War Crime or not?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The USA and Britain smoked Iraq to a degree last night.
Iraq can burn their oil fields.
Burning Kuwait's oil wells, is a war crime.
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.
Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

War crimes are bull**** anymore, just an excuse to
kill off an embarassing captive after the war is won.

[PLATO]

I don't believe that blowing up the oil fields would meet the standard. There are various military reasons for destroying oil fields to deny them to an invader. Presumably in a drawn out conflict where an oil supply line is jepordized then an invader might want to sieze control of oil to supply its forces. Obviously this is more than highly unlikely, but it is a legitamate reason.

[PLATO]

Donald Rumsfield:

"I have seen indications and reports that the Iraqi regime may have set fire to as many as three or four of the oil wells in the south," Rumsfeld told reporters.

Rumsfeld, who said the U.S. military was trying to get more information on this, appealed to Iraqis not to burn the riches of their country. "It is a crime for that regime to be destroying the riches of the Iraqi people."

Hmmm...

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Sava
Since the US is the boss, anything they say is a war-crime. IMO, there were far more war crimes in South-East Asia against the civilian population by US forces than there were in Kosovo or Bosnia. Yet, Milosevic is in The Hague at a joke of a trial while Kissinger still gets work thrown at him from the Republican party.

When you're a leader of a smaller nation, it's a war-crime. When you're a leader of a superpower, it's called collateral damage. Go figure!

no one is proud of what we did in nam / korea. my grandfather served in Korea, and he and his team were ordered to burn a village to the ground, and kill the populus, after one of the civilians blew themselves up taking the lives of several soldiers.

again, no one is proud of what we did. but it had to be done. i'm not going to sit here and explain how the term "war crime" is overly redundant. you do what you have to do to win.

now, "crimes against humanity" are a bit different. we can be justified (to a degree) for killing civilians if we deemed them a threat. take that as it is, please.

Iraqi forces recently sent 2 attack choppers to attack a Kuwaiti village. Where was the threat there? What the hell were those cattle farmers going to Saddam and his battle plans? Nothing. There was no reason to do that, whatsoever.

The use of chemical / biological weapons on civilians are also crimes against humanity, IMHO.

[SlowwHand]

quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Scudding Israel, is a war crime.

Retaliation against a "neutral" country, is a war crime.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why?

You can't be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

[badman]

I don't think it's a war crime. Those oil fields belong to Iraq and the Iraqis just like the Russians back in WW2 have the right to destroy their own country in order to weaken the enemy.

[GePap]

Accordign to current news, the Marines have begun an intensive barrage into Southern Iraq, and may be moving in soon..perhaps because several oil wells have been set ablaze.

Since when it blowing up your wealth (are not Iraqi soldiers Iraqi people?) a war crime?

Personaly I don't think blowing up the oil fields is a war crime, unless, as Sloww said, it is blowing up fields in a land under occupation.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by badman
I don't think it's a war crime. Those oil fields belong to Iraq and the Iraqis just like the Russians back in WW2 have the right to destroy their own country in order to weaken the enemy.

how exactly does it weaken us?

the only things i can see are
1. black smoke makes it harder to to air missions, but we have radar guided cruise missles / bombs anyway
2. it could cause ecological problems, we'd need our masks, etc.

does this count as a chemical attack on civilians / troops?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap
Personaly I don't think blowing up the oil fields is a war crime, unless, as Sloww said, it is blowing up fields in a land under occupation.

Like that ass Sherman burning Atlanta.

Sorry. The thought of you agreeing with me at all blew my mind, so I had to come up with something.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by SlowwHand You can't be serious. Tell me you're not serious.

I'm waiting to see your answer too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2867619.stm

[ruby_maser]

Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals, some (unfortunately, not all) of whom have received justice. So don't point to the United States and say that superpower status is a shield to hide behind.

I'm interested to know what war crimes you think the US has sanctioned?

[SlowwHand]

"Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals, some (unfortunately, not all) of whom have received justice."

Calley was a fall-guy.
I know, here comes flames.

[ajbera]

The wells! The wells!
The wells are on fire!
We don't need no oil,
let the motherf***ers burn!

So sorry, but I couldn't resist.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Like that ass Sherman burning Atlanta.

Sherman was a war criminal...bigtime. He was probably the worst of the northerners in The War of Northern Aggression

[Ozz]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Anything done in 'Nam was not act of national policy but sadistic individuals

They're called "Presidents"

Proven:

Crown fruit Company,- isn't assassinating foreign presidents against US law?

The Contra - affair, guns to Iran, money to rebels
fighting a democratically elected government.