American Hypocrites?

So are we saying that neither side is fighting fair or just the Iraqis?

I find it funny when people try to bring rules in on war. Especially when they find they're being hit by something they're finding difficult to deal with. Saddams tactics are the best thing for this situation. The US using Spec Ops, is traditional for any war/skirmish that they have ever been in.

By now i think you've noticed that the World has double standards. The US is allowed to use these tactics, but the Iraqi's aren't simply because the US are the "Good Guys" in this war.

Persoanlly i have to respect any nation that defends itself from an aggressor, and Iraqs use of guerilla tactics falls neatly into that. The US are welcome to use such tactics... which i daresay they've already been doing for years. I very much doubt that the CIA will stop spying simply because Iraq says its wrong..

Victor

Originally posted by Jake303
So are we saying that neither side is fighting fair or just the Iraqis?

On the face of it, this looks like a double standard, with an invader allowed to attack a civilian area if it contains the defending force, but spies (more often saboteurs and assassins) can generally operate with impunity (until caught, see below).

Originally posted by Jake303
As was pointed out on Sky tv last night (bizarrly enough) special forces from the USA Britain and Australia are working behind enemy lines dressed as civilians and using some of the dirtiest tricks in the book (hell they wrote the book)

They are playing a dangerous game while some of the Special Forces (UK SAS, Aust SAS, US Seals, Delta, Rangers) are operating in uniform behind the lines, others (UK MI6, US CIA) will be operating out of uniform and are truly spies and if they are caught, they will probably be executed as they aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.

This is one of the places where Al Qaeda and the Taliban failed - they didn't wear uniforms or other distinguishing marks and this is part of the reason they are in a legal limbo as "illegal combatants".

"All's fair in Love & War"

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons. Both sides, are capable of using spec ops. It's only because Iraq, doesn't have a formal type of spec op group, like the Rangers, or Delta, that they can come under criticism.

dahamsta

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...

No it hasn't.

adam

Victor

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...
No it hasn't.

Originally posted by dahamsta
No it hasn't.

By actions it has. When you go into a barber shop and say you would like a number 2 haircut you can't then say you won't pay because you didn't ask for a haircut. As is often said, actions speak louder than words. That said it would be nice to have things like parliamentary votes and the like before going to war and to end war (but this latter point is inconvenient for politicians).

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Pigman II
According to the news 5 American Soliders have been captured and paraded as a symbol of triumph by Iraqi soldiers on their national TV. The response of many American representatives has been to site this treatment of their captured soldiers a breach of the Geneva Convention.

Now is it just me or does anyone find it a bit hypocritical for some Americans to be mentioning the Geneva Convention (which to my admitedly limited policitial knowledge was an agreement reached by the UN) when they U.S. more or less ignored the what the UN was created for and it's process by going to war in the first place?

Yes but it wouldn't be the first time US did something similar. As Saddams a right spanner anyway does it matter? Well I know it does, but wars a big grey area in reality isn't.

The above just about says it. War has been declared ...

No it hasn't.

Well considering that both the US & the UK are calling this the "War on Terror", it seems to be that they've declared essentially the same thing. Also, how many troops need to be involved before this becomes a war? Remember this is the largest mobilisation of troops since Vietnam... I daresay the Iraqi's consider this a war.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
"All's fair in Love & War"

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons

The point is that the various Geneva Conventions were drafted in order to clarify exactly what is considered "All" in wartime, relative to the above statement.

The issue of Special Ops is a difficult call. When out of uniform, it is almost exclusively to undertake non-combat-oriented missions, such as spying, recruitment, PSYOPS, Humanitarian Aid and the like. However, because these are not intended to be combat-bound troops, there is a case to make that they are not acting in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Its by no means a cast-iron case, but it is generally accepted as "fair use" of the Conventions.

jc

dahamsta

I was being ironic. Forgot my special ironic tags.

