Should the international military community relax it's prohibition on JHP ammunition?

PrayingForWar said:

I just wanted to personally say #^*% YOU. If you hate this country that much, I cordially invite you to GET THE #^*% OUT. I serve this country with pride, and when I go out in public in uniform, I am regularly thanked at least. I can't count how many times I've been bought lunch or beers by our people. Whenever someone thanks me for my service, I tell them it's people like them who make it all worthwhile.

Then I come across smarmy, self absorbed douchebags like you, who are doing everything you can to bring this country down from the inside. It would be a great deal of personal satisfaction to meet you in a dark alley somewhere in Miami, and pummel the living hell out of you, before putting you on a makeshift boat so you can float south and enjoy the socialist paradise that is Cuba.

You can shove that native crap too. When you put on a loin cloth you fashioned from buckskin and start embracing primitive life, you can whine about how much better life would be if eurotrash like my ancestry didn't land on these shores 6000 years after your ancestry walked over, and achieved NOT ONE SINGLE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT that enhanced the human standard of living. So enjoy your electricity, and your welfare check, provided by the people who should have wiped you filthy scraelings out entirely. Hindsight‘s a real b!tc# huh?

In regards to the OP. If I were in charge, napalm and fragmenting jacketed bacon bullets would be the order of the day. We’re faced with an enemy (outside our borders, and creeping inside at an alarming rate) that cares little about life, and isn’t extraordinarily concerned with medivac. The geneva convention rules should not apply, but those people in charge, who don’t do any of the fighting have decided otherwise.

Click to expand...

wow dude. Do you really think it necessary to bring the level of offensive personal attacks up that much?

Daylen said:

wow dude. Do you really think it necessary to bring the level of offensive personal attacks up that much?

Click to expand...

At the moment, yes. It was a knee jerk reaction, and I added an apology.

First off, I want to thank all the service men and women on this forum for their service to our country. You have undoubtedly seen things than no person should ever see, and the fact that you volunteered to serve honorably is highly commendable.

You deserve respect, honor, thanks and prayers.

All that said, I have just two more words for those of you who think you've served to keep the citizens of America free:

Smedley Butler...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

The US military has been a private mercenary force for international banksters for over a century. Sorry to break the news to you, but it's not really a secret anymore. It hasn't been a secret since 1934.

That doesn't mean you are bad people--you've just been told a raft of lies for your entire career, and in your patriotic fervor, you refused to discover the truth.

We don't hate you--we pray for you, and hope that someday you too will see through the facade that stands in front of our "government". Hopefully you will someday realize who the real enemies of America are, and put your hubris aside, before its too late.

I'll close with the prescient words of Thomas Jefferson:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Click to expand...

Dreamer said:

First off, I want to thank all the service men and women on this forum for their service to our country. You have undoubtedly seen things than no person should ever see, and the fact that you volunteered to serve honorably is highly commendable.

You deserve respect, honor, thanks and prayers.

All that said, I have just two more words for those of you who think you've served to keep the citizens of America free:

Smedley Butler...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

The US military has been a private mercenary force for international banksters for over a century. Sorry to break the news to you, but it's not really a secret anymore. It hasn't been a secret since 1934.

That doesn't mean you are bad people--you've just been told a raft of lies for your entire career, and in your patriotic fervor, you refused to discover the truth.

We don't hate you--we pray for you, and hope that someday you too will see through the facade that stands in front of our "government". Hopefully you will someday realize who the real enemies of America are, and put your hubris aside, before its too late.

I'll close with the prescient words of Thomas Jefferson:

Click to expand...

By the Greatest of our founding fathers Thomas Jefferson "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Click to expand...

Thanks Dreamer, but if you're going to try and convince me I've been fooled by the empire into some sort of jingoistic bloodlust, you'll have to do better than a wiki post. I don't believe for one second that the federal reserve banks are a benevolent institution, or that they exist to promote anything that could be considered as good. The people that own and control our money certainly do not care if we all starve to death.

What I do reject is that they are planning for us to do so (or any other massive extermination plot alex jones can imagine), and I laugh at the idea that they have the means to make it happen. Apparently they can't even pull off the most intricate false flag operation ever imagined, without snuffing out the geniuses who put out an internet video that after 3 revisions "exposed" the plot. This is one instance where the government only had one story, and it was actually plausible.

