Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
foreigngirl
New member
should we treat them as human beings (cause sometimes its not the soldiers choice to go fight) or should we treat them bad?
how should we treat the POWs?
- Thread starter foreigngirl
- Start date
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Know that wars inevitably end and figure it out from there
foreigngirl
New member
I was watching History channel yesterday and saw how USA treated the German POWs. That was insane how good they were to them and even when they shipped them off to Germany, they came back to live here.
swole - if you can say something more intelectual then discribing how you want some girl to come onto you, or how some hippy spilled your coffee, you are more then welcome to say something
swole - if you can say something more intelectual then discribing how you want some girl to come onto you, or how some hippy spilled your coffee, you are more then welcome to say something
slat1
New member
I don't think we as the general public should have any idea how we treat POW's. The CIA etc should be able to do what ever is necessary without any politically correct bullshit.
Right now we interogate people to the full extent of the law. If they don't crack with ship them to country's like Egypt that can do ANYTHING. They give up all the info right away.
No one is scared of our country.
Right now we interogate people to the full extent of the law. If they don't crack with ship them to country's like Egypt that can do ANYTHING. They give up all the info right away.
No one is scared of our country.
swole
Well-known member
Pandora_ said:
How many times did you check back to see if someone laughed at you "owning" me? Please don't use one of my bullshit threads to measure my level of intelligence and understanding. You know damn well your thread posed a simple question of which you are not capable of providing an in-depth, educated answer.
Now, as far as the prisoners of war are concerned...we are required by the Geneva Convention to treat these people as humanely as possible.
Side note: The Geneva Convention also notes that spies and terrorists are NOT protected under the code and are excluded the rights listed within the document; to be qualified, soldiers should have some sort of a uniform and openly bear arms. The "rules" of warfare spark much debate, but that isn't what we're specifically arguing here.
While other countries do not normally adhere to the standards we, the USA, have set, we should still continue treating POW's fairly. This definitely has it's advantages. By not treating prisoners harshly, they are less likely to plan escapes or riot. Enemies who hear about how well their fellow comrades (once taken prisoner) are being treated might consider giving themselves up easier in battle in hopes of being sent to one of our POW camps. This makes our mission easier to complete. Finally, this makes the USA feel superior to our enemy. Knowing we are capable of treating the enemy POW's more humanely leads us to believe we are morally superior to our enemy. This gives us a mental edge.
Thus, I believe we should continue to treat enemy POW's fairly, despite what others are doing to our own men. Please note that there are exceptions; and some of the POW's we capture are treated very poorly...so take what you see on American TV with a grain of salt.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Give em a house in the suburbs and an american car. Import their families.
Eventually they'll be like "fuck it, no reason to fight this"
Eventually they'll be like "fuck it, no reason to fight this"
M
Megalomaniac
Guest
One of the major differences being overlooked is the fact that the US is one of the only nations that can maintain pow's for an extended period of time. Sure it is true that a US soldier may come up missing, the difference is the ability this country has to pursue that soldiers whereabouts. This is magnified as the number of POW's increases, for instance lets say 10 soldiers came up missing. The US could locate those soldiers very quickly and have a force there in almost no time. Other nations at war with US do not have this option for POW's, They just have to wait until we release them, thus the dramatic difference in treatment. I do believe there should be more consequence after a war effort is over. Meaning the lack of fear to be caught by the US might be corrected by penelties suffered to POW's released back to their nation.(ie scarlet letter like)
foreigngirl
New member
swole said:
there you go swole. Why couldnt you just post that in the first place? Of coarse I cant provide in depth answer - thats why I posted it. At least I didnt ask you what size shoe you wear.
On the side note - I dont beleive everything I see on TV, cause most of it is just fabricated story for the amreican people to feel better.
P
powderguy
Guest
I have MET these people that the US holds as prisoners, I have met those of our own that have been held as prisoners. What do they have in common? They are ALL human beings, with feeling, families, and reasons for doing what they do.
