In Vietnam as well as with the Japanese in World War II, they'd often "surrender", then when in close to some of the soldiers, they'd blow themselves up along with the soldiers. And you expect soldiers to still consider surrender "honorable"?
And look at the Iraq and Afghan wars now ...it's a real danger to the troops to accept someone's surrender so easily ...so honorably, as you so idealistically put it.
See? That's where idealism and reality just can't come together, just can't be discussed on equal terms. The idealist will hold to his ideals even in the face of overwhelming situations; whereby the realist is able to grasp that the ideals of a situation might have to change with varying situations.
I'm somewhere between the two, I admit to considering ideals but also recognise realistic situations. I said the situation is never black and white, so in those situations the ones surrendering have to be aware someone may have already screwed that option up for them. Unfortunate but that's how it is, this doesn't apply in all wars however and discretion should be used with regards to numbers blowing themselves up in those situations, obviously if it's just an isolated incident I would not expect thousands of surrendering soldiers to be killed.
Appalled by it? I don't know ...that's war, I suppose. The very same guy who just shot and killed your very best friends, who now by dropping his gun and raising his hands, suddenly becomes someone ...honorable? Worthy of protecting as a prisoner of war? The warrior just turns off his emotions, jettisons his adrenaline, ...and treats the enemy as a ...nice guy?
That's war, your comrades fell, so did his. That's all part of just following orders and doing your duty, if someones looking for an opportunity to get out of that why deny it? If thousands of soldiers run out of food and ammo and surrender should they just be murdered? Is it only acceptable if it's one or a small group?
See how idealism and reality just can't come together in such situations? It's so easy to make judgements while sitting in the airconditioned comforts of home ...Monday morning quarterbacking ...but it's not so simple "out there". With a single squeeze of the trigger, in a fit of anger, the guy who killed your best friends can be ...gone. Can you or anyone really turn off their anger, their surge of adrenaline, so easily as you expect our soldiers to do?
That's part of their job, unless the soldier is a complete moron you KNOW the people you fight with could die in any second, just like you could, you are not allowed to exact revenge without consequences in a civilian situation why should war be different? Especially when it isn't unexpected.
I guess it comes down to morals, if your friend is killed on the street you won't kill his killer because of going to jail, in a war you might, because you can get away with it. It's human, but does that make it right and acceptable?
And just so you know ....I am talking for the enemy soldiers, too, not just our own soldiers. I don't abide by torturing them, or dragging their bodies thru the streets, but I can understand one soldier killing another ...on either side.
Baron Max
I don't distinguish between the two, attempting to view it from a neutral viewpoint so to speak, I consider all to be treated equal, obviously if one side breaks this the other is likely to do so too, but that doesn't make it right.
I also put myself in the situation, If I was a part of a war and surrendered I'd expect to be marched off to a POW camp, sure not treated great, it's no hotel, but kept alive and not offered a cigarette before being stabbed in the back, I'd offer the same treatment to any enemies.
I should point out there is a difference between surrender and simply an unarmed enemy prepared to fight.
