British soldier executes Afghan insurgent.

[Norstal]

It was a sad day when people started making excuses for a murderer just because he's a soldier.

it always angers me to see civilian populations get on their high horse about the cruelties of soldiers. War is cruel and sometimes cruel things should be done. This man HAS HOWEVER committed a crime, and should most certainly be punished. I think that the punishment should not be blown out of proportion, as i fear it now will.

His superior officers deemed it as murder. Officers are soldiers too, are they not? Ifreann was not being "on a high horse".

[Person012345]

you don't seem to understand

what im saying is theyd probably execute one of our lads if he was wounded so why shouldn't our lads do it to them? give them a taste of their own medicine

the Geneva convention only applies to wars between nations, the Taliban aren't a nation, there a terrorist rebellion

Because we whine endlessly when they behead our men. We literally have no right to criticize them for that if we do basically the same thing. And like he said, we do follow the GC.

Besides which, you're wrong. The taliban controlled afghanistan for a long time. They're no more a terrorist rebellion than the united states.

[Person012345]

War is cruel and sometimes cruel things should be done.

Question: What have we learned from every guerrilla war in history ever?

Answer: That you need the civilian population on your side and that being cruel just makes things worse for yourself, so much so in fact that the worlds greatest military power can be trounced by some poor asian farmers with AKs. We have all agreed that cruel things like this are not acceptable, that we are to be above it. Doing things like this makes a mockery of the laws of war and when world war 3 comes around it'll be a free for all.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists. If it was up to me, i'd have gone in there like Hitler and this war would have been over much quicker and cheaper.

I don't know why America has to play the good guy all the time, we're so powerful we could make a neat little empire for ourselves. If we did it slowly and replaced local populations with colonists, we'd have little trouble i think. These guys don't deserve our sympathy anyway, after 9/11. Bush was actually pretty restrained in my opinion, many of my contemporaries at the time were discussing nuking the entire middle east into one giant glass factory.

it's like no other empires/nations in history haven't done the same or worse over the last few thousand years anyway.

[Person012345]

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists. If it was up to me, i'd have gone in there like Hitler and this war would have been over much quicker and cheaper.

Look at this guy. He's 2 cool 4 empathy or normal human emotion. Look at him, he's totally a badass psychopath who compares himself with hitler. How Edgey. What cool.

[Zathganastan]

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists. If it was up to me, i'd have gone in there like Hitler and this war would have been over much quicker and cheaper.

There's literally rules on how one should conduct themselves in warfare and despite what the majority of non-servicemen believe the act of executing POW's is a very serious crime regardless of what said prisoner fought for and had done prior to capture.

I don't know why America has to play the good guy all the time,

Because obeying the international laws you spent the better half of a century helping setup goes without saying.

we're so powerful we could make a neat little empire for ourselves. If we did it slowly and replaced local populations with colonists, we'd have little trouble i think. These guys don't deserve our sympathy anyway, after 9/11. Bush was actually pretty restrained in my opinion, many of my contemporaries at the time were discussing nuking the entire middle east into one giant glass factory.

You do realize it's people whom think like this is why their fighting us to begin with.

it's like no other empires/nations in history haven't done the same or worse over the last few thousand years anyway.

It's 2013, what empires did prior to the Geneva convention is irreverent.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

War is cruel and sometimes cruel things should be done.

Question: What have we learned from every guerrilla war in history ever?

Answer: That you need the civilian population on your side and that being cruel just makes things worse for yourself, so much so in fact that the worlds greatest military power can be trounced by some poor asian farmers with AKs. We have all agreed that cruel things like this are not acceptable, that we are to be above it. Doing things like this makes a mockery of the laws of war and when world war 3 comes around it'll be a free for all.

America wasn't trounced by poor asian farmers. We were never militarily defeated, only politically. If we intervened in 1975 and had the political will to stop the final invasion of South Vietnam we would have crushed the NVA easily. After the so-called 'Tet offensive' the guerilla force fighting in South Vietnam was largely destroyed and eradicated. That's why North Vietnam launched it's fateful and final attack on South Vietnam conventionally. Even USSR and China expected America to win until we pulled out, and the south collapsed because of a sudden lack of American support not because we were military 'trounced'.

Conventional armies have limits, if we went in there like Hitler and slaughtered the local population we would have won easily. It's easy to attack American military might because of long unconventional military campaigns but it's more complicated than that.

