Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Medics who arent armed should not be shot at, but since they often get killed anyway, it is better for them to be armed so that they can at least defend themselves. That's why they kill and save lifes at the same time.

i think rules of war are stupid. it just makes no sience

No code states that medical personel can't be targets. The Geneva code just says that they can't be put to hard labor, and the code of conduct for POW's says they can't asume command unles all personel are medical and chaplin. So there is no rule about killing them.

At 3/12/07 10:36 PM, Texsk8er56 wrote: i think rules of war are stupid. it just makes no sience

I’m sorry here we use proper grammar and base our comments on fact. A lack of information serves nothing. No, something being stupid doesn’t make it fact. Please formulate a proper rebuttal

Medics for all intesive purposes ARE combatants. But there is no (hounorable) reason in a firefight to shoot someone who is crawling to pull a wounded out of harms way.

If you (and your troops) have the mentality of killing everyone, cold blood or no, eventually people are going to stop surrendering and will treat you in an 'inhumae' manner. Of course you do not want that to happen.

Medics are soldiers. And by others will be treated as such. But on a larger scale - do you bomb a hospital or sink a medical ship? No, even though the ship maybe armed you don't sink it.
At least, 'civilised' commanders wouldn't/shouldn't. I say commanders because what a Nation says and does are always different. (America and others).

It all boils down to values and a morality of sorts. I doubt if America and (just for example) Australia were at odds in a ground fight, either side would hunt a medic that was treating a wounded.

what medical people always get killed. Mke your point and go not type gibberish

NEDM is of course talking about Total War. Which involves teh destrution of anything that could possibly be used by the enemy, threat or not. Although medics may not be the biggest threat to you, they are needed by the enemy. Therefore when you kill a medic you hinder your enemies abilities.
Comprende?

Most major wars in the world go by a policy that the point is not to annihilate the enemy but to end a dispute with violence. Most wars you will see like the civil wars of Africa snd such have no such policy because of corrupt governments or reckless rebels

All very nice if you're an ancient Gothic barbarian, but we're civilized human beings with international laws. Your understanding of war seems to have come from playing a lot of Risk rather than, say, knowing fucking history. It's not "kill or be killed and whoever kills everyone wins and gets the country", it's "accomplish your goal with force with as few casualties as possible."

At 3/12/07 10:36 PM, Texsk8er56 wrote: i think rules of war are stupid. it just makes no sience

I'm gonna laugh my ass off when you get drafted and get your insides boiled alive and your eyeballs picked out by (Iranian? North Korean?) 3rd-world enemy soldiers who share your opinion on "rules of war" and decide not to follow them.

Oh, and to the topic starter:

I forgot to mention that my grandpa was a medic in WWII, so show some respect and stop talking about them as if they were little, expendable pixels in a fucking RTS.

Did nobody read my post? It is not against any code of conduct to kill medical personel on the battlefield. They just can't be asigned hard labor as a POW, and can't asume leadership in a POW canp. Look at people who recived the medal of honor posthumously, it's mostly medical personel.

first of all medics are killed in war. Second of all medics may save the lives of enemys but think about it,thats just it...they save lives. So if i was an afganistan and i saved the live of another afganistan...would u shoot me?

At 3/6/07 10:35 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 3/5/07 12:08 PM, semaGdniM wrote:

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.

Yes and the constant Roman expansion was clearly just for the good of everyone, not for the benefits of the few at the expense of many. I never said war was more personal. I said war was deadlier back then and different tactics had to be used so don't give that crap on the respect certain idividual units gained. If you don't think that certain units were sacrificed then please explain light infanty to me. As I recall, their job was to tire out the enemy so the heavy infantry could finish them off.

Another point I made was about how casualites are much smaller now than back then. It was not unheard of to have 50,000 or more people die in Roman battles. 50,000 in one day.

Also don't bring the Greeks into this, The guy I was replying to talked about Roman military not the countless other tribes and civilizations.

Oh just to add. They were less sadistic in those times? Rich, that's just rich. I recall if a Roman unit deserted it's army they would round them up and make 1 in every ten commint suicide.

oh and you mentioned how to minimalize deaths their would be slavery. Slavery wan't a gift to them. It was a necessity to the major civilations. They were treated under horrible conditions and most slaves probably wish they just would have been killed.

Wrong! As unfortunate as it is, medics are soldiers and are fair game. They fight like any other unit if absolutely necessary, they just have a special skill. Remembr, "all's fair in love and war."

there are no rules in love and war!

Medics are constantly killed in wars. If you're aiming a weapon at a group of soldiers, you don't go over there first and ask all the medics to clear the area. Anyway, as people have said, it makes absolutely no sense to kill the people trying to stop the death.

Even in war you should have some goddam dignity. You represent your nation. Killing medics would be looked down upon and your nation would be seen as blood-thirsty tyrants.

And those never last to long in world affairs I'm afraid.

At 3/14/07 12:48 PM, semaGdniM wrote: Oh just to add. They were less sadistic in those times? Rich, that's just rich. I recall if a Roman unit deserted it's army they would round them up and make 1 in every ten commint suicide.

You're wrong in a good way that further prvoes your point. They didn't make him commit suicide, they made the first 9 guys beat him to death.

Could of sworn it was suicide but thats even worse ><.

At 3/14/07 04:29 PM, Crue wrote: Wrong! As unfortunate as it is, medics are soldiers and are fair game. They fight like any other unit if absolutely necessary, they just have a special skill. Remembr, "all's fair in love and war."

As I said before, if they carry a gun they are a target. But if they aren't pointing it or using it and are helping a casualty - do you shoot them? No.

At 3/14/07 04:49 PM, Tomsan wrote: there are no rules in love and war!

So true...

At 3/14/07 04:53 PM, Sidorio wrote: Medics are constantly killed in wars. If you're aiming a weapon at a group of soldiers, you don't go over there first and ask all the medics to clear the area. Anyway, as people have said, it makes absolutely no sense to kill the people trying to stop the death.

Nowdays people don't even wait for the civilians to move out of the way either...
Comm: We found the target!
Aide: Sir there are civilians there?
Comm: So? Fire!

At 3/14/07 05:04 PM, SirLebowski wrote: Even in war you should have some goddam dignity. You represent your nation. Killing medics would be looked down upon and your nation would be seen as blood-thirsty tyrants.

And those never last to long in world affairs I'm afraid.

I think a little context needs to be put in the situation. If they are singling out medics for targets sure, I agree. But I think in combat a soldier is more worried about the guy with the machine gun than the medic.

At 3/14/07 11:14 PM, deslona wrote: Nowdays people don't even wait for the civilians to move out of the way either...
Comm: We found the target!
Aide: Sir there are civilians there?
Comm: So? Fire!

Yeah fucking right, I don't know about other armed forces, but civilized armies like the Marines take every step to reducing collateral damage that they can. For example, in Iraq a US combatant must first get clearance before firing at any religous buildings/temples.

Why do you think it's so hard to kill insurgents? Because they force civilians to surrouund them so we can't kill them without killing dozens of civilians. If the military truly didn't care about who they kill, we wouldn't have lost 3,135 of our soldiers fighting this thing.