why not kill medics?

[NEDM]

in many wars, the medics are not saposed to be killed because of some rules of war. i think this is stupid. the medics treat the soldiers, and then the soldiers can come back later.

in war, the enemy's life must be ended. with the medics gone, the enemy cant get their wounded soldiers healed and then they will ether die or be permenetly wounded. this is a good thing. there should be only 2 ruels in war.
1. kill or be killed
2. dont kill civilians. (you need workers for you later when you take over the country)

a soldier must have no morals and no value of the enemy's life. they must feel hate toward the enemy. a soldier must be a killing machien. kill with a smile.

the enemy must die, untlll they ether surrender or completly die.

dont find an enemy base and not destroy it because you feel they are not threat at this moment. if you find an enemy base, DESTROY IT! they are always a threat. show no mercy.

humans are a savage creature. we still have that killing instinct in us. we were ment to be warriors. a soldier must feel this killing instinc in him. dont back down because you think that the enemy isnt a threat. it isnt like a scale of 1-10. its ether they are an enemy or they are not.

it isnt over untill they are all dead or if they surrender.

its all about winning. only reason we should not kill the medics is if it creates a tactical advantage to us. other wise, all medics must die first on the enemy side.

[enraged-fish]

WTF are you talkin about? medics are always killed in war.

[Eoewe]

Why would we target Corpsmen/Medics? Because they tend to the wounded? So what if they save people who just turn around and cause more death. Only cowards would attack such people. When I was in Iraq, Corpsmen (Navy Medics) usually only had a M9 (9mm Beretta) that they could defend themselves with. My friend Doc Alfaro never even fired his, he was too busy tending to the wounded, both enemy and friendly.

Why cause more death than one has to?

[AtomicTerrorist]

At 3/4/07 07:36 PM, Eoewe wrote: Why would we target Corpsmen/Medics? Because they tend to the wounded? So what if they save people who just turn around and cause more death. Only cowards would attack such people. When I was in Iraq, Corpsmen (Navy Medics) usually only had a M9 (9mm Beretta) that they could defend themselves with. My friend Doc Alfaro never even fired his, he was too busy tending to the wounded, both enemy and friendly.

Why cause more death than one has to?

I agree. Why would you kill someone who is trying to prevent death? People who kill/target medics are cowards and deserve to die the most painful way possible

[Draconias]

NEDM, you seem to be misunderstanding the point of war. The point is not to kill, but to win. In fact, if possible, you want to kill as few people as possible (on both sides) while still winning. Medics aren't usually killed because they are noncombatants in a general sense; so what if they help enemies? We'll just make them PoWs until the end of the war.

[HogWashSoup]

At 3/4/07 07:36 PM, Eoewe wrote: Why cause more death than one has to?

because the enemy must die. anyone who tends to the wounded of the enemy must be killed so that they can not recover. the reason you dont want them to recover isnt to ruin their lives, which should have ended anyways, it is to win.

it is ether kill or be killed.

death of the enemy is a good thing. it is your life and your comrads' lives that only matter. the enemy's lives are a threat to you. you need to kill them or wound them enough that they cant fight. if you have a medic, they might be able to fight again.

you say you were in iraq, but you sound like you have concern for then enemies lives. i would call that ether treason or being a pussy. a real soldier shoots first and asks questions never. war is about survival and winning. to do that you must go back to the basic instincs, kill or be killed.

[fli]

CRAWWWWWWLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIIIN...

[HogWashSoup]

At 3/4/07 08:18 PM, Draconias wrote: NEDM, you seem to be misunderstanding the point of war. The point is not to kill, but to win. In fact, if possible, you want to kill as few people as possible (on both sides) while still winning. Medics aren't usually killed because they are noncombatants in a general sense; so what if they help enemies? We'll just make them PoWs until the end of the war.

so your saying that the romans made a large empire by not killing? war back then is still the same here, except we have bigger weapons now.

war has never been about preventing death, it has been about victory. death is the best way for the other country to surrender. if there is other means, go for it. then you wouldnt have a war.

war, even in its name has death in it.

war isnt about peace. peace is the exact opposite of war. war is about taking over. victory. winning. soldiers are the tools of war. without them there is no war. get rid of the soldiers on the enemy side and the enemy has no choice but to surrender. and if they dont, then destroy them. the government that is.

it isnt cowardly to kill the medics. it is cowadly to not kill them. you must take any tactical advantage that comes to you.

you cant see the enemy as humans. you need to get that out of your head. you must see the enemy only as an enemy. nothing more.

the best army is the army that has no remores to the enemy's death.

its all about winning. loosing is not an option.

if there is war, there is death. it has been that way for thousands of years and it will still be that way for even more thousands of years.

the only way to prevent death in war is to take war away. but as long as there is war, there is death. it is the inevitable byproduct of war.

if you show mercy to the enemy, the enemy will kill you. mercy should never be shown unless it gives you an advantage.

why do you think war is about not killing. if it was about not killing then it isnt a war. it would be a peace battle. and if that is so then it shouldnt be called a war.

in iraq medics do die all the time. this is because we are facing an enemy that knows the true meaning of war. they have the tactical advantage over us.
if our military thinks that war shouldnt have any death in it, the our military is nothing but hippies.

you are given guns for a reason. they kill, they dont make tea parties. if war was to prevent killing then you would be given tranquilizers, not bullets.

let me repeat that

if war was to prevent killing then you would be given tranquilizers, not bullets.

