twilight2000-digest Tuesday, March 7 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 124 The following topics are covered in this digest: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) RE: China vs. Taiwan Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) RE: China vs. Taiwan (long) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War Aerial Bombing By Hand Re: Laws of War Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:39:02 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: China vs. Taiwan I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing China's threat to invade Taiwan if the continue to try and obtain independence. The man discussing this was stating how he didn't think that China would follow through because of the fear that the US would become involved. (Which I believe that the US would) He was saying that China's military is so outdated that they would not have a chance to win. But at the same time he was stating how Chinese nationalism is at a high right now. Which leads me to believe that with the support of the nation behind them, that they would be a formidable foe, despite the outdated equipment. They do have the number in people (possibly equipment. I'm not sure on this) to present a major threat. I was wanting to hear some other opinions on this. Thanks Kevin AKA Sgt. Grant *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:10:51 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan - ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin O'Dell To: T2K Info List (E-mail) Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:39 PM Subject: China vs. Taiwan <<< I was wanting to hear some other opinions on this. >>> China may doubt that the US will become involved. China is a nuclear power and the US would have to be very careful how far it went in prosecuting any military struggle with it. This then may lead the US to similar restrictions upon it's military that were placed in Vietnam, would the US military want to fight another war where the politicians won't let them fight how they need to fight? Secondly there is China's massive numerical advantage. In any engagement they will be able to deal the US forces a bloody nose. Now while the US may well be able to beat them in time during that time loses will be suffered. Will the US public tolerate their soldiers coming home in body bags during that period of time? I doubt that China would suffer the same problems and I don't believe that the Chinese people would be as well informed of the casualties as the people of the US would be. The Chinese could also stomach the casualties becuase they would feel that they are fighting for their nation against the interfance of the "evil" US. How much would the US pay for the freedom of Taiwan? Just a few thoughts..... Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:35:20 -0600 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan Well, unless they plan to form a human bridge to Taiwan, the advantage in manpower is kinda moot. The PRC lacks both amphibious transport capability and surface combatants with adequate range to cover them. They could try to bombard Taiwan via missiles or aircraft, but neither of those options would further their aims, and would probably provoke US or Japanes involvement. It would be a huge mistake for the PRC to attack Taiwan at the present time, in my opinion. - -Rob Kevin O'Dell wrote: > I was listening to the radio today and they were discussing China's threat > to invade Taiwan if the continue to try and obtain independence. The man > discussing this was stating how he didn't think that China would follow > through because of the fear that the US would become involved. (Which I > believe that the US would) He was saying that China's military is so > outdated that they would not have a chance to win. But at the same time he > was stating how Chinese nationalism is at a high right now. Which leads me > to believe that with the support of the nation behind them, that they would > be a formidable foe, despite the outdated equipment. They do have the > number in people (possibly equipment. I'm not sure on this) to present a > major threat. I was wanting to hear some other opinions on this. > > Thanks > Kevin > AKA Sgt. Grant > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 11:39:25 -0600 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Kevin O'Dell wrote: > > Wasn't Vietnam and Korea both considered Police actions? Both had military > forces there. > If it was later declared a war would the men who fought and did war crimes, > would they be eligible for standing trial or would the fact that they > happened before it was called a war make a difference? > I thought the My Lai Massacre resulted in a war crimes trial...I guess I'll have to go look it up to be sure. Anyone else know? - -Rob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 09:37:14 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan On Tuesday, March 07, 2000 11:11 AM, Mark Oliver [SMTP:marko@syslogic.com] wrote: > > > I doubt that China would suffer the same problems and I don't believe that > the Chinese people would be as well informed of the casualties as the people > of the US would be. The Chinese could also stomach the casualties becuase > they would feel that they are fighting for their nation against the > interfance of the "evil" US. How much would the US pay for the freedom of > Taiwan? > > Don't we have a lot of commercial value in Taiwan? Does China have Missiles that could reach the US? I just pray if we do get involved, we do it to win. I am going to be joining an Infantry Guard unit pretty soon, and if I go , I don't want to end up in another Vietnam. Kevin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:43:13 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > > I thought the My Lai Massacre resulted in a war crimes trial...I guess I'll > have to go look it up to be sure. Anyone else know? > > -Rob > > I don't know if the trial was a "war crimes" in the sense of the GC or Nuremberg. It was solely an American deal, and I believe was conducted as a court-martial tribunal. It's been awhile since I've read the book about Lt. Cally, so I don't remember what the charges actually were. