'77, and I'll be the first to say that it's out of date -- Desert Storm was the last thing the US was involved in that fit a classical definition of a just war (i.e. violation of territorial integrity by another sovereign nation, international accord on plan of action, &tc.)

It's important to read because, though the theories it supports are ignored by the US in modern war, none have really come to replace them. Certainly none have reached any sort of concensus in the international scene ...

@Johnny - I think the British troops still respect that convention. And I'm sure many other European nations do the same - I'd be rather surprised if the Dutch army didn't.

Re. the story, this article quoting a former SAS (British special forces) officer points out that it was self defence because the marines feared the body was booby-trapped like others they have stumbled across.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004531757,00.html

Be warned, it's British tabloid reporting though ;)

I tend to agree with the article (even if it is in the Sun [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] ). In the same situation, in light of what has happened in the past, I'd be more inclined to shoot first and take the consequences later. At least I'd be around to tell the tale.

[ 11-17-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Skippy1 ]

The vast majority of the "Laws of war" are/were writen for and by countries that have fought wars over silly things, trade/power/greed/etc. The leaders of said countries didn't want their people killed unnessisarily(sp?) over silly things because they knew 1)the people would rise against them and they'd lose power. 2) If their people were killed it would take to long to rebuild an amry to wage war again. For the troops on the ground it becomes a matter of survival one of the only things that is not silly and therefore transends any "Laws of war" This enemy the troops are fighting HAS no problem with taking civilains out of their homes and killing them, no problem setting bombs in market places and in the streets to kill. This enemy is fighting a war of "No quater given", if they give no quarter then none should be given to them.

alepha, the purpose of the military is to KILL, blowing up things is gravy. "the job of the military is not to die for their country but to make the other poor bastard die for theirs".

There is no law in Fallujah, that's why they went in in the first place, no ? He probably had a weapon before the mosque got hit, and his buddies probably left him behind for the vultures and took all the firearms they could carry with em. At this point i don't think there's any "normal" citizen left in that town. Although i think killing him in cold blood is wrong, i can understand where the marine's emotion is coming from, i think anyone would get a little triggerhappy in a place like that. </font>[/QUOTE]johnny - you need to wait until you've seen the tape. When you do you'll realise that in this case you are wrong.

Just to clarify - when the footage was shown in the UK the action was frozen at the moment the bullet was fired.

It seems some of us forget the fact that there is law applicable to warfare. And, you know, it's been that way for thousands of years. Now, I know some of you haven't learned much in the last thousand years or so, and certainly haven't advanced any morally in that time frame, but the bulk of society has moved on without you.

This incident is wrong, yes. I think there is sufficient merit for mitigating circumstances though.

Here's what the insurgents do. Booby trapping bodies and equipment, suicide bombers, flying white flags and playing dead so you can ambush are common occurances here. Using mosques, civilians, and hospitals as shields and military command posts is common too. The kidnapping and killing of non-combatants is no problem for them.

These are the times our military is living in. He made a mistake yes, but don't holler to crucify him unless you're willing to go pick up his rifle and put on his boots.

Depends on the situation, when with their backs against the wall, some troops can take pretty drastic measures. A certain sunday afternoon in Belfast comes to mind. Now...those were English soldiers, right ?

And the Dutch were guilty of Atrocities in Indonesia too, one particular regiment's name still gives older Indonesian people the shivers. No country on this planet has truly a clear conscience, we all have our skeletons in the closet. The Geneva convention is nothing more than "feel good" agreement, but i don't think anyone actually lives up to it.

Btw... i saw the footage now on some Spanish site, and it's true, it's pretty bad to see a thing like that happen, but on the other hand, they've been tricked by virtually unarmed men before, so once again i'll have to say i can relate to the marine's action.

Patton ... there's a reason the man was retired as soon as possible :D

If you believe our leaders, the military exists to enforce the will of the people, through the NCA and his appointed deputies. This is why all officers are commissioned by Congress: to keep the tie to the republic more real. This is why civilians control the armed forces.

Peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, deterrence, and general self defense aside, though, you're quite right. Killing still remains something of a last resort, and (one hopes) it will continue to become so even more.