[Menace1989]

medics are killed dude, Soldiers try to obey the rules of war because despite the fact that they're killing, they have been trained to keep their heads and because of that they remember that the rules say don't shoot medics so some soldiers don't. This doesn't mean everyone obeys them, there are plenty of soldiers who do kill medics, civilians, kids, women, etc etc. I personally would not kill a medic unless I had to. At any rate, medics are killed everyday by both sides.

[HogWashSoup]

if we were faced with an enemy that could defeat us and take over america, i bet our military would still think the same way. and because of that we would be defeated.

i guess when you dont face a real threat you dont feel real war. and because of that you are not a real soldier. you are just a civilian in a soldier uniform.

if you dont want killings in war, take away the guns and get traquilizers.

[Hazard-Productions]

At 3/4/07 08:18 PM, Draconias wrote: NEDM, you seem to be misunderstanding the point of war. The point is not to kill, but to win. In fact, if possible, you want to kill as few people as possible (on both sides) while still winning. Medics aren't usually killed because they are noncombatants in a general sense; so what if they help enemies? We'll just make them PoWs until the end of the war.

I agree. If you have to get rid of enemy medics, take them prisoner until the war is over, then let them go home. It's better that way, some poor iraqi kid gets his dad back.

[fastbow]

Rules of war? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, pal....

[JoS]

Actually medics help the otherside too. If you kill a person in combat they will just leave the body there untill they have time to move it (ie after the fight). However if they are wounded people will try and help them to get to a medic and get them out of combat quickly. By only wounding a solider you have removed as many as 3 people from combat as opposed to just 1 if you kill them. Why the hell do you think landmines only take off a limb or two and do not kill you.

[Eoewe]

You have a lot to learn. You love clinging to words you can barely comprehend. I refuse to go into any details concerning me about my time in the Marines. I was never called a soldier. I was talking about medics. I wasn't talking about my enemy. There is a thing called distinction which most people use. Quit putting words in others mouths, it might come back to bite. I would gladly kill my enemy if it meant saving one of my own, with a grin.

[psycho-squirrel]

the reason why tranquilizers are not used is because they have a much shorter range and cant go though body armor.

and killing medics causes those who are wounded who could be get better if tended to to get worse.

sure they might be your enemy at that very moment, but that is only political. he was put into a situation, he didnt choose. its better to cripple the enemy (and by cripple i dont mean to make them parallized, but to make the strength of the whole weaker and back down) then to kill them.

your view seems very barbaric.

[Altarus]

You do realize that once you take that cat out of its bag, the other side will use that tactic against you, right? Fact is, both sides usually benefit by not attacking each other's medics.

[dELtaluca]

if you were to kill medics for the reason they heal the soliders who can fight again.

then you would similarly have to kill every single civilian you come accross and destory every single village and desimate anything you meet, after all, those civilians could become the soldiers you are fighting tomorrow, and they get their resources to be able to fight from their villages, no soldier will fight with no food or water.

oh heck, why bother sending an army at all, just nuke it.

</sarcasm>

[kilder]

At 3/4/07 06:54 PM, NEDM wrote: in many wars, the medics are not saposed to be killed because of some rules of war. i think this is stupid. the medics treat the soldiers, and then the soldiers can come back later.

a threat.

1.You have no idea what you're talking about...of course medics are killed

humans are a savage creature. we still have that killing instinct in us. we were ment to be warriors. a soldier must feel this killing instinc in him. dont back down because you think that the enemy isnt a threat. it isnt like a scale of 1-10. its ether they are an enemy or they are not.

2.You're an idiot. sorry.

[stupid1]

Stop basing your claims from First person shooters

[Engelsman]

I totalee understand cos in battalfield 2 they liek heal the enemys and they get up and shoot somemore.

[emmytee]

haha exactly what I thought. War is not about 'ending the enemies life', or capturing all the spawn points and reducing the enemies points, its about winning battles. And in every traditional war you are not supposed to shoot medics, like WW1 and even 2 medics were not supposed to be shot, but often were as its kinda hard to tell and some people are wankers.

[emmytee]

At 3/4/07 09:01 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:
you are given guns for a reason. they kill, they dont make tea parties. if war was to prevent killing then you would be given tranquilizers, not bullets.

let me repeat that

if war was to prevent killing then you would be given tranquilizers, not bullets.