Further, I find it repulsive that someone can thank service members for their sacrifices, and then in the same post trivialize our endeavors by calling us mercenaries. I hope that one day YOU can see through the propaganda that is sold to people who know something is wrong, but are led to believe there is no difference between Left/Right, or for that matter Right/Wrong. Your energy and passion is being used by the enemy of the nation you are home to, and I believe you do sincerely love, to demoralize and marginalize an effective libertarian grassroots effort to sustain our constitutional foundation.

As for the original question: yes. And the prohibition isn't on JHP, hollowpoints, or "dum-dums", it is a prohibition of weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering".

As for the rest, I'll probably regret this, but... *sigh* ...here goes.

I am a veteran. I'm the father of an active duty soldier, currently serving in Iraq with his wife. I'm the son of a veteran. I'm the descendant of a long line of veterans who have fought in every military conflict America has known, starting with the French & Indian Wars, through the American Revolution, through the current overseas conflicts.

Michigander, while perhaps abrasive and less than diplomatic in his approach, is right: no military personnel currently serving are doing anything to protect Americans' right to free speech. The Iraqis aren't threatening my free speech. Neither are the Taliban or Afghanis. Same for the Germans, Japanese, and South Koreans. If the Army wanted to protect my right to free speech, why didn't the Old Guard take McCain and Feingold's offices at bayonet point?

"Against all enemies foreign and domestic", as I recall. No foreign power has ever threatened Americans' right to free speech, but the domestic enemies of the Constitution certainly have, on a regular basis.

SFCRetired said:

Another "skilled killer" here who is highly offended by your comments. My career was U.S. Army and I can't begin to tell you the number of times we went out to help, not kill, those who could not help themselves.

Yeah, you've got a right to say what you did. Please keep in mind how that right was bought and paid for. Your comments were especially offensive considering what this next Thursday is. At 11:00 am on that day, 92 years ago, my Dad was in France witnessing the end of a war. Have you ever seen the graves in France from that war? I have.

Have you ever visited Arlington? You should, if for no other reason than to see the price that was paid for your rights and freedoms.

For the record: I fully associate myself with karlmc10's comments. He put it even better than I can.

Click to expand...

I have numerous friends and relatives who are retired from the military, or are currently in it. My grandfather who died recently helped liberate the Philippines in WWII. Yes I have visited Arlington. Twice. I lost 3 family members in WWII, and one just a few years ago in Iraq. We lost none in Vietnam, despite several there who were in heavy combat. 2 other friends of mine were badly maimed in Iraq.

It is easy to mistake my comments as being against individual soliders. I have nothing against anyone who is enlisted. Up to around the threshold of following orders that the Nazi's got blamed at, I can't and won't blame anyone for doing as they are commanded. Furthermore, I agree that many go into it for all the right reasons, and keep it that way. Soldiers generally have my respect, even if not my desire to fund their profession to the extent it now is funded.

How much can be helped in foreign countries is a wonderfully loaded question with just about as much emotional baggage as factual baggage. I will be the first to admit that I have a woefully smaller idea of what's going on in the sandbox than someone who is inlisted, since I haven't left the country in 10 years. But I do know that select parts of Africa and other parts of the 3rd world are about as brutal and unforgiving as you can get, and in the grand scheme of things, acting as the do gooder world police still tends to be all about money, with few noticeable differences made for overall deaths. This and the ragged state of things in the USA is why I have little to no interest in my tax dollars going to foreign countries. There is also my Libertarian perspective on believing the federal government should have no authority to start wars over seas unless there is a clear and extreme threat. I am happy for anyone else who disagrees, because it's a free country.

KBCraig said:

Michigander, while perhaps abrasive and less than diplomatic in his approach, is right: no military personnel currently serving are doing anything to protect Americans' right to free speech. The Iraqis aren't threatening my free speech. Neither are the Taliban or Afghanis. Same for the Germans, Japanese, and South Koreans. If the Army wanted to protect my right to free speech, why didn't the Old Guard take McCain and Feingold's offices at bayonet point? .

Click to expand...

