Chemical Winston

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by TCO


There was a time when the law of war required subs to surface and give warning. We kinda blow that off now.

Roland can write you a nice article on how the rules have changed over time.

Surely that defeats the principle of a sub?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by TCO
what is the showoff. It is common knowledge that the law of war has changed on subs. you asked for info and I gave you what i had.

As for the debate, regardless of your views, it is not as cut and dried as you think.

No wonder youre not in command, you don't LISTEN, the only info I asked for was: which rightwing numbnut idiots wrote those letters to the USNI Proceeding about straffing lifeboats, you have failed to provide that information.

[reds4ever]

..and if you don't know what I mean by 'showing' off, then you won't realize what a gung-ho - deaths a joke - type of idiot you sound like when you post this:

Originally posted by TCO
There was a time when the law of war required subs to surface and give warning. We kinda blow that off now.

[TCO]

Originally posted by reds4ever


No wonder youre not in command, you don't LISTEN, the only info I asked for was: which rightwing numbnut idiots wrote those letters to the USNI Proceeding about straffing lifeboats, you have failed to provide that information.

it was not a rightwing idiot. it was an ensign. There was an interesting discussion in the letters. you are prejudging the whole thing as an ann coulter thing without listening/looking.

go search the site ok/

[TCO]

Originally posted by reds4ever
..and if you don't know what I mean by 'showing' off, then you won't realize what a gung-ho - deaths a joke - type of idiot you sound like when you post this:

What's your problem? You think that it is reasonable to have subs surface? And if you think the forces out there don;t joke about the job, your a moron.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by TCO


it was not a rightwing idiot. it was an ensign.

it is possible to be both? In fact, if you're the latter then you're more likely to be the former IMHO!

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by TCO

And if you think the forces out there don;t joke about the job, your a moron.

I know EXACTLY what goes on in the forces, I watch the Discovery channel AND I've read most of Tom Clancys books (except for the boring OP's ones), so don't tell me I don't know what goes on out there! Jeez!

[TCO]

Dang, you are up on it. Add in the civ playing and you got nailed.

FYI: the author is Holwitt and it is the July edition. You will have to get a hardcopy--the Proceedings site only gives the first couple sentences. The discussion which I referred to went on/off for the next several months in the letters column.

[TCO]

Originally posted by reds4ever


I know EXACTLY what goes on in the forces, I watch the Discovery channel AND I've read most of Tom Clancys books (except for the boring OP's ones), so don't tell me I don't know what goes on out there! Jeez!

My mom gave me on of those Op ones for Xmas. i had to tell her it is not really the same. before that she gave me Clive Cussler for years and I never read it...

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by TCO
Dang, you are up on it. Add in the civ playing and you got nailed.

Yeah, thats what I thought! Civ 3 for the big picture and Clancy for details!

Joking aside, it's too late for me to look at those letters propery, but surely on principal it can't be right to gun lifeboats?

[TCO]

probably not. I guess it's equivalent to being in battle and not having time to take prisoners or resources to guard them. I think the law of war says that you are not allowed to kill them if they surrender.

But my point was that the discussion was not as cut and dried as one might think. article and letters also addressed other aspects of sub war where standards have changed over time. Was more interesting than one would think from just first glance. (I don't see how we can move further without you reading the article.)

And of course the reference was with respect to the idea of what is a legal weapon. Why is a bullet different than a gas?

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by TCO
Was more interesting than one would think from just first glance. (I don't see how we can move further without you reading the article.)

I understand! I'll have a look tommorrow, though it would be interesting to see how someone can justify shooting someone at sea against shooting them on land re. the GC? The sub always has the option of just leaving them there, which, granted, to a much lesser extent, so do the land troops

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Frozzy
You can't put early 20th century issues into today's moral standards because they are incompatible.

This has got to be a new classic, to go side by side with the likes of 'I was only following orders', 'we were at war', 'we wanted to use a weapon so terrible, that it would end the war in weeks, and not months'.

I do agree with Ogie though, sdometimes it takes a bastard, but I also think there should be more recognition of Churchills crimes against humanity in British culture (yes- I consider the use of chemical weapons against villagers in an imperialist war to be a crime against humanity).

Churchill stood alone against the Third Reich when nobody else would, but he also was responsable for some evil things, British people should be more aware of that, especially when our prime ministers want our support to fight wars against leaders who were after all, following a British example.