POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?' - Page 3




View Poll Results :How do you feel that we treat prisoners?
Too Kindly? 10 62.50%
Too Cruelly? 0 0%
Just Right? 6 37.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
 
September 11th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I dont see how you come to this conclusion as basically all it says is that you can choose to be a civilised nation what respects human rights for all or not, no one is saying they should be released or a nations security should be diminished just that they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are.

In essence its called civilised behaviour if neither party chooses to adhere to it then what is the difference between the two parties?
First off, I'm getting tired of this stupid argument about what seperates one party from another. My life and the life of my family comprises one party. That is good enough for me. My 14 year old sister doesn't need to die for some high ideal. My 52 year old mother doesn't need to die for some high ideal. Get it?

Here is the flaws in your logic though.
1) You say "no one is saying... a nations security should be diminished". But by not interrogating prisoners, because that is against the geneva convention, you are compromising your security to a VERY significant extent.
2) ...and most importantly. "they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are." I wouldn't take a civilian and saw his head off on worldwide TV. I wouldn't plant bombs in busses and nightclubs. I wouldn't fly planes into buildings. Or is that just a 'difference in view' between me and these terrorists? Their murdering of American POWs and American civilians constitutes a 'difference of view' while coercive interrogation of terrorists by Americans is an atrocity and a violation of the Geneva convention.

Well I guess thats where we differ then as I am prepared to fight for my ideals but I am not prepared to compromise them to "win" as in doing so I have lost.

As for the rest of your rather stirring argument can you please explain how it is you can possibly object to the mistreatment of American "POW's" (a title you seem reluctant to give to those they fight) while stating that it is perfectly acceptable for you to do the same?

On the other hand perhaps we should be realistic and simply agree to disagree as neither of us are really going to change our views.
September 11th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I dont see how you come to this conclusion as basically all it says is that you can choose to be a civilised nation what respects human rights for all or not, no one is saying they should be released or a nations security should be diminished just that they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are.

In essence its called civilised behaviour if neither party chooses to adhere to it then what is the difference between the two parties?
First off, I'm getting tired of this stupid argument about what seperates one party from another. My life and the life of my family comprises one party. That is good enough for me. My 14 year old sister doesn't need to die for some high ideal. My 52 year old mother doesn't need to die for some high ideal. Get it?

Here is the flaws in your logic though.
1) You say "no one is saying... a nations security should be diminished". But by not interrogating prisoners, because that is against the geneva convention, you are compromising your security to a VERY significant extent.
2) ...and most importantly. "they should be treated in a way that you would expect to be treated if the roles were reversed regardless of what their views are." I wouldn't take a civilian and saw his head off on worldwide TV. I wouldn't plant bombs in busses and nightclubs. I wouldn't fly planes into buildings. Or is that just a 'difference in view' between me and these terrorists? Their murdering of American POWs and American civilians constitutes a 'difference of view' while coercive interrogation of terrorists by Americans is an atrocity and a violation of the Geneva convention.

Well I guess thats where we differ then as I am prepared to fight for my ideals but I am not prepared to compromise them to "win" as in doing so I have lost.

As for the rest of your rather stirring argument can you please explain how it is you can possibly object to the mistreatment of American "POW's" (a title you seem reluctant to give to those they fight) while stating that it is perfectly acceptable for you to do the same?

On the other hand perhaps we should be realistic and simply agree to disagree as neither of us are really going to change our views.
We do not put them in front of a camera and ask them to beg and plead for their lives. We do not murder our POWs. The comparison you make is a gross understatement of the differences between the two and belies the facts of the matter.

I admire that you have strong convictions about what is right and wrong. Do not condemn others for willing to protect what they care for in whatever manner they feel is needed because their convictions are as strong as yours. The two sentiments just do not agree, which could in turn be considered hypocritical.
September 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
As for the rest of your rather stirring argument can you please explain how it is you can possibly object to the mistreatment of American "POW's" (a title you seem reluctant to give to those they fight) while stating that it is perfectly acceptable for you to do the same
There is a difference in degree between not obeying the Geneva convention and hooking a car battery to a soldier's testicles like they did in Iraq or torturing prisoners for hours every day for years like they did in Vietnam. But you know why we can object? Because in all of our wars we have treated the enemy prisoners with the uptmost degree of humanity while our prisoners are tortured to death. Please tell me how many terrorists have been beheaded in Guantanamo? What? Zero? There you go.

