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

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.

 

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.

 

Read my previous post.

 

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 ]

 

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.

 

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 ]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.