No nation or combination of Nations on earth can defeat the United States military without a severe military mobilization and unity amongst all nations of the earth combined. a highly unlikely scenario. The only real threat to America at this point is Russia -- and they're limited to causing severe damage and a headache short of nuclear war. China is growing rapidly but is decades out from posing any real threat to the massive American military machine.

Don't forget, We won the Iraq war against the conventional Iraqi army in 3 weeks. it was the 5th largest in the world. We did it twice actually, in 1991 and 2003. We only started having issues when we had to fight and unconventional war.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists. If it was up to me, i'd have gone in there like Hitler and this war would have been over much quicker and cheaper.

There's literally rules on how one should conduct themselves in warfare and despite what the majority of non-servicemen believe the act of executing POW's is a very serious crime regardless of what said prisoner fought for and had done prior to capture.

I don't know why America has to play the good guy all the time,

Because obeying the international laws you spent the better half of a century helping setup goes without saying.

we're so powerful we could make a neat little empire for ourselves. If we did it slowly and replaced local populations with colonists, we'd have little trouble i think. These guys don't deserve our sympathy anyway, after 9/11. Bush was actually pretty restrained in my opinion, many of my contemporaries at the time were discussing nuking the entire middle east into one giant glass factory.

You do realize it's people whom think like this is why their fighting us to begin with.

it's like no other empires/nations in history haven't done the same or worse over the last few thousand years anyway.

It's 2013, what empires did prior to the Geneva convention is irreverent.

Those 'laws' have very little consequences unless nations are willing to enforce it. Do i have to sit here and tell you every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions that went unpunished and in some cases diplomatically ignored?

[Person012345]

Question: What have we learned from every guerrilla war in history ever?

Answer: That you need the civilian population on your side and that being cruel just makes things worse for yourself, so much so in fact that the worlds greatest military power can be trounced by some poor asian farmers with AKs. We have all agreed that cruel things like this are not acceptable, that we are to be above it. Doing things like this makes a mockery of the laws of war and when world war 3 comes around it'll be a free for all.

America wasn't trounced by poor asian farmers. We were never militarily defeated, only politically.

*speculation*

They owned you, face it.

[Zathganastan]

Those 'laws' have very little consequences unless nations are willing to enforce it.

Which as the soldier in question discovered we are.

Do i have to sit here and tell you every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions that went unpunished and in some cases diplomatically ignored?

Yes that would certainly help your case, not that it really makes the conventions any less important though.

[Person012345]

Is it just me or does someone lose all credibility when they suggest we "go in like hitler" and thinks that that would result in a quick and easy war? It suggest some angsty teenager who doesn't know anything about war, or the scale of humanity.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

America wasn't trounced by poor asian farmers. We were never militarily defeated, only politically.

*speculation*

They owned you, face it.

Our casualties: 58,220 dead

their casualties: Total dead: 451,462 – 1,166,462

yep, we totally lost that one.

We did lose the war, we failed to reach our objectives politically. But militarily, we didn't lose. We didn't lose because our military lost the capability to wage war or even win the Vietnam war. We lost because of the traitors at home(Liberals, hippies, etc) who wrecked the war effort.

We failed to reach our objectives because of the Case-Church amendment(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Church_Amendment)

I don't refute that we failed in vietnam, what i am disputing is the idea that it reflects the U.S. militaries capabilities in conventional warfare. I think that is a deadly underestimation of the U.S. military. The U.S. military is the most technologically advanced in general, that is to say that the U.S. military may be surpassed in certain areas by certain nations but overall we are technologically superior militarily. Combined with the sheer size of the U.S. military, the financial resources and backing and the massive natural resources of the United States has created the most effective conventional armed force in the world.

Name one nation that can defeat America in a conventional war. One.

[Person012345]

They owned you, face it.

Our casualties: 58,220 dead

their casualties: Total dead: 451,462 – 1,166,462

yep, we totally lost that one.

Right, because clearly "winning" is based on casualties rather than achieving your objectives. Clearly the allies lost world war 2.

Politically or otherwise, you lost. The farmers with AKs beat you. The military is political, and "going in like Hitler" would be a great way to rapidly lose political support, FYI. If you hadn't been defeated politically you would still be there, still fighting.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

Our casualties: 58,220 dead

their casualties: Total dead: 451,462 – 1,166,462

yep, we totally lost that one.