What should we do with prisoners? Capture, detain, interrogate, follow-up, release.
How should we treat them? Like I would want to be treated were I ever unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How do they treat us? For the most part, it is similar to the way we treat them...........food, water, shelter. This hasn't always been the case, but human kind has progressed since the last major US conflict. Countries ARE afraid of the US because they know that Bush is a little on the crazy side and will NOT back down once he has started something, no matter how wrong it is (ie Iraq). They see us as weak, yet they see us as unstopable.
What should we do with prisoners? Capture, detain, interrogate, follow-up, release.
How should we treat them? Like I would want to be treated were I ever unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
How do they treat us? For the most part, it is similar to the way we treat them...........food, water, shelter. This hasn't always been the case, but human kind has progressed since the last major US conflict. Countries ARE afraid of the US because they know that Bush is a little on the crazy side and will NOT back down once he has started something, no matter how wrong it is (ie Iraq). They see us as weak, yet they see us as unstopable.
redguru
New member
We aren't required to treat those we captured as prisoners of war. In fact, we are allowed to shoot them as spies in accordance with the Geneva convention. That we do treat them humanely, provide them with the Qu'ran and serve meals that fit thier religious beliefs speaks volumes.
redguru
New member
swole said:
The Geneva Conventions define a Prisoner of War as "a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict," further going on to state that those entitled to Prisoner of War status include: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements (i.e. guerrillas and insurgents), provided that they fulfill the following conditions:
1. Being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. Having a fixed distinctive sign or uniform that's recognizable at a distance; 3. Carrying arms openly;
4. Conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war; and
5. Membership in an established and recognized armed forces.
Also the Geneva Conventions specifically do not apply to nations who were not signatories or prior to conflict agree to abide by them.
swole
Well-known member
redguru said:
Exactly right, but who were you talking about when you said:
"We aren't required to treat those we captured as prisoners of war. In fact, we are allowed to shoot them as spies in accordance with the Geneva convention. That we do treat them humanely, provide them with the Qu'ran and serve meals that fit thier religious beliefs speaks volumes."
Who, specifically, is "them"?
Saintinistic
New member
Treat them like they would treat your soldiers. If you know the enemy is torturing any captured soldiers, torture them.
During WWII, japanese soldiers kept by allied forces got meals, exercise and were looked after. Allied troops were starved and forced to work hard till they died.
Terrorist groups behead their captives, and I think it should be a give and take. If you want your captives treated with respect, respect those you capture.
As for the Geneva convention, they even changed the type of munition used, so that it leaves a clean wound and not a blowout. Sad, war is for killing until one side gives up. Its not an internet wargame. Too many rules. In the heat of battle, I would think that most people would torture captives if they killed some of your team.
During WWII, japanese soldiers kept by allied forces got meals, exercise and were looked after. Allied troops were starved and forced to work hard till they died.
Terrorist groups behead their captives, and I think it should be a give and take. If you want your captives treated with respect, respect those you capture.
As for the Geneva convention, they even changed the type of munition used, so that it leaves a clean wound and not a blowout. Sad, war is for killing until one side gives up. Its not an internet wargame. Too many rules. In the heat of battle, I would think that most people would torture captives if they killed some of your team.
javaguru
Banned
Pandora_ said:
They obviously weren't talking about the ones still in Germany. A US soldier was killed by a sniper and twelve German prisoners were executed in reprisal. In another case, a US soldier was killed by a sniper, US forces withdrew and they shelled the town all night and re-occuppied it the next day. Large numbers of German POW's died after the Ardennes offensive because of exposure and lack of food.
S
Spartacus
Guest
"the dark art of interrogation"
long read but interesting and informing
http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=37529
long read but interesting and informing
http://www.asylumnation.com/asylum/showthread.php?threadid=37529
DannoMight
New member
Behead them on national TV.