Alizarin

The above just about says it. War has been declared. In my opinion, any tactic is allowable, with the exception of using WMD's or huge conventional weapons. Both sides, are capable of using spec ops. It's only because Iraq, doesn't have a formal type of spec op group, like the Rangers, or Delta, that they can come under criticism

the iraqis do have plenty of troops with similar skills and objectives. they have been deployed within the ranks of other troops and in civilian areas. they: conduct spec ops attacks, direct less trained troops in such tactics, ensure iraqi troops remain loyal by inspiration or fear of being shot (as needed), act as spies in the populace, herd women and children into the street so the invading troops won't press the attack.

its a tactic but... under your description they might as well force those women and children ahead at gunpoint carrying explosives so either we kill them or they kill them... that's not "allowable". its do-able, certainly but... allowable? basically the only line you've drawn is the size of the weapon.

spec ops out of uniform performing any activity in iraq would be considered spies. spies don't get many rights under any convention (human rights, geneva, etc). most special ops though, act in uniform.

bottom line is, the tactics the iraqis are using in some areas are specifically to force civilian deaths for political means. some are hiding behind women and children (is that an acceptable tactic?). surrenders are now going to be much dicier and there will be accidents and casualties. people who want to surrender are now at greater risk from both sides... its a quagmire of lowest common denominator of thugs rather than soldiers.

if that's what it would take to win, haven't they lost everything they were supposedly fighting for?

and their likely objective.. if we are subject to such attacks haven't we lost everything we were trying to fight for?

the whole thing sickens me... only good news so far is that Uday was supposedly killed that first night. he scares me more than Saddam. Saddam escapes and he's a fat old guy trying to survive somewhere else. One of his two sons escapes and you have a sociopath bent on rape/murder/oppression/destruction running around in a place where he can quickly get a terrorist group together. interesting quote yesterday from an iraqi - commenting on how most people wanted to off Saddam themselves after the gulf war, but they knew that next in line were his two sons and putting either of them in charge.... *shivers*.

Éomer of Rohan

All's fair in love and war

This is pretty much correct - and what takes this one step further is if our definition of fair is decided by pro-American media and pro-British media; think about it, nearly every independent source says that the UK/US troops should be supported now that they are engaged in the war - the only groups standing aloof are radicals because it is obvious to them that this is not right - never mind fair.

To say all is fair in love and war is to invite death of untold scale, cities reduced to ash, the memories of thousands of people removed from this planet because everyone they and everyone they ever knew are dead - these are the realities of war and it is all very well being pro-war on principles but would you really support a war if ultimately the consequences will come home to roost as they surely will? People over here don't realise it but there are many outlets in the USA crying for the Christian version of Jihad against Islam, citing it as evil and so on; a measure which ends dialogue as someone pointed out - one only has to log in to MSN chat to see the reality in what I am saying. If you really want to follow it up, the following topics should be interesting; religion, news, interests. Ultimately this can only result in much death no matter what the US cites as it's reason for invading - so long as these people scream their religious, bigotted battle cry, it is feasible that the Muslims in such regions could percieve that Crusaders once more walk the world. It is a contradiction of Democratic ideas to say that the US is interested in the Human Rights of the people of Iraq when the most vociferous section are clearly more for their extermination.

All is fair in love and war escapes the reality that war itself is wrong - if you are religious, then morally wrong and not even the Catholic idea of 'Just War' can make that otherwise since this theory is from a group of Bishop's who's perceptions are just as fallible as those Bishops who gave their blessing to the Conquistadores, to the subjugation of the Japans and China under Portugal and Spain, who signed the Concordat with Hitler, who tortured men for their 'heresies' and so on. It amazes me that the saying 'History needs it's surgeons' still prevails in modern thought after we have seen the destruction wrought by two world wars, vietnam, korea, the internicine feuds in Africa, genocide in the far east, revolutionary wars of liberation and the counterrevolutionary wars of liberation and on and on and on. No nation can stand as the defender of the free and hold a sword in it's hand and the 'debt' book in the other; therein lies the hypocrisy and for that the US are damned before History.

In regards to the "All fair in Love in War" statement, i made earlier. Everything, including the use of WMD's is applicable. I'm not saying i approve of it, however the object of war is not to loose. So any weapons/tactics used in a conflict are as such allowable. The winners of a conflict will determine if such tactics were acceptable.

Do you really think that if the Allies hadn't won WW2, there would still have been the Nuremburg Trials? The tactics/murder that the German High command, and Hitlers cronies did, would have been accepted if they had won.

I'm not saying that i approve of this. I do hope that there will be some rules applied to warfare, and that all nations will abide with them, however who will make up these rules?

ensure iraqi troops remain loyal by inspiration or fear of being shot (as needed), act as spies in the populace, herd women and children into the street so the invading troops won't press the attack.

personally i don't count these as military tactics. These lie outside the norm of warfare. Also while the Iraqi forces may indeed herd civilians to act as a shield, there will be just as many who will do so, for loyalty to being Arabic. Arab Public opinion, is turning to support Iraq in its war against the oppressive west.

spec ops out of uniform performing any activity in iraq would be considered spies. spies don't get many rights under any convention (human rights, geneva, etc). most special ops though, act in uniform.