While all of this is true, it still does not alter the fact that the US military is ready, willing and able to protect these things. That I dislike imperialism does not alter my grattitude for anyone who voluntarily signs up to risk their lives to keep the country safe, secure and free. That US soldiers don't so often do that anymore does not change the magnitude of this commitment.

PrayingForWar said:

I want to apologise if this post offends natives that are not leftist rejects like Michigander.

Click to expand...

Saying what you mean tends to develop a rather thick skin. No apology is needed, and I applaud you for saying what you mean. I enjoy a good conversation where different viewpoints can be analyzed. Anyone who decides they wish to be a free thinker, and decides that they are regularly subject to being blatantly wrong, as I decided long ago, should be okay with a conversation such as this one. Perhaps a greater degree of courtesy is best, but I don't generally concern myself with the attitudes of others.

Anyhow, it really is amazing how many people mistake me for a complete leftist by jumping to conclusions about what I post. While it is true that I am a Libertarian with views that lean some towards the left, I am certainly not defineable as a leftist, and I in fact tend to vote for most Republicans who strike me as honest, even if it ends up being a rare occurance.

In any case, I also think that it should be considered important not to belittle anyone on this forum specifically for any political perspective. I personally know socialists, leftists, liberatrians and plenty of republicans who open carry. The earliest days of modern urban open carry in Michigan consisted primarily of people with a diverse array of political beliefs, with a later heavy influx of conservatives. I have since then always believed that we on this forum should consider ourselves united only by gun rights activism. No political perspective is by definition anti gun at its core. Even Marx was in favor of gun rights.

One thing for sure, he likes posting about himself.

karlmc10 said:

First of all sir, I am one of the "skilled killers" that served a career on our nations Army. What you have said in the above post is an affront to every one who has and is serving in the service of this great country and I take offense to both your tone and your words. I have and would again, however, stand in your defense to say them. You have that right, and many others thanks to those "Ruthlessly skilled killers" serving this "imerialistic, murderous country".

I also have those same rights to say the following- I would love to see what you standing at the base of the Kuwait City hospital looking at the incubators with the dead babies in them that the Iraqi soldier threw from the upper floor windows where the maternity ward was, and hear you say the same thing. How about standing in the court yard of a house where the burned bodies of parents are who were first forced to watch the rape and torture of thier children before they were burned alive. How about the thousands that were killed in Kosovo? How about the thousands of Kurds that were gassed ? In your view, it's better that we just let that happen. How about the battleships we sent to aid the tsunami victims? Yeah those sailors really got some killing done there feeding and treating all those people.
Until you have actually walked in the boots of a soldier instead of running your mouth while sitting in the comfort of your or your mommies home playing keyboard commando, like you know what you are talking about, maybe you should learn a thing or two about the real world.
And as far as that " I reserve the right as a decendant of native Americans". No you didn't, us "ruthlessly skilled killers" did. I reserve the right to say what I did because I and many others actually did.

By the way, every time I have seen or heard anybody play that "I'm a native American decendant" card they were as lilly white as I am so give that crap a rest too, junior.

Click to expand...

+1000 I reckon the Comanche and Apache were prob'ly the most 'ruthlessly skilled killers' of their day... and they did it for fun. Some people will say anything to justifiy their own cowardace. As for the JHP's? The Hague Convention of 1896 (or around there) set the laws regarding war crimes, and made it a war crime to use bullets that expand or fragment within the human body, for military combat.

You said it first

karlmc10 said:

One thing you have to remember is that the military services consider wounding the enemy soldier preferable to killing him IN MOST INSTANCES. It's called a force mutiplier. If you kill an enemy combatant, then you have removed one enemy soldier from the battle. If you wound one, normally at least one will have to help the wounded from the battlefield, sometimes two thereby removing two to three combatants from the battlefield. While that same wounded enemy may be treated and return to fight again later, the American soldier trains to "survive and win on the next battlefield." You win wars one battle at a time and you do that by removing enemy combatants from battle.

Click to expand...

I was going to point this out but you beat me to it. If you kill an enemy soldier then his buddies just fight on more forcefully. But if you wound him, it takes a couple to remove him from the battle field which means they're no longer shooting at you. Then the injured enemy has to be air lifted to a hospital behind their lines. That means the flight crew on the med-evac chopper is not piloting an attack air craft. It also means that the enemy had to spend some of their money on rescue aircraft rather than combat air craft. Then the doctors and nurses which attend to the injured enemy troop can't become soldiers/sailors/airmen cause they're busy being doctors. The enemy's command then has to spend some of their money on facilities for those personnel and the medical facility. They have to spend some of their money on an ambulance instead of a tank. They have to spend some of their money on medicine instead of munitions.

