War and the rules of war

These are supposed to be "rules", but hardly anyone ever follows them consistently. The Germans in general treated US/British POW's okay (other than SS units that captured them), but they treated the Russian POW's like crap, often shooting them on the spot, or essentially letting them starve/work themselves to death (mostly because of ideology that was being fed to them via the Third Reich, who said they were sub-human and therefore not worthy of living).

Of course, once the tables began turning, the Russians themselves committed some awful atrocities themselves (raping at least 2 million German women as they entered Germany. Yes, this is a sensitive issue and isn't too well known, but it happened. Everyone talks about Nanking cause the Japanese were "the bad guys" in WW2, but the Russians were technically our allies, which is probably why this gets "covered up" a lot, aside from the communists hiding a lot of stuff from us anyway). You could argue that the Germans had it coming to them, after all the killing they did, and the large amount of casualties the Russians suffered, and it's "all part of war" (Russian commanders allowed it to happen, partly because the soldiers were often drunk when the rapes occurred, partly as a psychological effect, to show the Germans they can't even protect their people, partly to let them vent frustration. Again, this is a sensitive topic, so don't be surprised if not many want to talk about it).

Btw, I heard bayonets weren't supposed to be used anymore either, cause they cause a deep wound which is really hard to heal, yet armies all over the world still use/train with them, if that tells you anything.

Regarding Chaplains, yes, they don't get armed (I dunno about ones in an infantry unit though, I heard they get sidearms there), but chaplain assistants are armed, and are expected to protect the chaplain in combat.

Medics are only armed with pistols, but I'm sure in the heat of battle they may very well pick up a bigger gun to protect people they're trying to save. They're technically not supposed to be fired at, but again, those "rules" aren't always followed (I heard medics were often the first ones to be shot in Vietnam, followed by guys carrying radios, and then the officers if they could be easily identified, which led to the US Army developing more subdued rank so that the NVA and Vietcong couldn't tell who was an officer right off the bat).

For the most part, the US military does try to follow these sort of rules, but sometimes they are "broken", depending on the situation. For instance, religious buildings and other buildings like schools and hospitals are not to be fired on, and if any enemy runs in to seek refuge, you're not supposed to kill them. HOWEVER, if the enemy runs in, and instead of giving up the fight, then fires at soldiers from inside the building, then that building loses its "protected" status, and soldiers are allowed to return fire, even if they damage the building in the process (doesn't mean they should blow it up, but if it has to come to that...)

The problem with these "Rules of War" is that lately, we haven't been fighting enemy armies, where soldiers are easily identified on the battlefield. We're fighting guys who dress up pretty much like the local populace, and who then exploit that by firing at uniformed soldiers, who are unable to fight back effectively. And if we kill civilians by accident, then it just looks terrible to the rest of the world. New rules have to be devised to engage these types of people, who are blurring the lines of "enemy combatant" They also resort to terrorist tactics, instead of fighting conventionally, like setting up roadside IED's (improvised explosive devices), and for the most part, are pretty indiscriminate as to who they kill, whether it's a enemy soldier, or an innocent civilian, or even children (you have to wonder what kind of mind thinks it's okay to kill kids).

That's why the US won't give those guys in Guantanamo Bay any POW rights, because they're not part of any army, in a standard uniform using standard equipment issued to them by a standing government. They're just guys who showed up and started fighting against the US or its allies. Some people are having a hissy fit about this, but again, why should we offer them that protection/status if they refuse to follow the rules set by a global community?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Nonetheless, they're still people. You can't just lock 'em up for an indeterminate amount of time somewhere where they can't be checked up on. Especially without saying WHY you're locking them up, let alone giving them some kind of trial.

Yeah, even I'm against that, even if the US apparently isn't. However, I would also like to hope that if we release these guys, they won't pose a threat to themselves or other people (wasn't it in the news a few years ago where they let someone go from Guantanamo, only to recapture him doing terrorist stuff a few months later?)

I'm all for treating people humanely, but sometimes, when other people refuse to act likewise, it makes it harder to "let them off the hook". But this is a complicated situation, and one we probably won't be able to solve for a long time (unless World War 3 breaks out, but with technology today, I doubt it'll be a repeat similiar to WW2. It'll probably be more like WW1 where people will die left and right, and for no really good reason either).

There's nowhere I can't reach.