“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” – from Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America
do you find any similar article about killing iraqi kids ??
Ex Tank, I don’t think that you and I have any disagreement about your priorities. I have said that the mission is the first duty and duty to comrades comes second. As far as I could tell the rules, at least the rules I taught to trainees and commanders, were pretty common sense–that compliance with the Conventions required US troops to treat prisoners as we expected to be handled in like circumstances and that every departure from that general rule would come back and bite us in the butt sooner or later. To the extent you have to capture an enemy to render him harmless you do so. Then you make the prisoner someone else’s problem as quickly as you can by turning him over to the provost martial. That’s pretty simple stuff. Not abstract concepts of legal philosophy by any measure.
To follow the thread however, if your mission is to go a particular place and do a particular thing and taking prisoners interferes with that, the answer is that you don’t take prisoners. This doesn’t mean that you routinely murder anyone you run across. In situations like the armored strikes in the Gulf Campaign you just ignore offers of surrender and keep rolling. It is just like by-passing strong points. The existence of follow-on units is not a “god of the machine” conjured from thin air. There are follow-on units some of which exist for the sole purpose of cleaning up the stuff the pointed end of the spear missed. Let the follow-up units do their job. If taking prisoners interferes with your job and you can do it with safety you don’t take prisoners.
Ah, my fault SG. I was agreeing with your previous post 100%. My “adage” wasn’t directed at you, but offered up as a bit of military conventional wisdom for others who hadn’t caught on yet.
TalkAboutIslam: In spite of some commentary from current and former soldiers of various militaries concerning “exigencies of war,” I do not recall seeing anything in this thread either endorsing or condoning the murder of civillians by ground forces in time of war (the civillian casualties produced by, and therefore the morality of strategic “carpet” bombing is certainly questionable in my mind, and open to debate).
Your comment was unwarranted, and a slap-in-the-face insult to professional soldiers in general (of which I do not number Saddam Hussein’s thug force), and the U.S. Armed Forces in particular.
Your sig and link ask people to be “open minded.” I suggest that you take your own advice.
ExTank, show me where did I slap anybody ???
I think I am the one who is being slapped in the face…
Thousands of iraqi soldiers were burried alive in the tranches… Remember…
three . . . two . . . one . . .
sorry, what does this mean ?
It means go back and review Rule #1 for the board.
can you help me with a direct link please ??
Here is the Registration Agreement and Guidelines for Posting at the SDMB. It’s a good idea to review them thoroughly and perhaps to lurk a bit longer before posting.
Rule #1 is “don’t be a jerk.”
OK Chula… I will review those … and lurk around…
tell me, is there any rule there that you read about being candid towards new users and polite when correcting them ?
TalkAboutIslam, I heard these rumors at the time myself, but thought about it logistically. To accomplish this would require many, and I do mean many, earthmovers running up to exposed Iraqi defensive trenches. There WERE earth movers in the area, they made the breaches in the berms, but that was not under fire. To run them over trenchlines is tactically ridiculous. Tanks can and do have bulldozer attachments, but again, it would take a LOT of them to do this. If it did happen, I personally do not believe it was thousands of soldiers. If those Iraqi soldiers were firing at the Allied forces, and their most expeditious means of stopping that fire was to roll over them, well, they DO say War is Hell.
I would, however, recommend you post a GQ thread with this question, as there are folks who may know details I do not, or have links that may or may not support this question.
Oh, and there is a typo in your sig link to the website. I just went there to see what it is about.
thank you my brother…
it is NOT a typo … I copy-pasted my sig from a text file I have where I put all the signatures i use on forums…
It is nothing but some stab in the back that some not very courageous modo has tried …
someone has edited that in my profile… and on purpose broke the link…
Thank you uncle bill .
thank you so much
TAI, complaints about the mods belong in the Pit and definitely not in your sig. But considering you registered yesterday, you should probably just do what the mods say and be quiet until you figure out the rules. You should refrain from posting on this thread unless you have something to contribute to the topic at hand.
The topic of the thread has been covered as well as it can be in this forum. I’ll close this thread and invite interested posters to continue the debate in the appropriate forum.