Question about rules of engagement...

N

NedreckSavant

New member
Ok, after an engagement there is a wounded iraqi writhing on the ground several dozen metres out. Are our boys supposed to render assitance to the wounded/dying soldier (or enemy combatant if you've got that stick up...) or put a few more rounds into him to finish him off? I understand the danger behind that 'dying wish' grenade or other potential hazards I was just curious what they're 'supposed' to do. Is it a war crime to shoot someone who's obviously incapacitated? Is it just being humane? What about if you/your buddies cheered afterward? Should it matter?


Now that you've had a second to mull that over watch the incident that made me ask...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Was it in the art of war that stated that one should not rejoice in the blood of your enemy, but regret the blood spilled of anyone? Or was it just some longhaired hippie somewhere?
 
Last edited:
Well, the link didn't work, but based on your description I would say leave him alone. Don't "finish him off" but don't approach him and try to treat him - he is the enemy, he is not dead and is therefore still a danger to you.

It makes no sense to walk up to him and get yourself or your brothers in arms killed/maimed trying to treat an enemy soldier who was trying to kill you to begin with.

He chose to fight and getting shot is the result of his choice. Let his comrades take care of their own wounded. We owe the enemy nothing, just like the enemy owes us nothing.

After all, this is a war...
 
Link is fixed. I understand that any code of justice doesn't mean much once the lead starts flying, it's just that this left me with a bad feeling about the state of our country, soldiers, and leaders. This war was never over wmd's, regime change, or saddam's compliance with anyone-This was over having a US presence in that part of the world. Why do you suppose there has been no mention of plans for withdrawal? Heard about the new bases we've been building over there? I just feel that to continue calling this charade 'nation-building' or 'justified' is wrong. This was going to happen well before 9/11, that merely provided the smokescreen needed to get their job done.

That iraqi was killed so that we may continue to occupy foreign lands that we shouldn't be in...unless in a decade those bases in iraq prove invaluable. (In which case a couple thousand american lives will probably be looked upon as a bargain)

PS: What madness war brings, to do that to people. That soldier (slightly, barely) reminds me of the insane officer from apocolypse now, the 'napalm in the morning' guy. Just as an example of war destroying someone's humanity. Sure, they can still function, it's just that...something's not right in their head. Not their fault, simply victim of circumstance.


PPS: Btw, I am in no way trying to disrespect anyone, I understand that the iraqi was most likely about to ambush those marines and cause them great bodily harm, without ever considering the though of rendering aid. It's just that we're 'supposed' to be BETTER than them, NOT drop to their level, and ABIDE by the rules even/especially when our enemies aren't...
 
The Geneva Convention

The Geneva convention requires that a combatant must render medical care to an enemy as soon as it is practical to do so once that enemy ceases engaging in combat against you. Of course the exigencies of war come into play. One should not run right up to an injured combatant and render aid because of the enemie's "last ditch" grenade or sidearm. However, the military and police have developed tactics for handling this scenerio without unnecessarily getting into harm's way.

Doubletapping a wounded enemy is not cool unless he is still fignting.
 
We treat every raghea..., er um, islamic insugent as a potential human bomb. then we diffuse said bomb w/ an M67 fragmentation grenade. just to be sure.
Isalutethelakers.
 
Rules of engagement

Didn't follow the rules in 64 & 65 (thank God),,, but to the point that andersencs made about double tapping,, wasn't that one of the kills that John Kerry "allegedly" made when he supposedly capped an injured VC that was running away?? That's what I seem to recall..
 
Instead of blaming America, again. Try to see the good in our troops and their sacrifice.

I see you have two, lets beat on America threads open today. Is air America on hate trip again?

What is your point to these bash America threads, do you hate America that much? I would be happy to purchase a one way ticket for you to Iran, you would be much happier their.
Better yet, put down the drugs and shut of cnn.
 
A soldier that is mobile enough to flee is not incapacitated. Stupid example. I suppose it would be better if the guy went to an enemy aid station, got fixed up and then went and shot some more Americans. Irrational Kerry bashing is as worthwhile as irrational Bush-worship.

The posed situation is one of when the enemy is clearly unable to engage in combat.

I would err on the side of our soldiers if the situation was doubtful.
 
Why do you confuse the distaste for our leaders as hating america?? I try to see as much good as I can but If I may quote my buddy vinny, already back in iraq: "I joined hoping to do some good, to accomplish something. We're not doing anything except sticking our necks out and making things worse."

Should I berate him for not seeing the good? Why are you so against the idea holding someone responsible?? Who said anything about hating america other than you?? Is it not possible to love our country, to support it's soldiers, yet despise the dangerous path we've been led down? Stop equating the wish for change with hating america. Seriously. My point was to perhaps inspire others to also wish for change by showing them a clip and asking a question. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone wants to dismiss it, fine, but don't confuse what I feel with hatred for our country.
 
What was the subject?

I got confused because of all the anti-American Bush bashing. I think you overloaded your question!
 
Geneva convention

We are signatories to that document, and the Hague agreements, which codify proper treatment of combatants, and former combatants (prisoners, wounded, etc). These treaties have the force of law, among those nations that signed them. They do not legally apply to anyone else.

Warfare between Europeans (and those of European descent) has, for centuries, followed a general set of rules. From the days of chivalry, European notions of "honor" has governed the conduct of warfare.

Horrifying brutality and other abuses of the European "honor system" have occurred throughout history, many times, in many places, by individuals, and governments, but generally, these are considered "(war) crimes" and are punished, where possible.

Warfare outside of European custom has always followed a different set of rules. Bassically these rules are "win". Anything and everything you do to those who lose is of no consequence.