Aww gee, look he think he made a good point. Poor ickle' tyke

[semaGdniM]

At 3/4/07 08:37 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

you say you were in iraq, but you sound like you have concern for then enemies lives. i would call that ether treason or being a pussy. a real soldier shoots first and asks questions never. war is about survival and winning. to do that you must go back to the basic instincs, kill or be killed.

Dude in all respect, you have no right to call any soldier a pussy. If you're so much braver than him and understand war then go enlist right now. I mean it. Stop reading this post, march to your enlistment office and join the army.

You say war is the same today as it was in the days of Rome. That is an absolute lie. War back then focused from basic to advanced hand to hand combat tactics with the only projectiles being arrows, balistas and catapult for town siege. The bottom of the barrel footsoldiers were used as peons and were often purposely lead as bait to the enemy.

There are two big difference in war today. These things are new technology and respect for all soldiers be they enemy or friend. As stated before, we no longer want to kill, we want to win. If we truly wanted to kill we could just send nuclear warheads and be done with our wars.

Don't come on here spouting crap and insulting our nations soldiers. Get out.

[AIDSextravaganza]

i hate people like you
you are a savage and ruthless human being who obviously doesnt value life
the enemy is like you or me... not some evil twisted human beings.... they are people dragged into war
and medics are not supposed to be killed because they are supposed to be unarmed
if they are unarmed the rules against killing medics are lifted
btw
lemme guess you support the use of chemical and biological warfare... maybe nuclear
u probably wouldnt mind blowing up a whole country if war was declared
you obviously have no value to human life which makes you a sick twisted human being

[SouthAsian]

Well an ally one day is your enemy the the next think about it.

[Imperator]

At 3/5/07 12:08 PM, semaGdniM wrote: You say war is the same today as it was in the days of Rome. That is an absolute lie. War back then focused from basic to advanced hand to hand combat tactics with the only projectiles being arrows, balistas and catapult for town siege. The bottom of the barrel footsoldiers were used as peons and were often purposely lead as bait to the enemy.

Both Legionaries and Hoplites were considered primary citizens and the backbones of Greek and Roman armies. They were the footsoldiers, and were about as prized and valuable individually as they were collectively. Moreover, you needed to have citizen status to serve in these elite roles, making your point completely moot.

There are two big difference in war today. These things are new technology and respect for all soldiers be they enemy or friend. As stated before, we no longer want to kill, we want to win. If we truly wanted to kill we could just send nuclear warheads and be done with our wars.

If you're saying Greco-Roman warfare was based on the sole purpose of killing as opposed to winning, you're gravely mistaken. Hoplite battles had more rules of conduct and took more measures to reduce casualties (on BOTH sides) than we do today. Ex; pursuing and killing enemy soldiers after they rout was taboo in hoplite warfare. In addition, prisoners were taken to be ransomed (or enslaved).

Don't come on here spouting crap and insulting our nations soldiers. Get out.

Don't come on here spouting historical inaccuracies while acting like you're on some sort of moral highground. War was, if anything, MORE personal in ancient times, making them therefore LESS sadistic and inhumane in practice. The fact that we can kill from 5000 yards away and never have to look the guy we're killing in the eye only shows how de-personalized modern warfare as become. Hence the catastrophic death tolls of both world wars, and rising civilian casualties in war.

[troubles1]

At 3/4/07 06:54 PM, NEDM wrote: a soldier must have no morals and no value of the enemy's life. they must feel hate toward the enemy. a soldier must be a killing machien. kill with a smile.

the enemy must die, untlll they ether surrender or completly die.

dont find an enemy base and not destroy it because you feel they are not threat at this moment. if you find an enemy base, DESTROY IT! they are always a threat. show no mer

its all about winning. only reason we should not kill the medics is if it creates a tactical advantage to us. other wise, all medics must die first on the enemy side.

WTF, You are a idiot. our corpsmen treat everyone , so are you saying that we should shoot them if they give them some assistance? war is hell and bad shit happens but keeping your humanity on a battlefield, and not being the type of person you described is what makes a true MARINE.

Sometimes you have to pull the trigger to save yourself and your squad and in this type of Urban warfare we are in were the battlefield is house to house you unfortunately are very close to the enemy. so knowing that what you did was necessary , and that you are a good person inside is what allows us to come back to our family's and Look at our children wile having a sense of pride .
;
what you described is a monster, not a soldier, and not a American Solider, and most definitely not a USMC. GO TROLL SOME OTHER FORUM.

[Wooblers]

At 3/4/07 06:54 PM, NEDM wrote: in many wars, the medics are not saposed to be killed because of some rules of war. i think this is stupid. the medics treat the soldiers, and then the soldiers can come back later.

This is stupid.
We kill all enemy life.

[ReiperX]

So says the what, 12 year old that thinks he knows everything?

[Markface]

Alot of medics die, if anything they try to single them out.

You also sound like Hitler, KILL THE ENEMY, THEY MUST DIE!.... RAID FRANCE!