whold pows have rights at all?

[Vietcong]

not at all, thear the eanmy, kill them all

forgot the poll

 

[Riesstiu IV]

You’re insane.

 

[Skullbones]

Well, that's a nice thought. Yes, kill everyone who surrenders or is captured.

 

[Zarn]

Then what would be the point of surrendering or capturing people?

 

[Mrogreturns]

Soldiers of ..well I won't name the country , are instructed that if an enemy soldier attempts to surrender and there are not the resources to deal with him, then they are to and I quote verbatum "Convice him that he is dead and therefore unable to surrender".

 

[Vietcong]

y wast money that can be used on the war efort by makeing pow camps, giveing them food, clothing ect?? i rather use that money to supply our own troops, or get a new guns or something

 

[Vietcong]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Soldiers of ..well I won't name the country , are instructed that if an enemy soldier attempts to surrender and there are not the resources to deal with him, then they are to and I quote verbatum "Convice him that he is dead and therefore unable to surrender".

who is that, the usa ??

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Vietcong


who is that, the usa ??

No it is not the U.S.A.

EDIT- to elaborate, this is not, to my knowlege, a formal policy and the instruction may have been given soley on the iniative of the officer in question. The instruction also referred only to the event of invasion of the home country.

 

[Speedo]

Why waste money on an army? Just keep an aresenal of nukes and flatten the world every year or 2.

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Vietcong
y wast money that can be used on the war efort by makeing pow camps, giveing them food, clothing ect?? i rather use that money to supply our own troops, or get a new guns or something

It's inhumane. That's why.

People that surrender should live.

Besides, check out this Scenario (looking at it more strategically):

Scenario 1

Side B knows they are going to lose but can inflict damage on A's forces.

Side A decides that all those surrendering are going to be shot

Side B then decides to fight to the end, because A will will kill them anyway.

Both sides loss many lives.

Scenario 2

Side B knows they are going to lose but can inflict damage on A's forces.

Side A decides that all those surrendering are going to be held captive

Side B may go with either surrender or to fight back. (It really depends on what they are fighting for)

In the first scenario, they were fighting for their lives, so it makes it tougher on A to take out B's forces since none would surrender. Seriously, who is going to let you kill them without a fight?

 

[Vietcong]

that y u dont let them know ther going to be killed, make it look good, have a few fake prison camps, tell them thill be given plenty of food, new clean clothing ect, then put them in the back of trusk, drive off, get them out, and mg them all down

 

[ShiplordAtvar]

I believe that there is a treaty called the Geneva Convention that covers this subject.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Vietcong
that y u dont let them know ther going to be killed, make it look good, have a few fake prison camps, tell them thill be given plenty of food, new clean clothing ect, then put them in the back of trusk, drive off, get them out, and mg them all down

How would you feel if you were one of the POWs.

 

[Vietcong]

as long as the nation didnt exist at the time, as far as im concerd thay never signed it, so then and if u did, forget it

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Vietcong
that y u dont let them know ther going to be killed, make it look good, have a few fake prison camps, tell them thill be given plenty of food, new clean clothing ect, then put them in the back of trusk, drive off, get them out, and mg them all down

People aren't dumb. They are going to know about it. Besides, then you nations credibility is ruined. It doesn't work strategically and isn't humane. besides, you can pump information out of these guys.

 

[Vietcong]

if thay wont surender, bomb them to hell! i mean carpet bomb with explosive bombs, inceadery bombs ect, then atack, for thos who are ceptuerd, dont kill them by shoting them, tortuer them!

 

[Zarn]

Originally posted by Vietcong
if thay wont surender, bomb them to hell! i mean carpet bomb with explosive bombs, inceadery bombs ect, then atack, for thos who are ceptuerd, dont kill them by shoting them, tortuer them!

Then you would be killing civilians which is a big no-no.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Originally posted by Vietcong
if thay wont surender, bomb them to hell! i mean carpet bomb with explosive bombs, inceadery bombs ect, then atack, for thos who are ceptuerd, dont kill them by shoting them, tortuer them!

You seem to like bloody conflicts. Maybe you should take a vacation to the Congo and see the reality of war. What if your family was living in a village that was bombed?

 

[Vietcong]

well then the men u refuse to senrender shold have thot of that now sholdnt have thay...

 

[taper]

This is starting to sound disturbingly like a certain short man with a funny moustache. Is advocating mass murder even appropriate on this forum?