If you're talking about western spec ops, then yes, they do act in uniform, however other nations are not so conformed to use uniforms with their spec op missions. Spies & Spec ops, in my opinion fall into the same category, since neither of them will fall into the same battle plan as the troops in the tanks, carriers, and in the field. Their actions are in the grey area of war, where anything may be planned, and not revealed.

the tactics the iraqis are using in some areas are specifically to force civilian deaths for political means. some are hiding behind women and children (is that an acceptable tactic?). surrenders are now going to be much dicier and there will be accidents and casualties. people who want to surrender are now at greater risk from both sides... its a quagmire of lowest common denominator of thugs rather than soldiers.

True. Its a tactics i don't particularly like. However, i can see the reasoning behind it. If there were two nations, of similiar size as the US, fighting each other, then yes, i would expect a conventional war. However here, we find the worlds current superpower, focusing its might against essentially a third-world power. I can see, why these tactics are used. I don't approve of them, however if it works, use em.

if that's what it would take to win, haven't they lost everything they were supposedly fighting for?

Not really. I assume you're talking about the Iraqi's? Well their fighting to stop an aggressor invading their nation. Its what most of us, would like to think, we'd do, if Ireland was ever invaded. Use of these tactics, does not lessen that. If Civilians die as a result of these tactics, it would be very easy to justify them, by saying the US have no need to shoot thru this buffer of civilians, or such.

If you're talking abt the allies, then, we don't know why they're really fighting. I'm very cynical of he reasons given by the allies up until this point. So their killing of said civilians, might not affect their objectives.

the whole thing sickens me... only good news so far is that Uday was supposedly killed that first night. he scares me more than Saddam. Saddam escapes and he's a fat old guy trying to survive somewhere else. One of his two sons escapes and you have a sociopath bent on rape/murder/oppression/destruction running around in a place where he can quickly get a terrorist group together. interesting quote yesterday from an iraqi - commenting on how most people wanted to off Saddam themselves after the gulf war, but they knew that next in line were his two sons and putting either of them in charge....

I would love to see some evidence that points modern terrorism at Iraq's door. Lately there are hundreds of references between Terrorism and Saddam/Iraq, when to my knowledge, no proof has ever been shown. Saddam's sons, may indeed become "freedom fighters". (at least in the eyes of the Arab Nations), or terrorists in western eyes.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I would love to see some evidence that points modern terrorism at Iraq's door. Lately there are hundreds of references between Terrorism and Saddam/Iraq, when to my knowledge, no proof has ever been shown.

The only known links (that I have ever heard) are to do with Hussein's ongoing payments of cash to Palestinian families from whom a member was a suicide-attacker.

Everything else, such as the all-too-often implications of links with Al Qaeda and 9/11 has less reliability then most CIE timetables.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
In regards to the "All fair in Love in War" statement, i made earlier. Everything, including the use of WMD's is applicable. I'm not saying i approve of it, however the object of war is not to loose. So any weapons/tactics used in a conflict are as such allowable. The winners of a conflict will determine if such tactics were acceptable.

Quite Machiavellian (the end justifies the means). The problem with you logic is that people are more likely to be held to account these days than previously. Certain methods of warfare are illegal under international war and any serious breach of these rules means the other side will also adopt a "gloves off" approach.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

I think piece in yesterday's Guardian sums it all up

Well if the Geneva Convention is no longer working to constrain the actions of the worlds foremost superpower, do you no think it should be revised or scrapped completely? The fact is that America, is the nation, thats involved with the majority of wars, within the last 40 years. If they're ignoring the Geneva Convention, and the international community is letting them, then, surely this convention is now invalid?

Either the US being brought up, on the grounds of how they've broken the Geneva convention on multiple accounts, or the convention should be officially abolished.

The fact remains, for the US to ignore the convention, and other nations to follow it, gives the US an advantage on the field of battle. (Politics, in War is just as effective as a mortor shell, especially with world opinion). To upbraid Iraq, and then ignore the US, is very wrong.

