Rules of engagement

[Mandrake]

Past or present.Do you think there is a justified cause, in shooting at a enemy pilot coming down in a parachute, over his homeland?

[simon]

No, and this is infact a complete breach of the Geneva Convention. Whilst Paratroopers are fair game even when dangling from their parachutes, deliberately attacking aircrew bailing out of an aircraft under any circumstances and over any location would technically make the attacker, whether an AA gunner on the ground or fighter pilot in the sky, a war criminal.

P.S. as a side note, using the argument, as the Germans did that a nation had not signed up to the Geneva Convention and therefore their citizens were not protected by it is a very morally questionable stance to take, and as was discovered is unlikely to be a successful defence in a court.

[Mandrake]

Totally agree.But im sure there are plenty of stories, where a pilot has gone on to claim many more kills.Makes you think.

[Corsarius]

Conventions aside,

I remember being at the opening of the HMAS Armidale memorial as a naval cadet. We listened in awe and horror of the stories of the Japanese aircraft, once they had dispatched the ship, swooping back again and again to machine-gun survivors in the water. During this time, O/D Teddy Sheehan, his legs shot up and unable to swim, strapped himself into his oerlikins and downed a zero. He was still firing as she slipped below the waves.

When questioned about the validity of the Japanese strafing the survivors, the old sailors were unhappy, but not in the way we imagined. They shifted a little uncomfortably, and said 'well, you have to understand, it was war. A lot of that sort of thing went on on both sides, you know'.

I suppose as much as we would LIKE to keep war civil, I think that at the end of the day the idea is to destroy and demoralise the opposition. Passions run high, and at the end of the day, a gallant and worthy foe hanging in his parachute harness is just another foe who will fight once more if given half the chance. I don't agree with it, but I can see that it may be best to dispatch him now, than let him fight later.

[GregP]

The Geneva convention was authored by politicians. It has a lot of good clauses in it. However, when fighting an enemy, I say the object is to kill him as long as he has not surrendered. Why is it OK to kill him in war when he is armed, but not when he is bailing out, possibly over his home airfield? He was fighting until he left the plane ... stupid clause authored by stupid politicians.

Kill an enemy pilot when you can, on the ground, in the air in a plane, or in the air in a chute. Hell, even in a bar drinking beer.

The object is to win the war without committing attrocities. I would NEVER shoot an enemy pilot bailing out over OUR lines ... but over HIS lines? He'll fly again, possibly against YOU, and will no doubt kill soldiers on your side if not stopped now.

As far as I'm concerned, an enemy is NOT a prisoner untli he surrenders and is in custody. When THAT happens, he gets Geneva convention treatment. Until the surrender, he is fair game. If that makes me a potential war criminal, so be it. I will make my case that I treat all PRISONERS fairly and with compassion. Until they are prisoners, I'll kill 'em.

There are circumstance that would make me kill a prisoner, but I am unlikely to run into them. If an enemy killed a friend of mine when he tried to surrender and I saw it, I'd not be too kind to the guy if I caught him or her. Would YOU? If so, stay the hell out of the Army and my foxhole.

Women have no special place in war with me. If they're civilians, OK, no problem. If they're combatants, then they'll get the same as a man when it comes time to dish it out. The only special treatment I would offer is no sexual assault if captured.

Other than that, live with war if you're fighting it or stay home. Better yetm elect better politicans (or become one yourself) so you can AVOID war. War only happens when the politicans FAIL.

[simon]

Whilst I agree with you in some ways, I think the whole point of the Geneva Convention is to prevent people being killed whilst they are defenceless. There have to be rules and guidelines with regard to conduct during war otherwise you end up with the horrific sorts of situations happening as occured during the Japanese expansion, and perpetrated by the Germans in the occupied East.

Two points I would like to bring out of your argument, one tongue in cheek, but with regard to women you comment, "The only special treatment I would offer is no sexual assault if captured.", so I guess you wouldn't extend the same courtesy to men then? :)

But also, you say, "Kill an enemy pilot when you can, on the ground, in the air in a plane, or in the air in a chute. Hell, even in a bar drinking beer." and "I would NEVER shoot an enemy pilot bailing out over OUR lines ... but over HIS lines? He'll fly again, possibly against YOU, and will no doubt kill soldiers on your side if not stopped now."

The problem I have with this is that a large number of people would take this to the extreme that, well, why not kill the enemy pilot before he's even trained, that way he'll never be a threat to you in the first place, in fact what better place to kill him than before he's even started training like when he's still at school, in fact bombing all the schools could wipe out the next generation of enemy soldiers altogether, before they even get to the battlefield...

You have to have rules, even in war, otherwise you end up with barbarism and sadism of horrific degrees.

[GregP]

I agree with some of your points, but war is war. When you are fighting a war, there is only one object ... make the enemy stop fighting and sue for peace. The entire object once a war starts is to prosecute the war until it is over.

A defensless enemy must either surrender or face death if I'm fighting in the war. Surredner is just that, throw down your arms and surrender. There are no terms, stop fighting or die.

If they try to send me out under some stupid "rules of engaement," I'd decline. I also wouldn't fight in a "police action" ever. If it's worth fighting and dieing for, it's worth declaing war or let the damned congeressmen go fight it.

All that is, of course, out the window if someone attacks ME. Then, ROE be damned, I'm fighting back and I'm shooting to kill.

I would not shoot someone who surrenders or tries to surrender, but everyone else best watch out. Some pilot who just tried to kill me, but who is now hanging in a chute over his own lines best watch out. If that's not allowable, then I decline to fight for the damned authorities. When they get wiped out, I'll still be here to fight.

Up until war starts, however, peace to everyone. Once it hits the fan and is declared as a war, I'm ready.

And I'm NOT alone in feeling this way. There's an entire Vietnam generation who feels much the same way ... didn't want to go and feel betrayed by the very commanders who asked us to do it.

We could have won easily if only Washington had WANTED to win. Instead, they sacrificed a lot of us for nothing but numbers on a chart. I feel Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the biggest criminals in the history of our country for the way he allowed the conflict in Vietnam to be run.

I WOULD NOT do it again ... we fight to win or don't fight at all. And screw the politicians ... they're the ones who get us INTO war in the first place. They should be the first people drafted.

[GregP]

What? No commentary? At least call me an old windbag or something ...

I can always call you a Johnson-liker (no, Lyndon Johnson ... not the other kind ...) ...

[Corsarius]

I think it's just that your argument is so forceful, that there would be no way of convincing you there is another way.

Oh, and you're an old Johnson-liker. :D

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

What? No commentary? At least call me an old windbag or something ...

I can always call you a Johnson-liker (no, Lyndon Johnson ... not the other kind ...) ...



Newbie, but I agree with you. I would also add, how is a pilot different from a tank crewmember or a truck driver? Are they protected once they leave their vehicle? Not that I know of, so......