Join The Army!

[iohkus]

I don't think anyone under 14 should watch that video, they wouldn't know what to make of it. It would look like a video game.

If you're a parent and irresponsible enough to leave your kid with a pc linked up into the internet with no supervision or parental controls than you suck.

There's a difference between censorship and protecting a child from goatsecx, I do believe...

not to say that issues of war, poverty, famine, sex and disease shouldn't be discussed with kids. they SHOULD be discussed but in a context that they can interpret, not full motion video of kids with leprosy or little iraqi kids being maimed by cluster bombs. That would just insure that your child is going to grow up into an angsty artsy depressed goth?

[avenger69ie]

yer right, it is getting a bit old. anyway, its 4:12am here, i need sleep or coffee whichever comes first.

[EvoG]

do you have children? if you did, you'd know that you cannot keep watch on them 24 hours a day. anyway, that wasnt my main point.

Thats right, which is why you put in place measures that help you help them avoid doing or seeing things they shouldn't. If it means unplugging the tv, then fine. If it means using that butterfly on MSN to monitor their web browsing fine. If you know that forums are a good place to find 'not good' stuff cuz people on said forums post things that parental blockers may not catch, then block forums. If you can't do that, then maybe they're not old enough to be on the internet. Point is...YOU HAVE OPTIONS. So you can't ask if I have children or not then say "well see!", cuz thats the same cop out you hear from parents who throw up their hands and say "I blame you for my failed parenting". Pah leez.

Cheers

[avenger69ie]

lol, you dont get what i'm saying evo, its not an attack on you, and its not about This forum. read over what i was saying again. trust me i'm not shunting blame onto anyone. Have a read of what i just said again.

of course there are measures one can take to stop that kind of thing, but it shouldnt be freely available anyway. and i wasnt going to say "well see" either, give me some credit here.

[avenger69ie]

gotta hit the hay,its 4:30am
to be continued if you want, at a later point?

[EvoG]

No I know...I'm attacking people who blame everyone but themselves. Its cool.

Cheers

[avenger69ie]

lol, to be continued. i'm seriously way too tired for this type of debate. i'll be back tomorrow at some point.

[Burnov]

Someone forwarded me a link of the same movie from that fucked up ogrish website. I talked to him about it and apparently he found a comment on the site pertinent to this discussion.

"only someone who has never seen war can sit there
and say "they were innocent", military
intelligence had these "so called
innocents" planting landmines on a road
commonly traveled by u.n forces. learn more about
it before you say "there all innocent".
just my 2 cents, but what do i know?."

I don't know if any validity can be given to that, still. Laying landmines, standing around being inoffensive. What terrible odds to be trapped out in the middle of nowhere when either an AC130U or perhaps either an apache or cobra gunship sees you doing something it doesn't like... and what are the rotten odds that they're equipped with nothing smaller than a 20mm gun so you've got to make the decision to blow some guy to bits with it.

Blah.

[Viktor]

This reminds me of something that I forgot to comment on earlier. Contrary to popular belief there is no provision in the Hague or Geneva Conventions restricting certain calibers of weapons from use against certain target types. It's admited over-kill to shoot a man w/a stream of 30mm HE rounds, but it's not against any law.

I bring this up because of the comment in the news article, as well as the fact that there are urban legends floating around, even in the US military, about not being allowed to use largish MG/auto-cannons against people. If this were the case artillery men on all sides would be tried for war crimes, since what they are lobbing (usually nothing smaller than 105mm, but 152/155mm being more common) far outweighs what that was done to those dismounts.

OTB

There is, however IIRC, a prohibition on engaging ground troops with heavy weapons designed for anti-aircraft defence. And I remember reading something about USMC Scout/Snipers being warned that using their newly delivered Barret M82s against personnel rather than in an anit-materiel role could have legal implication in A. Swofford's Gulf War 1 memoires "Jarhead"...

[EvoG]

There is, however IIRC, a prohibition on engaging ground troops with heavy weapons designed for anti-aircraft defence. And I remember reading something about USMC Scout/Snipers being warned that using their newly delivered Barret M82s against personnel rather than in an anit-materiel role could have legal implication in A. Swofford's Gulf War 1 memoires "Jarhead"...

Yeah, not sure about the context of that as written in that book...but this isn't true. Look at it this way...its very hard to swallow that one could view hitting someone with a 50, once, being worse than hitting someone 150 times with a SAW, regardless that the round is a fraction of the size. What about a grenade?

