Geneva Conventions

[sureshot]

I've heard it's against the conventions to fire at soldiers as they're parachuting to the ground...is this true?

[Leatherneck]

Who cares? None of the people we're likely to be fighting give a damn what it says in the Geneva Conventions (except when the regime's designated mouthpiece makes speeches at the UN).

For my part, if I were in a trench and some North Korean commandos were parachuting down onto my pos, I'd sure shoot 'em if I thought I could do it and avoid a courts martial - if it was Osama Bin Laden I'd even take the courts martial.

This is why I think the Gen Con is ridiculous, especially as it relates to civilians. It's made even more absurd b/c the people we fight against just laugh it off, and our own troops are left fighting a war of half-measures so that we "fight with sensibilities." War is hell. If it comes, just get on with it and get it over. Maximum violence - period.

[sureshot]

Couldn't agree with you more

[Sniper]

My personel rules to combat.

Rule# 1 Survival, I will do what ever is nesessary for my Ranger buddies then me to survive in that order.

Rule# 2 see rule #1

so if I see some Airborne commandos being dropped ontop of me you bet your sweet ass I am killing as many in the air as I can to ensure my Ranger buddies and myself survive.

Court martial my ass afterwards I could careless.

[Leatherneck]

I'd sure shoot 'em if I thought I could do it and avoid a courts martial

Well, shit, if Snipers taking a CM I will too. I didn't know I'd have someone to play spades with.

[Bell]

Ya can't shoot the paratroopers or the pilots. But I can shoot their equipment. Canteens, rucks, ammo pouches, wings, rudder. Fuck em. I'm gonna shoot. Kinda stupid to let the man get on the ground so he can shoot at you. I believe in living.

RLTW
Bell

[Saltbitch]

BDU''s are equipment, aren't they? I know FOR SURE that a parachute harness is...

As far as a CM goes, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke....

[Harris]

Did you guys ever here about the m82's .50 being against Geneva con?, or how some people thought it should be (when fired against fleshy targets) wonderd if any of you had heard this.,

My Wannabebe oppinion - On the field, I'd rather save my buddy and "suffer" a CM, then have to live through it only to burry him because I followed some pastyfaced paperpusher idea about how war should be conducted among honorable men.

[Bell]

I don't know if the story is true or not. Hell, they may still be telling it in AIT.

Story is that the board? officials? who ever does that stuff heard that the United States was using the 50 Caliber Machine Gun as a sniper rifle. They were mounting a scope, loading one round and shooting troops at over 3000 meters. They were not only shooting individuals but if the men were in line they were taking out 3 or 4 at a time. The officials with the Geneva Convention called the United States in for a meeting and explained that the weapon was being used for something other than it was designed for. The United States had offered the weapon to be used on equipment, light vehicles and aircraft. The complaint was that it was being used on soldiers also which would be a violation of the convention rules.

The United States representative never hesitated and said that he understood the Conventions presentation of the facts and would make sure that the United States would use the weapon for what it was designed for. They wouldn't use the weapon against troops again. Only equipment, light vehicles, and aircraft. Such as: LCE's, canteens, weapons, rucksacks, vehicles and airplanes. Got up and left. They never changed the way they were using the 50.

For those of you that don't know, and I'm no expert, the Geneva Convention was drawn up and signed by several countries many years ago. Several countries didn't sign it. Since that time several of the countries have changed governments and no longer recognize the authority of the Geneva Convention. Therefore, most of the countries we go up against aren't governed by the Geneva Rules.

The Geneva Convention allows or disallows certain weapons to be used by the countries that have signed and agree to follow the rules. Each country, before it introduces it into it's inventory, must present it to the Geneva Convention and have it voted on. They tell that country whether they can or cannot use that weapon. It keeps war fair, to an extent.

RLTW
Bell

[Bell]

And Harris - Forget about your wannabe opinion. The Army will teach you the proper way to think. Your squad leader and team leader will teach you a better way to think. Your opinion now means nothing. It comes out of books and overheard stories. Once you become a soldier you'll find you think differently. Once you become a warrior you'll think differently again.

One you think. One you know.

RLTW
Bell

[Saltbitch]

Terrorists are not defined as 'enemy combatants' and therefore do not fall subject to certain aspects of the GC. These include, but are not limited to, the use of special purpose ammunition, i.e. hollow point/frangible rounds instead of NATO ball ammunition. Sniper rounds can be modified as to bullet weight and composition.
US policy after 9-11 further opened up 'options' for dealing with the bad guys of the world. Tier 1 personalities are now subject to assassination; be it by Hellfire missile or a sniper's rifle. The ROE are still controlled, but the law has expanded to offer a more reasonable level of threat elimination.

As far as the Barrett .50 goes, it is deemed a sniper rifle. I also know, without going into detail, that it has been employed as such. No UCMJ action was taken; awards were given.

[Spartan]

What about Trucks? Are using motor vehicles as a weapon against the Geneva Convention? I had to do that in a foreign country in uniform once, against a pair of civilian-attired combatants. Got the blood going pretty good, but never heard any CM talk about it. Didn't get any awards for it either and it sure doesn't make me a hero.

[Harris]

Thanks for the Clarification Rangers Bell and SaltBitch, much apreciated.
Will keep this wannabe's brain farts to self.

- @ shooting .50 towards "canteens" and "packs"

[Fleak]

From what I heard it is against Geneva to fire at people in parachute, BUT you can fire at their equiptment, so in otherwords as the above stated, just aim for thier canteens, ruck, or what not.

[Blacksrt4]

Well while we are on the topic I asked my history teacher who is prior service and he said its ok to shoot at people in a parachute as long as they are not using the parachute to get out of a hit airplane/helicopter to get out and servive