To shoot, or not to shoot? That is the question!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bunyon, Nov 19, 2005.

?

To shoot, or not to shoot? That is the question!

  1. I would not use the 50 cal and not violate the Genevia convention.

    33.3%
  2. I would use the 50 cal. violating the genevia convention.

    66.7%
  3. I would shoot or throw any thing I had to save my tail!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the Geneva Convention, soldiers are not allowed to use a 50 cal. Machine gun to shoot at personel. It is allowed to be used against vehicles and other equipment. If you were a private from Hoboken NJ and you were manning the 50 cal. machine gun in the turret of a Army truck in a 3 truck convoy and you suddenly came under attack would you use the 50 cal on personel. If your route was blocked and 100 screeming Iraqie Jihadist were coming at you weapons blazing and molitov cocktails in hand (a gas and bottle bomb), and they are getting ready to launch the rocket propelled grenade at you, would you duck back into the truck and get your M16 (which has a very small round and only 20-30 rounds of ammo per mag), or would you lock and load the 50 cal. (which has a very large bullet and a 200 plus ammo belt)and mowe the enemy down in violation of the genevia convention.
     
  2. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,434
    Likes Received:
    73
    I'd use the 50 cal and not feel bad about it.
     
  3. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bunyon
    I hate to disappoint you on this*, but it is not forbidden by the Geneva Convention to use .50-caliber ammunition on personel.


    *Well o.k. I don't.
     
  4. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is a question of the wording. Almost all military personel believe it. But technically the wording probably does not forbid it. It was interpreted that way when I was in the Army and the Army never said other wise. But you will find it has been interpreted this way by the masses, so I'd say it is open to debate. If I was the judge, i'd say the wording would not prevent one from using the 50 cal against personel. So I am already aware of the controversy, so you did not disappoint. But the point is, it does not matter how one interprets the conventin, you and every one else will do whatever it takes with whatever you have to survive an enemy attack.
     
  5. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show us . . .
     
  6. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read my previous post.
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    In other words, you started this thread with a deliberate lie.
     
  8. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terry, Is that what you think? NO, of course not. That is all I was told in the military active duty and reserve. And that is what is still believed. But I tried to look it up after this post, as an after thought. But I only found one site that really had much to say about it. They say it is a widly believed myth- even among military personel. So I deduced that there must be something in the way it is worded that is confusing, because even this site says that it is widley believed even among military personel. That is what we thought and we were never told any defferent, and since I was never in combat, I never had a need to check it out further. So as far as I know, this is the case, but the site I mentioned says otherwise. If it is a myth, it is a widley believed myth. I am not an expert on international law, but as widley as it is believed it is a defacto law even if the geneva con. is not clear on it. So I wonder, will my apology be forth comming now?

    [ November 19, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]
     
  9. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Terry-"You Republicans are just as adept at lying as are us Democrats"-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well never mind, Terry, about the apologee. Now I no why you would so easily accouse someone of lying.
     
  10. Priscilla Ann

    Priscilla Ann
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bunyon:

    War is serious and tragic. You make it sound like a game to be played. How sad....
     
  11. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is serious, and I served my contry here and abroad. Have you? The idea of a bunch of media or arm chair soldiers judging the actions of our soldiers from afar while in the comfort of ther own home is also a serious issue. It is why Vietnam was such a feasco. Weather or not the geneva convention ultimately forbids it is not the point of the pole. The point is how much do rules made by politicians, or assumptions made by arm chair soldiers really play into the actions of a soldier under attack. You really don't make any sense here PA. Yeah go ahead and judge someone who was on a quick reaction force for 4 yrs of making a game of it, but you can rest assured I did not.

    [ November 19, 2005, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]
     
  12. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did.
     
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show us . . . </font>[/QUOTE]Now show us . . .
     
  14. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry pal. I repeated what I was told in the Army and what all my fellow soldier belived. That is not what this is about. If you want to look it up you are welcome. I can give you a web site where it is said it was a widly held myth. It did always sound a little crazy to me, but alot of the geneva is crazy, you are even required to provide tobacco to prisoners. But that is what I was told in the Army. If it is a myth, it is a widly held myth. I told you what I was told in the Army, that is all. And besides my point is proven because every one had voted that they would use the 50 cal. regardless of how the 50 cal is viewed in light of the GC ban on cruel weapons.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,949
    Likes Received:
    299
    A scurrilous rumor started by John Kerry in 1971. ;)
     
  16. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that was one of his (Kerry) complaints that he was required to fire a 50 cal. at personel. Like I say, if it is a myth it is widly held. But the point is we would do what it took to survive. Even throw an incindeary grenade like White Phosporus.
     
  17. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeez, are you aware all of this is available online or do you intend on continuing the disinformation campaign?

    The only reference that gets close to this silliness is this:

    Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Geneva, 10 October 1980.

    Basing themselves' on the principle of international law that the right of the parties to an armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited, and on the principle that prohibits the employment in armed conflicts of weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering,

    'Also recalling' that it is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment,
    ....................

    None of which specifically mentions the 50 cal or any other weapon we have in our arsenal.

    In our GC classes (yeah these days we get trained on this instead of doing the second hand word of mouth idea that did not seem to work out all that well in the past), the general consensus of the above statements refer to WMDs.

    In today's military, we dont believe, we know. We have to be that way, lest we find ourselves on the working end of a CNN camera.

    The Geneva is not crazy. It specfically applies rules of war when it comes to civilians, injured, sick, and prisoner of war.

    For the record, deadly force is deadly force, no matter what caliber you use.
     
  18. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 50 cal should be employed against enemy personel if needed. Any injunction against it would be nonsense. That is the point exactly, Emaraldctyangel. And if A White Phosperous grenage is nearby and needed, it should be used also. Soldiers will use anything at their disposal to survive, and they should not be judged by homebodies.
     
  19. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Googleing this topic, I have found that the Geneva Convention does not prevent you from using a 50 caliber on personell.

    http://www.genevaconventions.org/

    There are a ton of rumors on where this came from and here is one I found:

    "The likely origin of the myth that the .50 Cal is illegal for use against personnel comes from the Vietnam war. There was not enough 50 cal ammo to go around at the rate it was being expended. Theater commanders began issuing directives that the 50 cal should only be used on vehicles and equipment, and not personnel as a way to save ammo. Smaller caliber rounds, which were in far greater supply, were to be the primary "man-killers." In addition, the .50BMG round will go through an awful lot of huts before it stops, so it makes operational sense to restrict troops to using it on important (and more solid) targets, as a way to reduce civilian casualties."


    So I couldn't answer the poll.

    Jamie
     
  20. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have used a 50 caliber machine gun against enemy soliders and found it to be very devasting to those whom the rounds struck. I've never heard of any prohibition against its use on enemy combatants whether mounted or dismounted.
     

Share This Page

Loading...