain and simple. If we had fought, the casualties would have been high, but we would have fought with and against military men.

The "we must kill them to save them" logic only makes you look like an equivocating fool.

The Japanese bombing of Peal Harbor was a surprise attack by their military on a legitimate military target. The sort of attack you'd have been cheering for had we done it to them.

[CDSmith]

Hiroshima & Nagasaki....... one was bombed in order to end the war. The Japanese however would not agree to surrender even after that city was leveled, so the other city was also leveled. Only then did they surrender.

War over. Period.


Call it what you want, call down the USA, argue like an infant at bedtime, whatever drives your gears.... peace with Japan was achieved.

[CDSmith]

Originally posted by Gutterboy
Could a metal cot hooked up to a car battery really hurt?

Depends on the size of the batter I suppose. One with a higher cranking power could definitely cause some serious discomfort.



Gutterboy... I find you very anti american. Where are you from again?

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by CDSmith
Hiroshima & Nagasaki....... one was bombed in order to end the war. The Japanese however would not agree to surrender even after that city was leveled, so the other city was also leveled. Only then did they surrender.

War over. Period.


Call it what you want, call down the USA, argue like an infant at bedtime, whatever drives your gears.... peace with Japan was achieved.

I have no problem with terrorism as a military tactic. I just find it funny that people like yourself, who support using it against others, start crying like babies when those tactics are used against them.

"Waaaaaaaaaaahhhh!! Look at the cot with the batteryyyyy!!"



I'm sure there are those who think the US could be beaten into submission via nuclear terrorism, but I'm sure you won't be complaining what that happens either.

[theking]

Originally posted by CDSmith
Hiroshima & Nagasaki....... one was bombed in order to end the war. The Japanese however would not agree to surrender even after that city was leveled, so the other city was also leveled. Only then did they surrender.

War over. Period.


Call it what you want, call down the USA, argue like an infant at bedtime, whatever drives your gears.... peace with Japan was achieved.

...and at fewer lives lost (Japanese lives as well including those Japanese not in uniform), I might add.

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by theking


...and at fewer lives lost (Japanese lives as well including those Japanese not in uniform), I might add.

This seems to be a persistent fantasy.

Neither Gen. MacArthur or Einsenhower thought there was any military justification for dropping two atomic bombs on a civilian population.

[theking]

Originally posted by Gutterboy


This seems to be a persistent fantasy.

Neither Gen. MacArthur or Einsenhower thought there was any military justification for dropping two atomic bombs on a civilian population.

If you will study the history of war, as I have, you will learn that through out the history of war, civilians have been targets. It is the civilians that make the very uniforms that the military wears, it is the civilians that produce the weapons of war that are used by the military, it is the civilians that produce the fuel and food, it is civilians that replace those that have fallen on the field of battle.

[theking]

Originally posted by Gutterboy


This seems to be a persistent fantasy.

Neither Gen. MacArthur or Einsenhower thought there was any military justification for dropping two atomic bombs on a civilian population.

By the way, I do not recall offhand, that the two Generals voiced opposition to the use of the A Bomb. Re-educate me please?

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by theking


If you will study the history of war, as I have, you will learn that through out the history of war, civilians have been targets. It is the civilians that make the very uniforms that the military wears, it is the civilians that produce the weapons of war that are used by the military, it is the civilians that produce the fuel and food, it is civilians that replace those that have fallen on the field of battle.

As I've indicated elsewhere, I'm aware of this. What shocks me to no end is when people who support these tactics against others get angry.. shocked.. horrified even.. when someone gets it into their heads to do the same to them.

Its like denying some basic law of physics. If you do shit, shit will happen to you. Maybe belief in cause and effect has become anti-american.. lol.

As for the Macarthur thing, gimme a few to look it up. If I remember correctly he was not even consulted on the decision to bomb.. which is rather telling.

[berg.the.red]

Originally posted by Gutterboy

The "we must kill them to save them" logic only makes you look like an equivocating fool.

The Japanese bombing of Peal Harbor was a surprise attack by their military on a legitimate military target. The sort of attack you'd have been cheering for had we done it to them.

at no time did i even suggest we should have killed them to save them. as for legitimate - humm ... surprise attack without war being declared - by your definition that sounds like terrorism. cheering - i don't think so. sorry to share this with you, but war isn't a fucking video game. people die. mostly not in very pretty ways. when you turn the game off those people don't come back to life.

remember - your hero over in iraq had 12 years of chances to avoid this. IIRC - he even "agreed" to do those things. in front of the world even ( the U.N. ).

fool ?? if you say so ... just remember it's "fools" like me who spent time in the U.S. military that help keep your ability to run down the U.S. alive. try that in iraq ...