The point being, you need to look at the circumstances of each. Very broadly speaking, you have two basic situations. (1) Your country is in the process of being invaded, (2) your country is invaded and occupied. Yes? Then you have the situation where you are carrying your fight into another country. It's not straight forward - cabbages and vegetables.

No.9

Thanks to the sanctions - who are there for almost 12 years - a lot of children have died, but also no new equipment for the army could be bought.

off course letting people die is a bad thing, but it's partly the fault of Sadam and partly the fault of the sanctions.

I expect an apology, because such a remark - about the hero - hurts me deeply. If I try to give an oppinion which doestn't aggree with the American policy, then I am the bad guy. This reminds me of a phrase Bush one said: "If you're not with us, you're against us."

Let me repeat this again and again. Istn't very logically that you fight against an invader. I think it is just the normal thing to do.

__________________

Ill go with that, especially not being straight forward.

Gets even more clouded when we bring into this, fighters from other arab nations, who are more likely than the Iraqis to go off on a suicide bombing mission in what is basically as you point out, not a country of their own origin, may think its their fight but not their country.

These I would observe as being terrorists in the definition most seem to recognise.

I would find it difficult to equate there actions as anything other than terrorism, whether a war be taking place or not. Difficult situation for most to fathom.

I still state that to defend your own nation, people can be capable of nearly anything...Although I get your point, I dont hear of none party Iraqis in Basra area queuing up to do the same.

Except release chem/bio at this stage which we have been indoctrinated to expect constantly and loudly.

The difference between the present invasion and say an invasion of the UK in ww2 which I refer to at times, is a big one, not all the people in Iraq see their own regime as being something they want to live under or defend, why should they. Most would be glad to see him go.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

Erwin, Carl, you two need seconds for your pistols at dawn thing....?

Erwin, Im not wishing to speak for anyone but myself, but what I see you two having is a language problem

Carl does not think anyone who has an opposite view to his own is an enemy of any sort in my own view. He accepts there is an alternative opinion on handling things, but like anyone he will and is entitled to push his own.

Erwin, does not hero worship Sadman or his regime, he has stated enough times that the guy is a baddy.

Beglian English may come across to Carl as stern at times. I think he has just misunderstood you Erwin...Dont think it helped bringing up the Micheal More thread, lots of posts going on in which if I was an American I could construe as an attack, most from Brits have a high dollop of sarcasm and humour injected and easier to ignore as the usual Brit thing..

Your one of the only Belgians here, and an unkown quantity...My two pence worth cos unlike Carl I dont deal in silly money.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

I know sf do their own thing but they gotta have some visible uniform when in action?

Clouds the waters even further.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...lian%20Clothes

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

Think this covers most things we are talking of?


Geneva Conventions
Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

They do have to have some 'uniform' but they do tend to stretch it it would appear. For example if you look at the few pics of SAS troopers in Iraq they are all in uniform, one pic saw had a certain newspaper claiming the trooper was 'dressed like an arab', he did look a little like an Iraqi soldier or irregular but that is only because his desert cammo and webbing had faded and was partially covered by a shemag. What I am saying is that they do wear 'uniform' as such, but how far is it recognisable? How do you define uniform? I have seen photographs of Iraqi soldiers wearing a rag tag of military clothing and civvy kit, so how far is that uniform (they dont look 'the same' as everyone else, often have little insignia)?

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Carl, I already said this.

I'm very gratefull that the Americans, British and their allies freed us from the Nazi's in
WW2.

I hope that no American, British or Iraqi soldier/civilian dies.

__________________

Yankee go home....Belgians got us into ww1 too..

Err...Ill shut up...

One thing though...No one should ever forget the role of the Belgian resistance and especially the Allied aircrew lifeline that many Belgians payed the ultimate price in protecting and rescuing our aircrews.

Chocolates are nice too..