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:43:19 GMT From: "Charles York" Subject: Re: China vs. Taiwan (long) I agree with Rob on his assessment that the PRC lacks the resources to support a full invasion of Taiwan. While I've heard some say that they retain the ability to incorporate a number of civilian ships to facilitate an invasion, these would be ill equipped for the task if even a moderate naval force intervened. I seem to recall an earlier incident during a prior election- at that time, the US Navy did increase its presence in the area, and there was talk of delivering anti missile systems to Taiwan (don't know if they were). This would seem to hint at a US strategy for intervention: 1) Treaty-bound to assist in Taiwan's defense, the US wouldn't ignore the crisis, but, as is consistent with earlier policy, would refrain from using ground troops. 2) The US would attempt to deter any seaborne invasion with naval force, at the most, targeting the vulnerability of the civilian ships rather than risk a true naval confrontation. (I have heard that some of the PRC submarines are easily detectable, as poor maintenance & age has made them loud, again, don't know how much truth there is in that... 3) US antimissile resources (land & sea) would be used to reduce the effectiveness of any non-nuclear missile strikes. Expect US air forces to "assist" native pilots enough to retain air supremecy. At least, that's my take on it... To tie this in with T2K, I ran a scenario a few years back where a similar pattern "started the slide into WWIII." A fellow servicemenber once observed that the US could only support one major depolyment with its current logistic system, relying on allied support for much of it. (The validity of this observation, I'm unclear of, but he pointed to the volume of the US forces shipped to Desert Storm in foreign vessels as support) I took a crisis in Asia to tie up the bulk of the US / UK / Commonwealth forces ( the crisis involved a less amicable turning over of Hong Kong to China, insuring the UK's involvement). US policy there eventually strains ties with other NATO allies, who, in turn, reduce support sent to the US troops in Bosnia (attempting to influence US policy through stretching the logistics further. *It's not liekly, but you have to suspend reason somewhere..) Add at this time Saddam, recognizing the US forces could not signficantly counter his aggression, making a move in the Gulf. (Playing with fellow Desert Storm Vets, I had to include the "Seige of Kuwait" for the token allied forces that repel him.) So, we have a US, whose intervention foreign policy is stretched to its limits. Even calling up support reserves wouldn't help without a severe impact on the peacetime economy... Let whatever chaos you want ensue from there. *The Korean Peninsula comes to mind, *Russia getting antsy at the forces gearing up around it *Africa's chaos gets worse as international support $ that once held up tenuous governments is diverted to the war efforts. *A reversal of the peace process in the Mid East *Any spot with UN intervention, as those troops are required to do more, with less. BTW, for anyone who has players who get too political (i.e. "Clinton would never have the nerve to do that..." or "no way country such-n-such would react that way") just throw in a random act of terrorism. In mine, I had to go drastic & have a biological weapon go off in DC, incapacitating a majority of government officials. It could just as easily be the prompt to an "militant interventionist power rising in Russia"... Want to seriously twist things around? have the token American forces in Eastern Europe, after the US alienates most of the EC, seeking logistical assistance from... Russia. (Now, if that were the case, you KNOW the US is stretched to its support limits. Anyway, it's a thought. Chad aka Chas aka Chuck aka Charles aka flatline aka hey you! aka #%!@!&&%# -from less friendly sorts. P.S. That entire campaign started as an exercise by a Poli-Sci prof - -Wannabe Fiction Writer who told us that, on any given week, looking at the headline news, you could create a plausable scenario to drag the world to the bring of World War III. Pleasant fella, eh? