Iraq and Afghanistan War

[HeyYou]

@ HeyYou:

 

I can instantly name two examples: Gitmo, and the Raufoss Mk. 211.

 

Erm, I was agreeing with you...... as in, No One follows the conventions to the letter. :D

[dazzerfong]

Oh, sorry, I thought you said 'not one that I'm aware of'........apologies. Thing is, with the conventions, there's not even any word play, it's just straight-up ignoring conventions. Edited April 11, 2012 by dazzerfong

[Aurielius]

@Dazzerfong

The use of Raufaus 211 munitions is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions the only applicable international treaty is the St Petersburg declaration of 1868,that Declaration does not govern the conduct of non-signator parties. Further, the Hague treaties of 1899 and 1907 – which superseded the St. Petersburg Declaration, and were signed by a far wider circle of nations – do permit the use of such ammunition for auto-cannons and heavy machine guns. Machine guns firing .50 cal/12.7mm ammunition are heavy machine guns. Example dismissed.

 

A lengthy report was done by a top Navy official, Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, in response to Obama's Jan. 22,2009 executive order to close the U.S. military detention facility in Cuba within a year."The bottom line is that the report found that Guantanamo is in compliance with the Geneva conventions, which we have maintained for several years. So the report essentially validated our procedures and processes,"The report's primary conclusions supported the Department of Defense's long-standing contention that Guantanamo was in compliance with the global convention, including Article 3, which requires the humane treatment of prisoners taken in unconventional armed conflicts, such as the war on terrorism. Illegal combatants are not protected by the Geneva Conventions as supported by the Supreme Court decision of 2006, which has yet to be contested by a Hague Court ruling. So in conclusion I dispute your contentions as opinion rather than fact.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Aurielius

[dazzerfong]

Heavy machine guns != cannons. Cannons fire in calibers in excess of 20mm. Even then, people use the Raufoss on M107's (or 82A1's/82A3's), which is (unless you're crazy, or desperate to be correct), an anti-materiel rifle. By the way, nice try trying to squirm your way out of this one:t the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, to which America has signed.

 

I'll grab an excerpt: the principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is con­tained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Re­specting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the em­ployment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous in­jury." In some law of war treatises, the term "un­necessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Pro­tocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12,1949, states in part that "It is prohib­ited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations.

 

The legality of Gitmo is not really to do with its existence, but actually in its dubious activities. But I guess it's one side or the other, so that one's disputed, as you said.

 

Look, I'm not arguing that America's wrong, I'm saying EVERYONE's wrong. America never signed the St. Petersburg Declaration, so they could get away with it slightly: the UK has though.

 

That was a low blow, by the way, Aurelius, disputing my contentions as opinions rather than fact.

 

Before I leave, interesting article. Aurelius, you are naturally going to hate it :).

Edited April 11, 2012 by dazzerfong

[HeyYou]

All depends on whose definition of 'superfluous injury' you subscribe to. With such a broad term, that should also include things like tracers, hand grenades, land mines, anti-personell mines, and a host of other ordinance that is used on a daily basis by our military. And sure, so maybe they only shoot the multi-purpose ammo at vehicles, if you think there aren't people IN those vehicles at the time, that take damage from whatever penetrates their armor...... you are deluding yourself. The slugs travel approx 30 cm before detonation..... I don't know of many vehicles that have armor that thick...... aside from some that float.

 

And what about depleted uranium? Shouldn't low level radiation ALSO be considered 'superfluous injury'? Of course, those are technically only fired at vehicles as well..... but, I haven't seen any A-10 pilots radioing the folks that they are about to unload on, to abandon their vehicle before they fire........

 

A lot of the 'agreements', 'treaties' etc, that are put into place by POLITICIANS, aren't really worth the paper they are printed on. It's patently obvious that the terrorists don't abide by ANY conventions. Suicide attacks against civilian targets has got to be covered in there somewhere....... But, its war. Bad things happen in war. Whether there is a treaty that says it shouldn't or not.

[dazzerfong]

If you believe the DU rounds are dangerously radioactive, please. Do you know how little DU there is in one tank round? You get more eating Brazil nuts or Lima beans regularly. Your statement on the penetration is very flawed: isn't that the same as being shot? And 30cm with what armor? And A-10'w with DU? Dear Lord, they changed to tungsten rounds for a while!

 

And now you're arguing with me on a term that was part of the agreement I was discussing, yet you're almost attacking me for it. What?

 

But I agree with your last statement: treaties are made by politicians, of which most do not have combat experience, or military experience even. Suicide attacks have been around for a long time, yet people didn't do anything about it. Why? Don't ask me............

Edited April 12, 2012 by dazzerfong

[HeyYou]

If you believe the DU rounds are dangerously radioactive, please. Do you know how little DU there is in one tank round? You get more eating Brazil nuts or Lima beans regularly. Your statement on the penetration is very flawed: isn't that the same as being shot? And 30cm with what armor? And A-10'w with DU? Dear Lord, they changed to tungsten rounds for a while!

 

And now you're arguing with me on a term that was part of the agreement I was discussing, yet you're almost attacking me for it. What?

 

But I agree with your last statement: treaties are made by politicians, of which most do not have combat experience, or military experience even. Suicide attacks have been around for a long time, yet people didn't do anything about it. Why? Don't ask me............

 

The Iraqis are complaining about the DU rounds lying about. No, they aren't 'dangerously' radioactive, but, given the stink some folks have put up about them, you would think that they glowed in the dark.......

 

A-10's aren't the only aircraft that used/use the DU rounds. They are still in use today.

 

In any event, we are wandering WAY off topic here. :D

[dazzerfong]

Last off-topic, I swear!

 

Wait, I thought the A-10 swapped to tungsten rounds after the found out they were more effective? The only thing I can think of that uses DU are SLAP rounds, and that's about it.

[HeyYou]

Last off-topic, I swear!

 

Wait, I thought the A-10 swapped to tungsten rounds after the found out they were more effective? The only thing I can think of that uses DU are SLAP rounds, and that's about it.

 

Most any ground attack aircraft used the DU rounds at one point or another....... I haven't really kept up on it, so, what they are using today could be either, or both..... Tungsten is awfully light.... whereas DU is rather dense, and heavy...... No idea which has better armor penetration. Would love the opportunity to test it though. :D

[Aurielius]

<snip>

That was a low blow, by the way, Aurelius, disputing my contentions as opinions rather than fact.

@Dazzerfong

Sigh...If you carefully read my first paragraph you will see that the munitions in question are legal under the terms of the Hague Treaty of which the US is a signatory. So in terms of the legality of there use, saying that it is against the Laws of Conduct of Warfare is an opinion not a fact. That you feel it was a personal slight is unfortunate but a perceptual error of your read of what I wrote. The actual mistake that I think you are making is that you think that there are good and bad ways of killing people, that is a fallacy. There are only two modalities of dying in combat....Quick and Slow, and most anyone who has been in that possible nexus will pick Quick regardless of the delivery method. There is no such animal as a politically correct way of killing someone (that is a civilian fantasy). The very act itself negates the concept of acceptable versus unacceptable. The kindest war is the shortest war, conducted with sharp violent overwhelming force in order to end it with the least amount of deaths of your personnel.

 

Though I tend to think you won't believe me, I favor peace and negotiation over war because it is very easy to move from the diplomat's table to the field of conflict but the return journey is far more problematic in practice. I simply recognize that sometimes it (war) becomes the only pragmatic option left to further what a leadership of a nation deems vital. That call fortunately is above my pay grade. I have always confined myself to the application of policy (with the tools provided) once that Rubicon is crossed and left moral justification to those that ordered it.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Aurielius