10:30:59 AM Jul 19th 2011
Should "In training for preparation for the eventual capture in Iraq, soldiers have been taught not to antagonize their interrogators and to give cooperative, although not helpful answers rather than lies, which may be used against the prisoners later." be linked to Mathematician's Answer?
03:31:49 AM Sep 28th 2010
Can someone hunt down a related article to add to this page? The one I'm remembering but wouldn't know where to locate offhand was a blog piece (I think) about why... some war in the middle east, possibly but not necessarily the war in Iraq... ended up hosting a bunch of seemingly unconscionable acts, such as having our soldiers attack noncombatants. The description was this: People over there were stockpiling weapons and soldiers in churches (mosques?), using children as bombs to blow up troops, dressing soldiers as women, and so forth. Our troops at first would "fall" for these tactics, since we don't tend to bomb churches, let alone shoot little kids. But once it became apparent what was going on, the act of trying to protect themselves from these dangers, as well as the general strain of "oh hey it's a little kid does he have a bomb??!!" got to them, and so we end up hearing such things as how they shot down civilian vehicles full of women that didn't slow down while nearing an outpost or such. Before reading that article, I had never stopped to consider the effects of all these "rules of war" or, more specifically, what happened if you failed to abide by some level of "fair play". And one of the parts that the article cemented in my head is that the soldier's uniform is actually a protection of those around him: It's a way of saying "Hey, shoot at me, not at these civilians." Now there's honor for you.
10:04:25 AM Jul 19th 2011
This also explains something I once heard a comedian say. He said, "Why are soldiers dressed in green camoflage if they're fighting inside a city? They should be disguised as brick walls!" It's not a very funny joke anyway, but the explanation, after reading this, is simple: They have to identify themselves as combatants.
09:37:59 PM Jul 1st 2010
Archived discussion from the original Main/ namespace page: Paul A: Is this one of those Useful Notes-style entries that doesn't include trope examples (in which case the bit about Warhammer 40000 needs to be trimmed), or not (in which case I can suggest a couple things to add)? Silent Hunter: The latter. ...I thought the US hadn't signed the Geneva Convention?
10:05:39 AM Jul 19th 2011
Aren't the various countries of the world bound by the Geneva Convention even if they hadn't signed it? I seem to remember hearing once that this was an issue with Japan after WW2.
08:51:53 PM Jul 1st 2010
edited by Deboss
edited by Deboss
AFP:I'm not sure if using tear gas against troops in chemical warfare gear to help them make sure they know how to use the chem warfare equipment is a valid case of crossing the Moral Event Horizon. I'm gonna take that pothole out. That said, having exeprienced what something as relatively benign as tear gas does, and having read about what nastier things like nerve toxin do, I'm gonna throw in a tag for High Octane Nightmare Fuel. Anyone disagree?
08:52:19 PM Jul 1st 2010
Sir Bob 42:Seems valid
08:50:57 PM Jul 1st 2010
That Guy Who Draws:Could this page use a space at the bottom for works or examples which subvert or notably uphold most or all of the laws and customs instead of having repeat offenders show up again and again throughout the page?
08:51:32 PM Jul 1st 2010