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:46:05 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) ><> I don't know if the trial was a "war crimes" in the sense of the GC or > Nuremberg. It was solely an American deal, and I believe was conducted as a > court-martial tribunal. It's been awhile since I've read the book about Lt. > Cally, so I don't remember what the charges actually were. > I am sorry, I'm not familar with that. What was it? Kevin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:07:33 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Actually, I think someone counted heads, and if you put all the navies in > the world other than the USN together, they'd be less powerful than the > USN. That's scary. For the people who enjoy trivia (back in 1990, I don't know about now) the US Army has more ships than the US Navy. Now granted they were just dumb little landing craft, but if your only counting numbers of discrete hulls in the water ... :) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:58:01 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: China vs. Taiwan (long) <> I agree with Rob on his assessment that the PRC lacks the resources to > support a full invasion of Taiwan. While I've heard some say that they > retain the ability to incorporate a number of civilian ships to facilitate > an invasion, these would be ill equipped for the task if even a moderate > naval force intervened. > > I seem to recall an earlier incident during a prior election- at that > time, the US Navy did increase its presence in the area, and there was talk > of delivering anti missile systems to Taiwan (don't know if they were). > This would seem to hint at a US strategy for intervention: > > 1) Treaty-bound to assist in Taiwan's defense, the US wouldn't ignore the > crisis, but, as is consistent with earlier policy, would refrain from using > ground troops. > > 2) The US would attempt to deter any seaborne invasion with naval force, at > the most, targeting the vulnerability of the civilian ships rather than risk > a true naval confrontation. (I have heard that some of the PRC submarines > are easily detectable, as poor maintenance & age has made them loud, again, > don't know how much truth there is in that... > > 3) US antimissile resources (land & sea) would be used to reduce the > effectiveness of any non-nuclear missile strikes. Expect US air forces to > "assist" native pilots enough to retain air supremecy. > So I guess my next uestion would be, considering Russia's positioning and movement in Yugoslavia, what do you think their positioning would be if China did invade Taiwan and we got involved? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:38:15 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > > Actually, I think someone counted heads, and if you put all the navies in > > the world other than the USN together, they'd be less powerful than the > > USN. That's scary. > For the people who enjoy trivia (back in 1990, I don't know about now) the > US Army has more ships than the US Navy. Now granted they were just dumb > little landing craft, but if your only counting numbers of discrete hulls in > the water ... :) On a similar note- the Navy and Army both had more aircraft than the Air Force did as well. Heck, probably still do for all I know. Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:10:55 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) re: army has more vessels than navy also they had more aircraft than the airforce, or did have.. figure all the helos in all the aviation brigades, [one per division] plus corps aviation brigades, etc. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 22:15:53 +0100 From: "Carl Roger Nilsen" Subject: Re: Laws of War Cor typed: >So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual >interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if there >is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that get >into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, >international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers being >held accountable to anyone but us. I'm sure Nazi Germany would have preferred nobody else to hold their war criminals accountable either. In fact, it sounds like a natural preference for just about everybody to shuffle their own muck without other countries' noses poking in everywhere. And Mark Oliver: >Anyhow the point of this is that there is no hard definition of "war crimes" >or "crimes against humanity". Being on the "right" side at the right time >will excuse all manner of terrible actions and attrocities. Oh yes. We wouldn't want to rip up some old wounds, now. As it may be an ugly truth, media has become even better lately to work both for and against its purposes. For that reason, being on the "right" side doing dirty deeds cheap is no longer as secure as it used to be, as "wrong time" occasions are more frequent. But then again, in the T2k timeline war crimes/crimes against humanity will be very easy to get away with considering most factors, and this might be a reason for more nasty stuff happening. Nobody cares, cause they know they'll get away with it anyhow. No fear of spinning repercussions. Carl Roger Nilsen "Never overlook something that seems to be simple" BoomTime, day 66 of Chaos, YOLD: 3166 (orderly) 168:02:03 (1) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 15:42:23 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: Aerial Bombing By Hand Dear List, I got the response back from my friend Lance who is a pilot that competed in 'aerial package delivery' contests. Here's the deal: They were flying about 100 MPH at about 200 feet AGL (above ground level) in little single engine prop planes (like a Cesna or a Piper). The target was two 50 gallon drums set in a field about 100 yards apart. The message container (projectile) weighed about 1 lb total and had a 3 ft. streamer attached. On a single pass they would have to drop 2 containers in rapid succession. He said that hitting a target the size of an M1 was a "piece of cake". He could actually HIT the 