 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
I would say it is , not for the economic consequences (remember what Stalin did to his own country!) but for the environmental consequences , this will not only wreck many people's life's in the region but will kill all sorts of sea/air life
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Of all the reasons given there for warcrimes, the only thing that comes even close to making blowing up oil fields one is to call it wanton destruction without military aims. That is very diffculy though since blowing up the oil fields here may have military significance in slowing the enemies advance and denying them the control of the resource (scorched earth).
So the question remains: if Iraqi forces blow up the oil fields, have they commited a war crime? |
Yes, the wanton destruction of private or public property without a compelling military reason is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
In the case of the USSR, and Russia in Napoleon's time, the scorched earth policy did not fall under this definition, as the goal was to deny materiel and potentially useful assets to an invading enemy military force. The French or Germans doing the same thing on retreat is a different story, except in specific cases - demolishing bridges or railways, etc. makes sense from a military standpoint.
Blowing up the oilfields has only the most indirect military aims (respiratory problems, visibility), which are minor in military significance in view of the overall health, environmental and economic impact on combatants and especially noncombatants.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Have you checked the link for legal definition, or do you just want people's opinion about what they individually think should be a war crime, which doesn't really matter?
 |
Despite the definitions layed out in the link you provided, there is considerable room for interpretation. Which the winner usually does.
On oil fields.
listed in your link, only one area seems to cover it.
Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
Plunder of public or private property.
Last night someone said that torching an oil field could provide some strategic advantage by lowering visability for advancing aggressors. Sure sounds like a valid military action to me.
RAH
and of course MTG beat me to it by two minutes. Must learn to type faster
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
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 bullshit anymore, just an excuse to
kill off an embarassing captive after the war is won.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-03-2003 21:08
|