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

Carl, are we going round in circles again? I would like to respond to Bill but I won't because I can't be bothered to get into the debate and because it could be percieved as a lack of respect. Does this really need to carry on? I don't think anyone on this board supports Sadam, at most some of us think the USA and UK are wrong in the action they are taking. Bill, no it wasnt a waste, in fact if anything surley the reason he died was so that now people like me and Erwin could disagree with others freely and not fear for our lives?

Anyhow, sorry but this bickering is annoying, dangerous and disrespectful, please stop. Debate is one thing but paranoid chest thumping and appearing to support the enemy is just stupid and that is where this is going to lead unless we stop now.

Urgh, would the Iraqis not in uniform come under the
section? If the land they lived on was not occupied when they began to fight surley they would qualify. The other thing is, by the looks of it a lot of Kurdish vehicles are unmarked as are many Iraqi vehicles (the ones used in these attacks for instance), that would make the Kurds terrorists logically, no?

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Steffan yes Id agree roughly with your interperation...I say roughly because on further reading of the whole document its a bit like the bible...theres something somewhere that will nullify what it says in other areas..A confusing document...Written by lawyers I would think.

Needs updating for the 21st century..Since it seems certain parts are open to debate and quite simply the shouldnt be in my view.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

I think the only illegal stuff they have found are Scuds, the 'chemical weapons' turned out to be inert substance. I agree with what you are saying about people not trusting the USA, though i think it is more to do with the 'worlds police force' argument, lets not get into that now. As for the support your leaders thing, I disagree there, I won't support my leaders in a war I believe to be wrong, doesn't mean I don't support the troops fighting it or that I don't occaisionally wish i could make a contribution, but I will not support the ar itself. It is too late to stop now though yes, I think Churchill summed it up when talking about Suez, something like 'it was damned stupid to go in, but it would have been more damned stupid to come out again'.

Urgh, the UN really should do something about re-writing some of those documents, I got confused just reading through that bit. I think the major problem is however that it needs to be translatable into so many different languages, therefore it can not be like laws of single nations which are very specific (with references to other laws, latin and jargon throughout) hense chunks are always going to be up for debate. What we really need is a version in every major language that is an agreed translation of the original, any disputes can be brought back to the original (which really should be in latin, it sounds so much better). None of it should be debatable and if they are there should be a single document which has one interpretation that people can go back to check if there is a problem with their translation.

I should so blatantly rule the world, everything would work so much better....

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

To be honest Stefan, I am now of the conclusion that the document is worthless. Should be thrown away and ignored.

I dont want to say that, its not my view that there should not be rules in conflict, it stood the test of time and helped many over the years, but failed also to help others.

We live in a different age now, people rather than armies or nations, and long term causes rather than one off battles or wars..

The moral argument that certain nations and people have the hight ground and should abide by the regulations of warfare seem to be gone now.

We not matter what anyone says break the convention as much as others. Some fighters such as we see in international terrorism at present dont even know the thing was written. They pracatice their theory of warfare to their own rules, which are no rules.

We of the moral highground can choose which ones we want to break when we need to. We can make more up as we go along.

Perhaps its time to forget this rules of warfare, and just see war for what it is..death and destuction, to the winner the spoils. And no moaning about how the other fella fights.

There is no longer an equal playing field for some to fight, thats not saying its unfair and as Carl would say its not his fault the likes of Iraq is not up to it military wise as is the States. But that said, it has to be accepted that if that is the case the enemy will fight any way he/she can and what rules...Fight by the rules and you will lose...No one can be stupid enough to wheel out a tank brigade against the western nations these days..just to see it decimated in long lines for the benefit of the enemy...Likewise the western nations have to accept that the battle field has changed..I do think our military guys have...its just us civilians in the west that havent and will cry foul when we see the enemy fighting in the only way they can..What choice do they have..Although in the short term purely for phys ops our military will gladly accept and help whip up the foul story..timeout...It helps..But they know the score..and the way the game now has to be played...America has shown us, maybe not shock and awe in the sense that we may have been expecting..but they aint done bad...own casualty rate is amazing compared to previous wars....A good job too..Yes many more on opposing side...But thats war I suppose to the winner the spoils.