50 gal barrel about 50% of the time. He didn't do this very often and didn't consider himself to be very talented at it. Once you do it a couple times it was easy to judge where it would go. He said the streamer helped a lot with accuracy because it stopped the forward momentum of the package very quickly so you dropped it just before you were right on top of it. From 200 ft he said the wind effects on the accuracy was minimal (a foot or 2 worth of spread). He guessed the wind effects would be somewhat higher at 2000 ft, but that he never dropped anything from that height. Obviously, the heavier the object and the more streamlined the object is the less the wind effect would be. Also bear in mind that the pilot was actually doing the dropping. So he had to worry about the plane as well as the drop. It would have been easier if they had 2 people. Also, bear in mind they were flying straight and level, to a known target, that was clearly marked in field. They weren't doing any evasive maneuvers and didn't have to make coolness-under-fire checks because of AA fire. The weather was always mostly clear with good visibility and the winds were not excesive. Also, I am suppoed to relate a little pilot humor: "Just remind him that takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory." Hope this helps... Walter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:08:47 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Laws of War Re: no repercussions It's interesting to note the "freedom from prosicusion" thinking that occurs in chaos.. I don't know if the guilty parties even think of their actions being "illegal" or if they just don't care, and are taking advantage of the chaos. Time has a way of catching up with the guilty.. there is an investigation, on going I believe, about an incident in Korea 50 years ago at a place called No Gun Ri. There are some sites on the web, so I won't postulate here, but the accused are now being investigated for "alleged" war crimes.. can't forget the alleged, sign of the times. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:35:34 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 02:08 AM 3/7/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >> >> You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): the >> laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, >> regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of >> whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term >> "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. >Constitution. >> > >But, for the US, that's all that matters... Anything else is just a matter >of international diplomacy. We only might care what our bigger allies think >(and sometimes, we ignore them as well.) > No, you're still confusing the two things: the "war" in the laws of war and the "war" in a U.S. declaration of war are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. We are bound by the laws of war, and consider ourselives bound, no matter what we call the conflict. If it makes it easier for you, think of them as the "laws of combat". >> Well I think the rules sa that you treat neutrals (forces that aren't >party >> to the conflict) in a different way--but once you start shooting people, >> they're no longer neutrals. In the latter sense, it's okay to shoot a >> peacekeeper, but not a third-party civilian. But yes, everyone has to >> follow the rules. >> > >But I would think that a bit strict. So, as a neutral, I don't have the >right to shoot BACK at someone when their shooting at me? Of course you do--once someone shoots at you, assuming you're in uniform you're an armed combatant. >I'd still like to >maintain my neutrality in the conflict, but I'm being shot at. Okay, I don't know the details here, but I'd imagine that as long as you're involved in combat you're considered a combatant. The rules about who's a neutral and how neutrals are treated are I think a different set of rules than the rules for the actual conduct of combat. >Damn >straight I'm going to shoot back, and to hell with international "rules" >about POWs... I'm not in a war, so they are not prisoner's of war. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way: yes, they are POW's. >And >such an issue has come up often in the last half of the century, usually >involving US servicemen. Remember; in Somalia, Bosnia, and a few others >(can't come up with them, but I bet the case can be made for Viet Nam as >well, at least from the Vietnamese perspective) we weren't at war, even >though we were fighting. So, the captured scouts weren't considered a >prisoners of war, even though we tried to get it declared that they were.. >Considering that, they were treated fairly well... Not as well as we would >have liked, but a lot better than they could have been. Yes, legally, they were POW's. Whether the other countries treated them that way or not is another matter--but in the cases you mention any people we captured were treated as POW's (though obviously--and this is important to the Bosnian case--a POW who's a war criminal can be tried, and that takes precedence of the POW status). >> >> >I understand, that to the common person, any major conflict would seem to >be >> >a war. But I think by definition in diplomacy, a war requires one side >to >> >declare against another. Otherwise, it's just a conflict, or sometimes >just >> >an incident. Remember, Korea wasn't a war, it was a Police Action >(whatever >> >that means...) >> > >> But the rules still did apply (otherwise