Right, because clearly "winning" is based on casualties rather than achieving your objectives. Clearly the allies lost world war 2.

Politically or otherwise, you lost. The farmers with AKs beat you. The military is political.

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing whether we lost or won the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

[Person012345]

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing that we lost the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

That doesn't matter at all.

Conventionally I won't dispute that you probably have the most powerful army. We're talking about guerrilla warfare, and whenever you get into any kind of asymmetrical warfare you seem to do everything in your power to balls it up and make things worse for yourself. The UK has historically done quite well with regards to such wars because we've generally tried to keep the populace on our side. Compare Vietnam to the Malayan Emergency.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

Those 'laws' have very little consequences unless nations are willing to enforce it.

Which as the soldier in question discovered we are.

Do i have to sit here and tell you every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions that went unpunished and in some cases diplomatically ignored?

Yes that would certainly help your case, not that it really makes the conventions any less important though.

There is no way i could accurately describe every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions. What i'm saying is that if the U.S. decides that it wants to go Hitler the soldiers involved will be immune from prosecution under international law because they're out of the jurisdiction or reach of foreign governments or international bodies.

[Souseiseki]

Right, because clearly "winning" is based on casualties rather than achieving your objectives. Clearly the allies lost world war 2.

Politically or otherwise, you lost. The farmers with AKs beat you. The military is political.

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing whether we lost or won the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

actually, i'm not longer sure what's going on here, except another chapter in people trying to save face in regards to the vietnam war and summary beating of chest about how the U.S. had the biggest penis in the whole wide world, both of which are of questionable relevance to this thread. (which is neither about vietnam nor about waging war against nations)

[Zathganastan]

There is no way i could accurately describe every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions. What i'm saying is that if the U.S. decides that it wants to go Hitler the soldiers involved will be immune from prosecution under international law because they're out of the jurisdiction or reach of foreign governments or international bodies.

Then don't make the claim that they've been broken countless times if you can't back up your claims. As to your other statement, that still wouldn't be the case as violations of the Geneva convention would still bring the international community upon the US, and regardless if they can beat the US in war being hostile or unfriendly to every other major power on the planet tends to always end horribly.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing that we lost the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

That doesn't matter at all.

Conventionally I won't dispute that you probably have the most powerful army. We're talking about guerrilla warfare, and whenever you get into any kind of asymmetrical warfare you seem to do everything in your power to balls it up and make things worse for yourself. The UK has historically done quite well with regards to such wars because we've generally tried to keep the populace on our side. Compare Vietnam to the Malayan Emergency.

I concur that Britain was quite brilliant in keeping those colonies under control for quite some time, but ultimately they failed in controlling the Empire indefinitely. But what i'm suggesting is a strategy against islamic terrorism. The best way to eliminate the threat of islamic terrorism is to eliminate Islam itself. We're not there to 'fight guerillas' or even to occupy Afghanistan, we're ultimately there to destroy islamic terrorism.

[Farnhamia]

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing whether we lost or won the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

actually, i'm not longer sure what's going on here, except another chapter in people trying to save face in regards to the vietnam war and summary beating of chest about how the U.S. had the biggest penis in the whole wide world, both of which are of questionable relevance to this thread. (which is neither about vietnam nor about waging war against nations)

An excellent point. The topic is the murder of an Afghan insurgent by a British soldier.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

There is no way i could accurately describe every war crime that has occurred since the geneva conventions. What i'm saying is that if the U.S. decides that it wants to go Hitler the soldiers involved will be immune from prosecution under international law because they're out of the jurisdiction or reach of foreign governments or international bodies.

Then don't make the claim that they've been broken countless times if you can't back up your claims. As to your other claim, that still wouldn't be the case as violations of the Geneva convention would still bring the international community upon the US, and regardless if they can beat the US in war being hostile or unfriendly to every other major power on the planet tends to always end horribly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War

Since the Geneva convention was ratified in 1949 after world war 2, you can look at all the crimes committed beyond that date for crimes committed after the adoption of the Geneva conventions. i believe other forms of geneva conventions date earlier in the century.

I don't want to sit here and meticulously list out all the massacres but there they are for posterity.