Cork

Originally posted by klaz


Either the US being brought up, on the grounds of how they've broken the Geneva convention on multiple accounts, or the convention should be officially abolished.

The fact remains, for the US to ignore the convention, and other nations to follow it, gives the US an advantage on the field of battle.

I think that the Gneeva Convention should be adapted by all nations. Iraq seems to have little regard for it letting coalition P.O.W.s being protographed by the media.

Even our own RTE (commercial and public service broadcaster) has no problems in broadcasting such pictures. This too is breaking the Gneeva convention as no prisoners shold be photographed on the grounds of public curiousity.

Fair play to both the Irish Examiner & Scotsman newspaper for not running these photographs.

I think that - we should make sure that the Gneeva Convention is implemented here first before casting stones at others.

But overall, there needs to be universal acceptance of the convention by all.

dahamsta

Originally posted by Cork
I think that the Gneeva Convention should be adapted by all nations.

ROFL. Isn't that what the U.S. is already doing in Guantanamo Bay?

adam

Originally posted by dahamsta
ROFL. Isn't that what the U.S. is already doing in Guantanamo Bay?
adam

The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.
mm

Johnmb

The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.

The convention is quite clear that they are prisioners of war. If the US wants to classify them as something else, there is a procedure they must follow, they haven't done so. Therefore the US are in breach of the convention in a much worse way than the Iraqis currently are.

Victor

Originally posted by daveirl
I think piece in yesterday's Guardian sums it all up.

Originally posted by Man
The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.

Take a look at the Guardian piece. If they are terrorists, they should be given criminal trials, otherwise thet are soldiers / militia and should be subject to teh Geneva Convention.

The Al Queda do not have prisoner of war status as they are regarded as terrorists by the U.S.

I daresay the Al Queda consider themselves to be soldiers.

I think that the Gneeva Convention should be adapted by all nations.

Is the Geneva Convention not enforced on all nations by International force? I assumed, probably wrongly, that the UN and other such international bodies, enforced it themselves.

Also why complain that neither Iraq, or the US are obliging the Geneva Convention when it has no power, and nobody to back it up? In essence its a waste of space. Its like morals, nice to look at but when it comes to implementing them, people are nowhere to be found.

Alizarin

there was an interesting little letter-to-the-editor in the washington post a day or two ago. it stated that the fake surrender the iraqi's conducted is technically termed perfidy ( Deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery ) . The Geneva Conventions have it appended and ratified by 160 out of the 190 signors? (sorry, this is from memory) and neither Iraq nor the US have ratified that item (item I?). So.. sorry Bush but if you want to claim its against international law, then you have to ratify that portion.

another article I read on the conventions covered their enforcement, which isn't really specified (except it should be by fair trial). generally, either the victor or defeated state conducts the trials (germans in WWI conducted trials on their own troops, US takes this route), or an international body sets up a court/tribunal. Of course, our big we-do-it-better gov't doesn't want to ratify the international courts since, if we did, we'd have to hand over people for trial. granted, there is a mostly-functional justice system here, and there is the possibility of unfair trials outside of the US, but... personally i think that's part of being an international member: respecting the creation of an international court to try people like Saddam. more hypocrisy... a quick look shows the US is pretty slow to ratify Geneva Conventions but on the other hand, the military really does try to limit civilian casualties... more so than most if not all (who actually enter combat).


as for it being a waste of space... its basis is apparently a philosopher in the 1700's (?) that believed that, even during war, there were sensible limits to what humans would rightfully do. in other words.. even in our worst times, at war, our humanity has limits. others took that idea and expanded it with reason. otherwise? just nuke the place and clean it up later.. problem solved in a few hours... if the morality is completely forgotten during war, we'll be reminded by the REAL reasons they are there in the first place. that's just an ugly, ugly lesson that I really don't think we need to do to learn.

DadaKopf

I think it was Kant's theory of Perpetual Peace, which is actually the first major articulation of Cosmopolitanism or globalisation.

The moral yardstick is to question whether an action can be applied universally. War most certainly cannot be applied universally, it must be contained. War is therefore absurd (irrational) and is therefore morally wrong. It's incumbent on people to use the laws of reason to replace the laws of nature. Otherwise we're condemned to a Hobbesian wasteland of realpolitik.