It is very expensive in man power and money to treat wounded soldiers, hence, the Army doesn't really want to kill that enemy most of the time (sure they do sometimes) since just wounding him takes a dozen or so of the enemy out of action. Of course that's not alway the case, but usually. Since FMJ's are not normally as lethal as soft pointed, semi jacketed hollow points, the FMJs tend to accomplish the hurt 'em but don't kill em duty a little better.

Conventional vs Unconventional

While I understand on a conventional battlefield the idea of causing wounds that require others to care for the wounded it doesn't seem to hold up in the unconventional battlefield where combatants are fewer/terrorist/willing-to-meet-their-maker-and-collect-on-the-72-virgins.

I can't believe that Al Queda has hospitals or (many) doctors (other than what society provides). I would guess if you get shot during an operation, working for a terrorist group, you are on your own.

So with that thinking, you would prefer to kill them as fast as possible, since they won't care for their wounded. So after the conventional war is over and the police action, rebuilding operation begins the troops be able to switch over to self defense type rounds if available in the caliber for their weapons, if they so choose. I don't think a 50BMG hollowpoint is necessary but who am I to judge.

One other scenario came to mind where the fighters didn't care for the wounded on a somewhat conventional battlefield. It was in the south pacific where the Japanese sent wave after wave of men charging the US machine gun positions. Again, in that scenario I would rather kill the charging soldier than allow him to throw a grenade while he is lying there shot.

Just like laws for anything else, only the law abiding (countries/combatants) obey them so any terrorist won't follow them.

karlmc10 said:

When you take the oath you swear to protect and defend the Constitution. Just by being part of the greatest military in the world helps to do that. When you deploy to help others you are also showing the world the might of the United States military and that deters most from direct aggression against our country thereby protecting our Constituion. Our Constitution is what protects our rights. If you fight for our country, your fighting for the Constitution that protects those rights. Don't try to minimize what our fine soldiers do every day. I find this personally insulting. Just a few words from another disabled vet. Yeah, there's a bunch of us so throwing that card out might shut others up but not me, because I did fight for my rights. What you fought for only you can say but don't assign your misguided thoughts to me. Moving on as this has really gone astray (partly with my help).

Click to expand...

Our constitution protects our rights? Really? Well it's doing a damn fine job let me tell you.

What kind of kool aid have you been drinking?

You were NOT fighting for the collective rights of our nation. Fact is the military isn't even fighting for our nation's independence.

Be delusional about it all you want, the facts don't change.

The only reason I mention that I'm a disabled veteran is to relay the fact that I have been there.

You can find the facts personally insulting all you would like, however, since you know your rights, you should also realize that you don't have the right to not be offended.

I take back nothing I have said.

yes. Ball ammo sucks.

I didn't imagine this thread would draw this level of response, but I'm glad it did, as some comments were raised herein I'd like to address:

Jack House: You're absolutely correct, it was the 1899 Hague Convention, specifically Declaration III which covers this topic, not the Geneva Convention as I'd originally misstated.

Michigander: You mentioned a lot of things herein I found utterly ridiculous, representative of idealists who've never "been there, done that." However, most of the others have called you on your idealisms, so there's little need to bother repeating their fine, if a bit abrasive posts.

Since you haven't "been there, done that" (painfully obvious to those of us who have) I'll forgive you, except for your use of the term "murderous" when it comes to describing our troops. For that I invite you to find a scum-filled pond, dunk your head, and inhale. More constructively on this particularly point, I would advise you that all soldiers of reputable countries study, adhere to, and are subject to the Laws of Armed Conflict. Soldiers who step outside the line are subject to some rather severe punishments, including rotting away in federal prison for the rest of their lives.

As for this nonsense of our military not helping our citizens, those who espouse this view are apparently about 70 years behind on their global economics classes. We don't have the lowest price per gallon of gas, but it's down there. Those countries with lower prices are significant producers of oil themselves. The international petrochemical industry is both strongly connected, and massive, and is the foundation for many other industries.