Also, Stalin wasn't brought upon by the international community for his many, many crimes. If the U.S. plays it off right, it can get away with it pretty cleanly. although history is much more harsh than the international community, unless you happen to control how history is taught.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

I was stating that in jest, not to actually state any military victory. i'm not arguing whether we lost or won the Vietnam war, just that the U.S. military is the most powerful armed force on earth, with more ability to wage war against another nation than any other.

actually, i'm not longer sure what's going on here, except another chapter in people trying to save face in regards to the vietnam war and summary beating of chest about how the U.S. had the biggest penis in the whole wide world, both of which are of questionable relevance to this thread. (which is neither about vietnam nor about waging war against nations)

Agreed. Just engaging in lively debate. i'm not trying to save face about the Vietnam war, just that it doesn't reflect on the military capabilities of the American military. Also, the biggest military obviously doesn't equate to the biggest phallus since no nation actually has a phallus.

[Farnhamia]

actually, i'm not longer sure what's going on here, except another chapter in people trying to save face in regards to the vietnam war and summary beating of chest about how the U.S. had the biggest penis in the whole wide world, both of which are of questionable relevance to this thread. (which is neither about vietnam nor about waging war against nations)

Agreed. Just engaging in lively debate. i'm not trying to save face about the Vietnam war, just that it doesn't reflect on the military capabilities of the American military. Also, the biggest military obviously doesn't equate to the biggest phallus since no nation actually has a phallus.

Engage in it on topic or start a new thread. It's not okay to steer a thread away from it's topic, no matter how lively the debate is.

[Person012345]

I concur that Britain was quite brilliant in keeping those colonies under control for quite some time, but ultimately they failed in controlling the Empire indefinitely. But what i'm suggesting is a strategy against islamic terrorism. The best way to eliminate the threat of islamic terrorism is to eliminate Islam itself. We're not there to 'fight guerillas' or even to occupy Afghanistan, we're ultimately there to destroy islamic terrorism.

I'm not just talking about the Empire, though we didn't even lose many of our colonies to wars, many of them were released voluntarily, but the counterinsurgency wars we've been in since then.

"wiping out islam" is utterly laughable, and this is why I don't think you understand the scale of humanity. Over a period of 6 years the nazis managed to kill, lets use upper estimates, 17 million people in the holocaust. This is within their own borders, with extensive infrastructure and without the need to worry about internal dissent. There are 1.57 billion muslims which you suggest we exterminate from extremely remote areas of the world with little to no control, which would require every single country in the world to be invaded or persuaded to do the same and would also require you to re-write the constitution.

This is, needless to say, idiotic. And you can't merely exterminate them from afghanistan, obviously the genocide of an entire country based on them being islamic would not sit to well with everybody else in the entire world. Unless you killed near all muslims, your problems would be a lot worse than before.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

I concur that Britain was quite brilliant in keeping those colonies under control for quite some time, but ultimately they failed in controlling the Empire indefinitely. But what i'm suggesting is a strategy against islamic terrorism. The best way to eliminate the threat of islamic terrorism is to eliminate Islam itself. We're not there to 'fight guerillas' or even to occupy Afghanistan, we're ultimately there to destroy islamic terrorism.

I'm not just talking about the Empire, though we didn't even lose many of our colonies to wars, many of them were released voluntarily, but the counterinsurgency wars we've been in since then.

"wiping out islam" is utterly laughable, and this is why I don't think you understand the scale of humanity. Over a period of 6 years the nazis managed to kill, lets use upper estimates, 17 million people in the holocaust. This is within their own borders, with extensive infrastructure and without the need to worry about internal dissent. There are 1.57 billion muslims which you suggest we exterminate from extremely remote areas of the world with little to no control, which would require every single country in the world to be invaded or persuaded to do the same and would also require you to re-write the constitution.

This is, needless to say, idiotic. And you can't merely exterminate them from afghanistan, obviously the genocide of an entire country based on them being islamic would not sit to well with everybody else in the entire world. Unless you killed near all muslims, your problems would be a lot worse than before.

I don't think genocide would be necessary in all cases, just reeducation. many religions have died out through the centuries, Islam doesn't have to be the exception. If there is an easier, cheaper and more effective way to eliminate Islam, we should take it. I don't believe in doing such things just for the fun of them, only for an end goal. and only if that makes the end goal easier and more effectively attained.

if we had to I'm sure we could kill more effectively than the nazis did in the 40's with modern technology and techniques that could be developed.