Anyway, since the begining of this war, you'd see footage of mounted 50 MG's engaging personnel so any thought of that being "illegal" just isn't there. (Step in with the urban legend bit OTB )

Even moreso, there's great footage of an Abrams hitting a group of BadGuys.tm with the main gun in a building tower, and from behind a minor concrete barrier...and those two things just became powder...its like you can hear the enemy fire PLINKING off the armor of the tank...then you don't.

Don't forget the AC130...the harbinger of awesome doom. As I know I don't need to tell you, but just to read me type if for myself , that think is designed to lay siege to soft targets with its 20mm vulcan and its 105mm howitzer....just circling like an angel of mercy and doom minus the mercy. There's great footage of the howitzer pummelling fleeing dismounts ( I love that word OTB so I'm taking it!). It just clouds of flame and love that they evaporate in.

Lastly....we're dropping a flip'in cruise missiles on top of them....no wait, we're also dropping MOAB's on top of them ( actually I don't think we used one yet that was confirmed....but there was that big fucking es'plosion in Nortern iraq as we were coming South take Kirkuk IIRC ).

So yea though thats interesting that you brought that up...and I'm compelled to look into it....its a tad ridiculous ( not of you mind you ) but of anyone in any legal authority to 'measure' the amount of death dealt to the deceased as, when all is said and done, they are 'deceased'.

Cheers

[OnTheBounce]

I've got the answer: linky.

There is mention there of the Jarhead memoir you mentioned, too, Viktor.

For those too lazy to read and who would rather have the short answer: the issue is the use of explosive rounds weighing less than 400 grams, not caliber, although this generally leaves rounds less than 37mm but equipped w/HE "verboten". The introduction of aircraft made this a tricky situation, though, since they almost always carry large MGs using HE rounds, and ground troops were allowed to fire the same type of ammo back at them, but weren't supposed to fire them at other ground troops.

OTB

[EvoG]

I've got the answer: linky.

There is mention there of the Jarhead memoir you mentioned, too, Viktor.

For those too lazy to read and who would rather have the short answer: the issue is the use of explosive rounds weighing less than 400 grams, not caliber, although this generally leaves rounds less than 37mm but equipped w/HE "verboten". The introduction of aircraft made this a tricky situation, though, since they almost always carry large MGs using HE rounds, and ground troops were allowed to fire the same type of ammo back at them, but weren't supposed to fire them at other ground troops.


OTB

Oh this I do recall...I still feel what I wrote above is a rather good argument against the idea any one thing is more 'illegal' than another when it comes to killing....but I do remember hearing this.

Cheers

OTB has used his Evil Mod Powers (tm) to cover his error-ridden tracks. :fiendish laughter:

[Megatron]

In general: Why have age restrictions based on what someone should see or not see? Perhaps censoring things on peoples mental age instead of just making one rule for everybody?

I also find it a bit...weird? That some of you are comparing sex too violence? I'm not thinking about hardcore porn, it'd be like watching someone stab someone them have an extreme close-up? But general nekkidness should be alright.

I think everybody should be allowed to see anything. Instead of censorship mabye having a discussion about it would be better? If censorship 'worked' most people wouldn't find out about stuff (drugs, sex, violence) without experiencing it first mabye?

BIZARRO

[EvoG]

Just to add one more thing before bed...this from OTB's link I think says it very succinctly :

In September 1918, Germany lodged a protest with the United States regarding the use of Winchester model 97 pump-action shotguns, loaded with No. 00 buckshot, by American troops. In the American response, Brigadier General Samuel T. Ansell, Acting Judge Advocate General, argued that:

{The use of a weapon} is to be condemned only when it wounds, or does not kill immediately, in such a way as to produce suffering that has no reasonable relation to the killing or placing a man out of action for an effective period.

With this in mind, think back to the feller crawling from that truck.

Cheers

[Franz Schubert]

I agree with Megatron, censorship should be up to the Parent. Although I feel bad for the kids who get stuck with religious parents who don't let them play video games or watch anime, it is their perogative to raise their kids that way, and it's better than putting blanket censors that effect everyone.

Likewise, if a parent wants to expose their kid to anything and everything, then it's their perogative to do so also. It would probably be a good idea to do that supervised of course, otherwise it's kind of negligent and not cool.

[Slave_Master]

Of course we both have opinions, i'm not disputing that fact, Jesus christ, between you and everyone else on these bloody topics, and it always seems to end the same way.
Look slave master, i havent got anything against you or anyone else here, and i wont resort to using insults to prove a point, no matter how intelligent i think you are or are not, i wont degrade myself by insulting you when i think your wrong. Fine if you think i'm wrong and a moron, yo ugo ahead and believe whatever you want, and yes that was a point i had made earlier, congratulations, you have a point of view.
I have mine, and it remains the same, you calling me a moron isnt going to change that, but maybe some constructive critisism would. As OTB has already proved.

