BF2S Forums If ya HAD TO BE a P.O.W, Who would ya most/least like to be geust of?

hey i think the us is a great country.. i just wouldn`t want to be a pow there.. it`s not like the us doesn`t torture people though.. not trying to insult anyone here you know.. (implication that i was 12 years old)
but i`d take some lonely torture over world wide humilation + torture any day.

btw : the UN was denied access to the us prison camps for a reason.

PoWs, enemy combatants, that's just semantics that the white house throws around to confuse people. they are prisoners of the us government who are not american citizens. just because the us refuses to label them as 'PoWs' does not mean they can be tortured.

I would like to be a POW in China because I like chinesse food.  MMMMMM, sweet and sour chicken here I come.

I was hoping not to enter the frypan over the Abu Ghraib bullshit, but since some of the Michael Moore types bring it up.

They were in a holding cell= being processed for having started a riot in the yard
They were naked= they had just been strip searched
They were shaven=standard OP in many prisons of this nature to combat louse infestation
They were hooded=they outnumbered the guards
They were stacked=this prevents them rushing the guards that they outnumbered
They were on leashes=because they were hooded

The only thing that might be remotely deemed inappropriate was Englund posing in the pictures, the pictures themselves were standard documentation of the penal (teehee) process.
Assuming they did all of this in the name of torture, WTF THAT'S EMBARASSING AT MOST, that's not fucking torture, as I told someone in a karma score, if you wanna see torture you give me a box of paper clips, lemon juice, a cigarrette lighter, and a Celine Dione album and I'll show you torture. Lindy Englund may have needed to be reprimanded for being in the pics, but her punishment was over the top for the crime. She was a political victim sacrificed to save face in the name of public relations, the dumb fucks in charge are too asinine to realize that no amount of appeasement will back the critics off, they should just stick to playing hardball and let history be the judge. Send those terrorist fucks to Leavenworth, they'll be begging for that girl to come shave them.

And no, the terrorist are not subject to the privileges of the Geneva Convention, even if a coalition force caps them from a nation that has ratified it, there are many reasons, the most prominent being that they do not fight in uniform and hide themselves in the civilian population.

If a hot poker saves one life, LIGHT EM UP!!

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-06-02 20:12:48)

What gunslinger said.

The only POW's taken of the events most mentioned here were Saddam's Republican Guard and soldiers, once you take off your uniform, use hospitals, schools, and mosques as shelters, use civilians as human shields, hide bombs in dead bodies, play dead til you snap the trigger on you own bomb, or send women and children civvy's to gather intel or deliver explosives themselves you are no longer privy to the protections of the Geneva convention.

Xietsu wrote:

Such a situation is silly to pose without a set of parameters to guide the experience. For instance, did you have a uniform on when you were captured (i.e. emblem rank identifiers); did you injure some of your captives before your being "acquisitioned"; did you get overwhelmed and pummeled into subjugation; did you willingly surrender? All of those factors (and of course, more) could play a great role into how a certain nation would treat you. From the word 'round the block, I hear the asians aren't too keen on holding prisoners as such. And anyways, even if you chose some country like Iceland, who's to say they wouldn't deport you to U.S. authorities? In reality, anything is in the ball park, and to rule out the potentiality of ending up in a worst case scenario -- were any one of the above factors to have been negative from the perspective of your captors -- is foolish. Most people here have merely been grunts within their military exposure, and I doubt, with quite a degree, that you'd have witnessed how certain POW undertakings have been conducted (from procuration to interrogation). Anyone willing to delve into the handlings of one another during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, I'd be glad to hear from you, although I don't really know how the POW situation went in those two conflicts. O_o'

your jumping to conclusions assuming what real life soldiers actually do and dont know . you're wrong

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-06-03 09:14:55)

To answer the question who would you most/least like to held PoW by you are really saying who you would most like to fight for/against.  And in this sense the question is irrelevant, because by definition you would not have a choice about who you fight against if your country drafted you to fight.  I see this thread as a hollow attempt to try and say that American treatment of PoWs is acceptable when compared to other countries who violate PoWs rights.

I suppose if breaking the Geneva Convention rules on PoW treatment is fine if the people you arrest aren't wearing a uniform, that would explain why they were in such a hurry to break these two soldiers out. 

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context … icleId=972

The simple answer is they knew exactly what treatment they would be receiving as they trained the Iraqi police force in interrogation techniques.  And they knew they would break, as those techniques would get a confession out of a saint.  This paragraph is just opinion, btw. 

Quite frankly being held prisoner of war by any country is never going to be a barrel of laughs, but I reckon the real determining factor in treatment is how you were captured (e.g. they might go easy if you surrender, alternatively they might find this despicable and treat you extra bad) and what rank you are (e.g. an officer would be a more likely torture candidate than a private).

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Probably Finland. They'd take me in, give me something to eat and set me free again. And they'd give me my gun back. With new ammo

that changed me mind i wanna be a POW in finland

your_girlfriends_mom wrote:

maybe im wrong but how does this fall in debate and serious talk??
just a though.....

POW = prisoner of war, its kind of a serious talk really where it involves information on our countries treat their POW's

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

Such a situation is silly to pose without a set of parameters to guide the experience. For instance, did you have a uniform on when you were captured (i.e. emblem rank identifiers); did you injure some of your captives before your being "acquisitioned"; did you get overwhelmed and pummeled into subjugation; did you willingly surrender? All of those factors (and of course, more) could play a great role into how a certain nation would treat you. From the word 'round the block, I hear the asians aren't too keen on holding prisoners as such. And anyways, even if you chose some country like Iceland, who's to say they wouldn't deport you to U.S. authorities? In reality, anything is in the ball park, and to rule out the potentiality of ending up in a worst case scenario -- were any one of the above factors to have been negative from the perspective of your captors -- is foolish. Most people here have merely been grunts within their military exposure, and I doubt, with quite a degree, that you'd have witnessed how certain POW undertakings have been conducted (from procuration to interrogation). Anyone willing to delve into the handlings of one another during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, I'd be glad to hear from you, although I don't really know how the POW situation went in those two conflicts. O_o'

your jumping to conclusions assuming what real life soldiers actually do and dont know . you're wrong

How am I wrong? My conclusions are, by all means, quite logical.

Mainly, I'm referencing obtainment of highly important individuals -- ones with high rank and influence, and not the typical combatant.