The United States got an education in this regard fighting Japan in WWII. The Japanese warrior code (bushido) was in some ways similar, and in other ways radically different from the European values that the US generally operated under.

After incidents during the Guadalcanal campaign, involving Japanese "surrender" and a number of dead and wounded Marines, the US Marines became very suspicious of "surrendering" Japanese. Not many Japanese surrendered to the Marines during the Pacific war, and those who did were treated with great caution, until we were sure they were harmless.

Today, the situation has some similarities with the past, and some important differences. Once again, our soldiers are fighting an enemy who is not a party to the recognised (European) rules of war. Once again, our soldiers are expected (by the public and most especially the Press) to follow the rules of war, and to be a humane as possible.

Our enemy does not hold to these concepts. Their code of honor is concerned with no one but themselves (unlike ours). Nothing they do to their enemy (us) is, in their eyes, dishonorable or dishonest. In fact, some of the most dishonorable and dishonest things, in our eyes, have great stature amongst our enemies.

We claim (rightly) the moral high ground, and our military faces a difficult choice. We should not behave like our enemy. At the same time, we should not expose our troops to additional harm, just to demonstrate our moral superiority.

Everyone has an opinion, but I would place the most weight on the opinion of those on the sharp end.
 
What is your point to these bash America threads, do you hate America that much? I would be happy to purchase a one way ticket for you to Iran, you would be much happier their.
Better yet, put down the drugs and shut of cnn.
Click to expand...

Really intelligent. I've NEVER heard a drunk hillbilly say "if ya don't like America ya can get-out!" before...
 
You wanna hear a sober hillbilly say "if you don't like America get out"? Well here goes: If you don't like America feel free to leave anytime. But that's what I say to everyone.
 
Nedrecksavant----------may we ask who you would like to see as our """leader""" since you appear not to like those now in power ?? Please give us some names...
 
From Bleeding Hearts to Atilla the Hun thoughts

General Geo. S. Patton said, in a similiar way, "We're not over here to die for our Country, we're here to kill the other SOBS"! War is to kill the enemy and destroy property, not mollycoddle a herd of uncivilized moslem misfits who hate the United States, we citizens, our declining way of life, our Judeo-Christian religion and of course they hate athiests also as athiests are not moslems.

What would I do? By myself, shoot the woulded SOB in the head so he could go see his imaginary 72 virgins in his imaginary paradise. In the company of other Marines and possibly a newsman........be very wary of bleeding hearts on my side of the battle.
 
Nedrecksavant,

My question to you is: How did you feel about Clinton's failure to support our troops in Somalia with the appropriate equipment? If you ranted and stewed just as much and just as vociferously as you rant and stew at Bush, if you demanded that Clinton be held accountable for such incompetence, you're at least consistent in your professed concern for the troops. If you didn't, you're being hypocritical.

I guess I have another question too: Would you rather have armed, trained Americans face terrorist Muslims over there, or have unarmed American women and children face terrorist Muslims over here?

Never mind. My guess is that you don't believe that losing 3000 Americans to terrorist Muslims on 9/11 necessarily means that it will happen here anymore. Or, alternatively, that the fact that terrorist Muslims from all over the world are converging on Iraq and Afghanistan to try to kill American infidels doesn't mean that there's fewer numbers of them to strike here again. In any case, both are illogical arguments.
 
My guess is that you don't believe that losing 3000 Americans to terrorist Muslims on 9/11 necessarily means that it will happen here anymore.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

The war in Iraq has exactly NOTHING to do with 9/11, as has been long established. Saddam and his government weren't involved, the Iraqi army and people were not involved. There is no connection.

That said, is it worth killing another >2,000 American (not to mention the other involved countries) soldiers on top of the 3,000 civvies, in a conflict which, again, had nothing to do with the original attack?

Show me one tiny little shred of an iota of evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Just one.
 
Coinneach

I can't figure out why you quoted what you quoted from me. That's a very simple statement. I believe the opposite of that statement, that the fact that 9/11 happened once indicates that terrorist Muslims could strike us again. But many leftists apparently don't think so.

But I'll address the body of your comments. I think Bush was careful to never say that Hussein was tied to 9/11; only that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda. IIRC, the reasoning behind the war was Iraqi WMDs. Most likely both of your senators and your congressman authorized Bush to go to war based on the evidence he presented and the case he made.

Hussein had WMDs. He used them on his own people and on the Iranians, so we KNOW this. We also know that he was continuing to pursue other WMDs, including nukes, at least lots of people with Republican and Democrat after their names said so publicly and repeatedly. I can provide statement after statement after statement to that effect made by Democrats if desired.

But to go further, does the name al Zarqawi ring a bell?

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635161335,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123067,00.html

Let's see. He's a member of al Qaeda who got wounded by our troops in Afghanistan, and he traveled to Iraq for treatment. He was there BEFORE our war with Iraq began, and he somehow, magically, was able to create and equip a large number of terrorist cells almost instantly?

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. That kind of resistance and organization takes lots of time and resources. How is that not a pretty good indication that al Qaeda had terrorist cells in place in Iraq before we attacked? Ironically, he could have even had the cells in place to overthrow secularist Hussein when the time was right, but it seems clear to me that cells were there.

But that's not all. Lest we forget, the Czechs reported that Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague in April 2001, and that was only determined to be incorrect in 2004.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...er_a_name_czechs_find_error_in_tracking_atta/

Hindsight truly is 20/20. Insisting that all intelligence be perfect is like insisting that all women be 36-24-36 and beautiful. It would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. Intel has warts, usually, and it all comes down to the reliability of the source.
 
The Geneva convention requires that a combatant must render medical care to an enemy as soon as it is practical to do so once that enemy ceases engaging in combat against you. ...
Click to expand...

Would two Tylenol taped to a grenade count?... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top