I also liked how you went for an emotional heart-strings response after I pointed out all of your gaps in logic.
--
POW's 'Prisoners of War or People overly Welcomed?'
September 14th, 2005  
king_garwal
 
to kindly, their prisoners, we treat them better than our own inmates.
September 14th, 2005  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Terrorist aren't POWs. They don't fight for a governmental military force. They don't wear a unifrom. And they are scumbags.

I say get the car battery and jumper cables. We're going to have ourselves a little BBQ.
September 14th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
Terrorist aren't POWs. They don't fight for a governmental military force. They don't wear a unifrom. And they are scumbags.

I say get the car battery and jumper cables. We're going to have ourselves a little BBQ.

Jesus man i read your post and feel like a lib, I know your jokeing but torture with-out reason makes us just as bad as them.
September 14th, 2005  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Sorry about that. I'm just a little pissed today. I'm not speaking about tortue. But I do think that they need to be ruffed up a little bit. This being nice crap doesn't work with me. These scumbags are being treate dlike their Superstars. They are CRIMINALS! Not Soldiers or Warriors. They are terrorist and murderers. They should be punished. PERIOD!

If you have a child rapist, you send him to the chair right? Well, what they do is just as bad. Killing innocent people and targeted the civilian population. This is not a war about land, money, oil, or politics. It's a war of Survival. What people have yet to understand is that this is a war of US or THEM. They aren't going to quit. Neither should we. You can't appeasse these people. You can't make Peace with them. They aren't a rational group of people. Look at history as a example. Israel has been dealing with them for the last 50 years. After all the peace talk, withdrawls, and simple cop outs. Sure, there is peace for some time. And then once again, they go back to bombing and murdering people.

The enemy is just that. The enemy. I'm tired of listening to people say that we're not playing fair. Well, my father told me one thing that kept me alive overseas. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FAIR FIGHT. You fight to win. PERIOD. 'NUFF SAID.

And I plan on winning.

Luis (5.56X45MM)
September 15th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
We could always just stop taking prisoners. That would solve a lot of arguments. There have been times when all Countries at war have had to do it. That sounds inhuman and is in my opinion but when war turns really, really ugly, tough times call for tough policy. If an enemy has a bad habit of playing dead with a satchel charge under him, well that's enough of that.
September 15th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
We could always just stop taking prisoners. That would solve a lot of arguments. There have been times when all Countries at war have had to do it. That sounds inhuman and is in my opinion but when war turns really, really ugly, tough times call for tough policy. If an enemy has a bad habit of playing dead with a satchel charge under him, well that's enough of that.
Nah, that's not good. First of all the reason you take POWs is because less of OUR boys die when the enemy has an option besides fighting to the death. And for all their 'die for allah' propoganda there sure a hell of a lot of them that end up deciding they don't want to die.

Secondly, and more importantly, one of our very best sources of intel comes from interrogating iraqi prisoners. So, again, more of our guys would die because we wouldn't get the intel from the interrogations.

My whole thing is I get fed up with this rediculous level of comfort required. If you are a prisoner of war you are a prisoner of war, not a customer at Ramada Inn and Suites. Sure there should be a basic level of nutritious food, water, and shelter but here's the thing... once you start playing dead to blow up our marines, shoot soldiers that come to accept your surrender, and behead American POWs; that is when you give up any chance to complain about how you are treated as a POW in guantanamo. We will accept your surrender, but don't expect it to be cozy and expect yourself to do a lot of talking.
September 15th, 2005  
ironhorseredleg
 
 
I always feel uneasy when I see folks detained by the US military on the evening news because, while they are shown in clean clothes, treated fairly, in secure locations, they are still (in effect) being paraded before the public for "propoganda" benefits.

I believe that a time of war calls for extreme measures. If we need information and have good reason to believe a prisoner has that information, then we owe it to our soldiers to try and gain that information. Extreme torture, multilation, or murder of other prisoners to gain information is out of line, but making prisoners uncomfortable and forcing them to re-evaluate their beliefs is ok by me. Drug induced confessions and other means of gaining important information is also fine in my book--even routine as far as I'm concerned.

However, we should never treat prisoners (or detainees, or whatever other title you want to assign them) based upon how our soldiers are treated. I think we have to do everything we can to avoid having our folks taken prisoner, and do everything we can liberate them if they are taken, but when you're dealing with people who believe you are animals, they'll treat you poorly no matter how you treat them.

Continuing to do all we can to protect the "civilians" and promote a better way of life to non-combatants will ultimately bring in more and better intel than brutalizing even the most knowledgeable of prisoners.

At the same time, I strongly agree with a view expressed by another poster: In the heat of battle, never doubt the man on the ground.