I did it, uh...because you were black?

As far as the whole censorship thing goes, it's really up to the parents to decide what their kids see, as other people have said. In today's world it hard to be watching their kids 24/7, but if they feel so strongly about sexual/violent content, then they should homeschool their kids or something. Conversely, if a parent thinks his/her kids are mature enough to watch stuff like that, then good for them.

Likewise, if a parent wants to expose their kid to anything and everything, then it's their perogative to do so also. It would probably be a good idea to do that supervised of course, otherwise it's kind of negligent and not cool.

Yeah, but who decides what's negligent? The government does, so then you're back at square one -- sexual content is negligent, as is violent content.

[Viktor]

I've got the answer: linky.

There is mention there of the Jarhead memoir you mentioned, too, Viktor.

For those too lazy to read and who would rather have the short answer: the issue is the use of explosive rounds weighing less than 400 grams, not caliber, although this generally leaves rounds less than 37mm but equipped w/HE "verboten". The introduction of aircraft made this a tricky situation, though, since they almost always carry large MGs using HE rounds, and ground troops were allowed to fire the same type of ammo back at them, but weren't supposed to fire them at other ground troops.

OTB

I've tripped over another "millitary myth" then.... My parting shot is that no-one ever said that the Law has to make sense. For example, say I'm riding along in my AFV patroling the boarder of a UN Safe Haven somewhere in IflunkedGeography101inhighschoolistan and come under fire from a single non-uniformed assailant. I'm allowed to return fire under the local UN ROE, but chose not to use the 25mm Bushmaster for fear of collateral damage to the surrounding shanty homes, so I pop out of the hatch an shoot the assailant with my M4. All nice and legal so far... However, the assailant is only wounded and as the team medic, I'm obliged to give first aid to the wounded man. Thanks to 2 separate motar attacks on the UN compound, I've had 4 hours sleep in the last 36 hours and screw up the amount of painkiller I give the wounded man and he dies from excessive anesthesia and not as a result of his gunshot wounds. So, while I had no legal issues to worry about for shooting the guy, I'm now liable for manslaughter through negligence should his family persue the matter in the local civil or even criminal courts!

Just how fucked up is that?

[EvoG]

Thats why if you hit a person with a car, its better to back up over them and make sure they're down instead of injuring them and having them sue. ( this is a joke...as of course the family could sue I suppose )

Hehe, same goes for the insanity of having a burglar sue the person he was trying to burgle because he got injured on the homeowners electrified windows or some shit ( I kid you not ). Police say(unofficially) that if you shoot someone in your yard...pull the body into the house so it becomes home defense or some business.

Anyway, yes, its all ridiculous.

Cheers

[Menno]

...I'm allowed to return fire under the local UN ROE...

I wonder what an example of a UN ROE would be? Having to take fire from over a half a dozen locations before having clearance to return fire? Do you need permission directly from Kofi Annan? Haha, are you even allowed to hurt someone's feelings when you have a UN ROE?

Just how fucked up is that?

Very.

[fills out his stress card]

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

As far as the whole censorship thing goes, it's really up to the parents to decide what their kids see, as other people have said. In today's world it hard to be watching their kids 24/7, but if they feel so strongly about sexual/violent content, then they should homeschool their kids or something. Conversely, if a parent thinks his/her kids are mature enough to watch stuff like that, then good for them.

Likewise, if a parent wants to expose their kid to anything and everything, then it's their perogative to do so also. It would probably be a good idea to do that supervised of course, otherwise it's kind of negligent and not cool.

Yeah, but who decides what's negligent? The government does, so then you're back at square one -- sexual content is negligent, as is violent content.

i agree with the whole its the parents responsibility but, havent you noticed yet that most people are morons and since a good percent of people are parents wouldnt that leave morons to raise children?

so from that, most parents have no clue whats out on the net and know nothing about the violence and porn you can get onto on the net. i dont mean to say it isnt parents fault i mean that if stupid people cant watch their kids they should have them taken away.

im tired of parents whining about violence in games corrupting kids. well fuck genius, if you wouldnt let them play them how pray tell could they get fucked up?

i know the whole friends arguement but you cant tell me people who go and shoot up schools or violently abuse their family is the fault of video games or TV. the person was fucked up to start with and if you look at the parents they probably have the combined iq of a mentally retarded chicken.