Don't think our military helps us at home? Over the last 100 years, our military has quelled conflicts ranging from skirmishes to two World Wars. The principle effect has been a cessation of hostilities, followed by a return of area and international commerce, to the benefit of everyone involved, including the U.S. The economic effect at home has been so significant that estimates from world economists put our GDP (gross domestic product) at between 25% and 67% of what it currently is had we continued with the isolationist position we held 100 years ago.

Our overseas involvement, doing the right thing, being wiling to stand up not only for our own international economic interests, but also the human rights of others,

The same stuff society faces here at home, including gangs and gang leaders killing one another are the same stuff society faces overseas, but on a larger scale, and they're called empirial regimes and warlords committing mass genocide.

The responsibilities don't change with size, people, and regardless of size, if we don't the adverse influences in check, they absolutely will run us over.

Anyone who thinks for one nanosecond that our military has done little to nothing to protect our rights and freedoms here at home has yet to think things through.

Here's little food for thought...

Ever wonder why the Geneva Conventions only apply to military fighting in war, and NOT to domestic law enforcement, acting against their own citizenry?

ALL cops carry hollowpoints.

I'm just sayin'...

since9 said:

As for this nonsense of our military not helping our citizens, those who espouse this view are apparently about 70 years behind on their global economics classes. We don't have the lowest price per gallon of gas, but it's down there. Those countries with lower prices are significant producers of oil themselves. The international petrochemical industry is both strongly connected, and massive, and is the foundation for many other industries.

Don't think our military helps us at home? Over the last 100 years, our military has quelled conflicts ranging from skirmishes to two World Wars. The principle effect has been a cessation of hostilities, followed by a return of area and international commerce, to the benefit of everyone involved, including the U.S. The economic effect at home has been so significant that estimates from world economists put our GDP (gross domestic product) at between 25% and 67% of what it currently is had we continued with the isolationist position we held 100 years ago.

Our overseas involvement, doing the right thing, being wiling to stand up not only for our own international economic interests, but also the human rights of others,

The same stuff society faces here at home, including gangs and gang leaders killing one another are the same stuff society faces overseas, but on a larger scale, and they're called empirial regimes and warlords committing mass genocide.

The responsibilities don't change with size, people, and regardless of size, if we don't the adverse influences in check, they absolutely will run us over.

Anyone who thinks for one nanosecond that our military has done little to nothing to protect our rights and freedoms here at home has yet to think things through.

Click to expand...

You have misread my posts. The message was apparently lost on you.

Dreamer said:

Here's little food for thought...

Ever wonder why the Geneva Conventions only apply to military fighting in war, and NOT to domestic law enforcement, acting against their own citizenry?

ALL cops carry hollowpoints.

I'm just sayin'...

Click to expand...

Yup, they are now also being trained to keep firing until the perp is on the ground..so NO chance on the perp surviving ( what if he was innocent ? ) So, now our Militarized national police force are de facto firing squads, I think summary executions could be a war crime... The Govt's war against the American people.

The purpose of combat is to achieve a predetermined objective while expecting resistance in whatever form the enemy can muster. That being said, I seriously doubt our enemies follow the same rules we do. If I shoot you in combat I intend to kill you to remove you permanently as a threat. One JHP from a sidearm will do the job of two RN rounds. It is actually pretty stupid that civilians have access to better sidearm ammo than the military.

I've been on the delivery end of proximity fused 5" and 2.75" rockets (HEAT/ATAP/GP/WP/APERS), 20mm cannon (HEI/API/APT), Fuel/Air Explosive (FAE) CBU's and 7.62 MG's as well with the usual stuff. I've witnessed the end result. Expanding bullets would be the least of their problems.

If I remember right... the Hauge convention came on the heels of Bertie Clay's invention of the dum-dum. (google is your friend) Here 'tis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Bertie-Clay 'The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets which easily expand or flatten in the body, and was an expansion of the Declaration of St. Petersburg in 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams.' Such stuff was deemed 'barbaric'.

They never envisioned hyper-velocity (Mach 7) DU sabots that would create 14 atmospheres of over pressure as the spall created fireball inna blender effect. Silly people then made siilly rules 'bout what you could kill with... same as these silly ROE's now.