you open some huge loopholes). > >But this begs the question of a civil war. Though they fit the definition >of war as presented my Webster's, they often don't by way of International >Relations. The involved government often calls it an insurgency. That's >why rebels aren't given the latitude as an opposing army might. > I've already said this once, but if the combantants wear uniforms, YES, the laws of war apply EVEN IN A CIVIL WAR. It does NOT matter what the government calls it. Governments often try to argue that they don't have to follow the rules because it's an itnenral matter, or their just "terrorists", not soldiers, or what have you, but these sorts of argument have NO LEGAL SUPPORT. >Think about it a bit. By your definition of uniforms, and we can throw in >something about there needing to be two nations involved, then the Montana >Freemen were an opposing army, and the actions there were a war (okay, only >when shots are fired...) I can get enough people together, put uniforms on, >declare Sacramento an independant State. The government then must follow >the "rules" of war when dealing with me. Yes, exactly. I can't imagine why it would matter, though, since the U.S.'s laws for dealing with criminal suspects are in general more strict than the rules for dealing with POW's. > >And what rules are out there? The only written ones I know about are the >GC. I'd be surprised if there isn't anything in them covering declarations. >As it is, most International rules are unwritten, but followed by a long >standing tradition of mutual cooperation. That's a basis of diplomacy. >Before the GC, it was a "rule" that a country must declare war, formally, >before attacking. In fact, that was part of the deal with Japan and Pearl >Harbor. Now, unless it's in the GC, I'd wager that it's an unwritten rule. >So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual >interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if there >is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that get >into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, >international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers being >held accountable to anyone but us. You'd have to ask an expert on that branch of law. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:37:33 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 11:11 AM 3/7/00 -0000, Mark Oliver wrote: > >Anyhow the point of this is that there is no hard definition of "war crimes" >or "crimes against humanity". Being on the "right" side at the right time >will excuse all manner of terrible actions and attrocities. There are acutaly a number of hard defintions--such as the Geneva Conventions--but not all of them are written. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:46:11 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 11:39 AM 3/7/00 -0600, Rob Barnes wrote: > > >Kevin O'Dell wrote: > >> >> Wasn't Vietnam and Korea both considered Police actions? Both had military >> forces there. >> If it was later declared a war would the men who fought and did war crimes, >> would they be eligible for standing trial or would the fact that they >> happened before it was called a war make a difference? >> > >I thought the My Lai Massacre resulted in a war crimes trial...I guess I'll >have to go look it up to be sure. Anyone else know? > Yes, it did. Mind you, I'm not sure what laws Calley was prosecuted under--it might have been just the UCMJ ("war crime" isn't a legal term, I don't think--it's used to refer to any crime committed in a war). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:45:01 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > > > ><> I don't know if the trial was a "war crimes" in the sense of the GC or > > Nuremberg. It was solely an American deal, and I believe was conducted as a > > court-martial tribunal. It's been awhile since I've read the book about Lt. > > Cally, so I don't remember what the charges actually were. > > > > I am sorry, I'm not familar with that. What was it? > > Kevin > The Mai Lai massacre was an vent during Viet Nam (which so far is probably obvious) where US troops gundowned a group of unarmed Viet Namese civilians; many of which were elderly, children, and women. Lt. Cally was the officer in command of the platoon that supposedly committed the killings. Now, at this point, it depends on what source you get the information from as two what went down. The only fact that goes across all accounts is that US soldiers killed defenseless civilians. As to what platoon did it, where each platoon was at, who was in charge, etc., depends on who is telling the story. The end result was that Lt. Cally took the brunt of the blame, and the brunt of the punishment. To many, he ended up as a scapegoat. Even if it was his platoon that did it, and he didn't do anything to stop it, many people got away with murder - with him serving most of the punishment. I read a book on it, mostly about the trial and such. The author's views of Cally changed at least a couple times through the course of the trial and the later writing of the book. What I found compelling, in Cally's defence, was some of the transcript exerts of witness accounts. I haven't read everything on it. Not even a lot. I knew about Mai Lai before I knew about Lt. Cally. I even knew his name, before I knew in what relation his name was. On top of everything else with just that incident, you can throw in the whole situation in Viet Nam. I would not be surprised to find if other incidents had happened. The whole war was a damned, confused mess. And just that incident epitomizes just how confused the situation was. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:50:04 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 03:20 AM 3/7/00 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >Man I like to throw spanners in the works :) > >> > You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): >the >> > laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, >> > regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of >> > whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term >> > "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. >> Constitution. > >So what does the US consider a war???. I think they still consider Vietnam >a conflict don't they?....I wonder when they'll accept that it was a war... > The veterans of Vietnam are considered combat veterans, so the distinction is irrelevant. For a while, the Veterans of Foreign Wars wouldn't accept them as members, but that changed like 15 or 20 years ago. >> (and sometimes, we ignore them as well.) > >only sometimes??? > Yes, only sometimes. Among the countries of the world, the U.S. is considered something of a stickler for legalities. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 17:54:29 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 08:46 AM 3/7/00 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >From: Scott David Orr >What's your evidence for this? >Point two is just common knowledge of counter spy operations; The US still >has not arrested the Chinese Los Alamos researcher. The CIA is not gathering >more evidence against him (heck the probably won't even try him) the are >watching his contacts. So in other words, it's just you're guess, and you're dismissing FBI (not CIA--this isn't the CIA's responsibility, since it's domestic) incompetence as an explanation. >Point three is simply deductive reasoning. If the US is constantly upgrading >their technology for secure communication and they were vehemently opposed >to _PDG_ and now are not, but in fact encouraging it's export, well it >stands to reason that they either "figured it out" or more likely pressured >its creator (IRS?) to reveal his backdoors for the sake of "National >Security". So in other words, you're guessing again. What is PSG anyway? If it's like most encryption systems, you can't "crack it", because each user has a different key--you have to crack each key individually. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:57:56 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War > Cor typed: > >So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual > >interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if there > >is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that get > >into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, > >international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers being > >held accountable to anyone but us. > > > I'm sure Nazi Germany would have preferred nobody else to hold their war criminals accountable either. In fact, it sounds like a natural preference for just about everybody to shuffle their own muck without other countries' noses poking in everywhere. > The difference there is that when the trials came about, there was no longer a Nazi Germany. My point in there was that it's usually the VANQUISHED that get into trouble. The US has never been vanquished (even if considering Viet Nam a loss, our country was still secure...) and probably won't be in the foreseeable future. But if we give in to an independent world court, then our soldiers will be liable to that court for actions during conflicts where we do prevail. The US is afraid (and I think justly so) that the losers of conflicts will trump up charges against our soldiers. Or just anyone in an area where US troops are stationed and doesn't like it. Granted, the incident (that I'm aware of) in Okinawa was bad, but such a thing could easily be faked, and then our soldiers have to answer to a court that isn't bound to the US. We want to keep them under our laws a judicial prudence. I agree with that. If Nazi Germany had survived as an unoccupied nation, even if a badly beaten and smaller one, I'm sure most of the War Crime trials would have no affect. As it was, many accused have disappeared without facing punishment. One was even living in Australia with the OZ not doing anything about it for awhile, not even revoking his passports or keeping him under watch. When it was finally decided to go get him, he'd disappeared out of the country. Just look at Bosnia, and how hard a time we've had at going after the accused war criminals there. And I'd say that Saddham Hussein has committed crimes against humanity, but nothing has every been brought about it. Just some idle talk, by people on the sidelines like us. Now, if we had fully invaded and occupied Bosnia, or Iraq, like we did Germany after WW2, a lot more would have and could have been done. If he wasn't killed, I can assure you that Saddham would be under arrest. It's funny, but I think some of the mid-East countries want the World Court deal, and the US to bend to it. But I'd bet if it were one of their own, they'd demand that we let them take care of the matter. Double Standard? Think they might be hoping for the possibility of "getting at" the US in an Internationally legal way? Bet you buckskins they do... Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #124 *************************************