It may be one of the last battles we see where 3rd armoured division and 7th armoured brigade get to do what they do here, maybe Iran or Syria or even Korea, but I think our leaders both political and military know future wars will be of the Afghan example rather than the Iraq example..Intelligence services, short sharp shocks, cruise yes...challanger no..101st and sf yes...3rd div no...

The age of the suicide bomber is with us, prepare for more, I dont think of any great scale presently in Iraq...but other engagements yes...Maybe Iraq in future years..It isnt over in my view..this is a long haul now between the west and the Arabic nations..

Didnt want it but its here to stay now.

The Geneva convention against a whole people over the coming years? Rip it up...It is and is going to be just a piece of paper.

We constantly say this is not a war on Islam...I too believe that...Islam though thinks otherwise..I really do believe we have a new war of the crusades without the major battles of old maybe but plenty of bombs and stuff...Hope our Intelligence services are up to it.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

Just seen this minute live on sky news a US GI engineers support coy engaged in building a combat bridge across a waterway..Marines everywhere in background..This guy not gung ho, no were here to kill or free crap..he was getting interviewed because the young girly reporter from Sky news had just heared him say war is hell..

He said it is..hed seen a humvee and its two ocupanats killed just up the road...She commented to him that on route up from Kuwait she had spoken to two US guys who said they were proud they might have to die for freedom...This guy though a bit older..Didnt comment just stated wants to do his job and go home..Asked to comment on the Iraqi people...he said all friendly up front..waves and get waved back..but has feeling when they turn back they aint so friendly..

I only comment on this as I think this guy showed us the ultimate proffesionalism of the GI, its the GI I recognise from stories and relations back in ww2. Not the gung ho GI we sometimes come across...but then we have that sort in Brit forces too.

America can be proud of guys like him.

Soldiers dont always get a choice where they go, they go and do. This guy impressed me lots.

__________________
Prepare to repel borders.
William L. McGonagle, MOH, U. S. Navy, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY 1967.

I have to say I agree with all of that, I think we are entering an era where the odds are so stacked up against our enemies that they have no choice but to fight dirty, but then again we dont always obey the rules either. So we don't use land mines, even as a cadet I had a regular army sgt telling us how when the real army carry out ambushes they set up 'nastys' that is booby traps, converted trip flares and the like, all intended to do just the same job as land mines. I find it very hard to believe that no prisoners have been shot in this conflict, it must happen all to easily in the heat of the moment. The convention does need re-writing but frankly we can not expect people to follow it, why should they? We no longer have a moral high horse and they have nothing to loose.

Professionalism, that is one thing that has struck me about British soldiers since I was very young. I am glad that in recent days I have seen it in GI's as well. Things seem to have changed a lot since the early days, when mobbs of Marines cheered as an enemy position went up in flames, I think the realisation that 'war is hell' is getting through and professionalism has taken hold. Here is an excerpt from the Metro newspaper that I just dug up from earlier this week, I am typing it up so any spelling mistakes are my own:
Professionalism at its finest being shown by the air crew, Paul, Matthew Hull and Sgt Engram. I find it sad that we have changed so little as a people that still want to kill others for 'bragging rights'. But men like Sgt Engram, the Marines, Hull, Paul, they seem to be somewhere above that, they don't need to cheer the enemies death, they don't necessairaly want to kill, it is men like this who seem to save more lives than they take and we can see it happening even in this short article, Sgt Engram saved a woman and a child, the professional attitude of Hull saved 2 men and a child, the attitude of the aircrew kept the civilians safe. Men like these are the ones reducing civilian casualties, as well as bringing their own men through alive. It is men like these who I have the upmost respect for, they are the true heroes of these days, the ones who do their job to the best of their ability, keep together when all the world has gone to s***, bring their colleagues home alive. They are soldiers.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.