Easy solution to captured enemy prisoners

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is only one rule in war. There are no rules.


[/ QUOTE ]

When are you going to realize the reason you have lost this war is because you broke the rules? Your rulebreaking caused you to lose support of those who would be able to win this war as you never were and never will be able to win alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some allies we've got, huh?

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one rule in war. There are no rules.

Stop taking prisoners. Shoot them on the battlefield. As a former USAF member I vowed I would never be captured. In the Middle East during the first Gulf War I told myself I would rather die fighting than be captured. I am sure at least 99% of U.S. military members think the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for another horrible post. Im glad to see that we have such sane people in the armed forces.

99% of the military would rather be blown away instead of living? Wow, that is exactly the opposite idea of almost every war novel and documentary Ive ever read.

FYI: Che (the evil communist guy most people hate) greatly supported the takin gof prisioners. I know hes evil and all, but his line of thought was let the soldiers surrender and then release them and soon you will barely have to fight, the enemy will just surrended rather thean be killed. Such an evil man he was.

[BillUCF]

My how nieve you are. Winning the war isn't everything, it is the only thing. You do what is required to win. ANYONE who dosen't understand that is kidding themselves.

"FYI: Che (the evil communist guy most people hate) greatly supported the takin gof prisioners. I know hes evil and all, but his line of thought was let the soldiers surrender and then release them and soon you will barely have to fight, the enemy will just surrended rather thean be killed. Such an evil man he was."

What does this prove?

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
My how nieve you are. Winning the war isn't everything, it is the only thing. You do what is required to win. ANYONE who dosen't understand that is kidding themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but such afterthoughts as "public diplomacy" and "not ruining everything America stands for" also apply.

[CIncyHR]

[ QUOTE ]
"FYI: Che (the evil communist guy most people hate) greatly supported the takin gof prisioners. I know hes evil and all, but his line of thought was let the soldiers surrender and then release them and soon you will barely have to fight, the enemy will just surrended rather thean be killed. Such an evil man he was."

What does this prove?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably nothing, but i said it anyways.

[[censored]]

The reason to take POWs and treat them reasonably well is because it results in an enemy who is less likely to fight to the death and more likely to give up. A good example of this is the first gulf war.

It's about reducing one's own casulties and has little to do with the actual POWs

[BCPVP]

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned that taking prisoners allows you to interrogate them for information about the enemy. Information wins wars. If prisoners realize they'll be shot right away, they have little reason to tell you anything.

[hmkpoker]

I agree entirely. Everyone here needs to stop being such whiny hippie liberal pussies and grow some balls.

[tolbiny]

Gee, let me think. Would winning a war be easier if the some members of the opposing army were willing to give up, or harder.
Sounds like a trick question to me.