I simply don't think any of us can afford to assume that our global ethical institutions are now invalid. The point is that they're something to aspire to. I realise that the major problem with the UN is that it has no real power to limit the appetites of big states. The problem here is that there's no separation between the power and responsibilities of states and the power and responsibilities of something approximating a state-level judiciary. Because of our current international system, it can never be the case that states will agree to be bound to international laws presided over by an independent, disinterested law-enforcing body.

The saddest thing about the UN is that problem is staring us in the face but we know that nothing is likely to change.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Alizarin

i don't think its against the Conventions to ask..
it is against the Conventions to force or torture:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph."


"Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. "

so, questions can be asked but the prisoner is bound only to answer with the info above. hmmmm.. does that make it a war crime to NOT give that "bound" information? anyway... Cuba definitely seems to skip these... it seems like they tried to put them in between international law (POW's) and federal law (criminals), and do whatever they want because they can argue both sides. reap what you sow, mr bush.

DadaKopf

The term 'unlawful combatant' doesn't exist in law. In that case, as the Geneva Conventions states, those captured should be treated in the same way as combatants until that person's status is clarified in law.

The law regarding detainment in the US and in international law protects all people from "cruel and unusual punishment", which includes any form of abuse, physical or mental (this is often a case made to save prisoners from the death penalty, as excessively long incarceration on death row may be determined as psychological abuse).

As far as I'm aware, these detainees do have civil rights. The creation of the term 'unlawful combatant' has been conjured so that the US will be allowed sufficient time to detain and interrogate these people. By the time the term is clarified in law, the US will have slipped past the net again. At least the category will be defined in law for future scenarios.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Alizarin

the end of that article literally has me shivering....

there's a side to its logic that won't carry over, I don't think, unless the hawks are realllllly smart and manage to manipulate us into another victim stance. basically... the US spends a trillion dollars dealing with Iraq (before/during/after). OUCH, but its doable. it's hurting but... we can pull the weight. if someone like Rumsfeld thinks we can do that again for Iran, and for North Korea... that's going to take slices out of our economy that the populace won't accept. sort of sad that in the end it takes not a true desire for peace but the fact that people are eating spam instead of domino's pizza, for everyone to start reigning in the govt but.. whatever works.

I was just thinking too.. a big part of why Saddam was able to retain power so long (aside from all the evil crap he committed), is that he brought stability to the country. an iron grip yes, but like the Taliban, it was better in some ways than the anarchy before. so in the US we suffer a massive blow, and suddenly people like Rumsfeld are given stronger voice to take out our enemies, utilize out resources for the military, lessen our freedom at the edges... in other words, democracy has its own iron glove but its harder to see and more spread out. I don't compare Bush to Hitler and he's certainly not a sadistic psychopath (megalomaniac? maybe). Iraq decided to go out and do everything on its own without worrying about what the rest of the world said. Bush fell into the trap of becoming his enemy.

another reason why I think this international policy has unfolded as it has is that, pre 9/11 many people in the US were kind of tired of doing a lot of good things through international bodies, sending aid to natural disasters, promoting scientific advances, yadda yadda yadda.. and still getting the bad wrap from many many countries. i DO grant that its a feeling inside the states without a clear view of our impacts elsewhere but... the US has done a lot for the world, and it seemed people got tired of hearing about this terrorist group after us or that country calling us bastards (shortsighted as it was not to actually learn the reasons behind those things). after a while.. its understandable for a populace to get tired of trying to be good and always getting dissed. Bush just took that the wrong way and now I think there is growing ire about his whole international dis-relations package.

I like france. its not my favourite country and I think they're nutty sometimes and self-serving at others, but I respect they've been an ally since before there WAS a US. turkey has helped, unrewarded, in every war since wwI. the list goes on... its hard to handle how many people are mad at the US right now. I'm just slightly releived to hear them say Bush or US military, rather than blanket statements about all americans.

UGH...
where's that visa to Ireland????

Corben Dallas

Personally I think the families of those 'paraded' will be glad at least to know that their sons / husbands / fathers are alive and will be coming home eventually.

Eomer of Rohan
I would tend to think that their families are not in any way confident that the Iraqis will treat them well and send them home alive and well, I would like to remind Eomer of the picture of the British Tornado Pilot (John Nicols?) that they beat the cr*p out of b4 forcing him of read some script to Iraqi TV. Naive in the extreme.

Both the US and Iraqi armies are allowing camera crews to film their POWs in whatever "surrender position" they deem appropriate.

It is then the news companies who decide whether or not to digitally obscure the faces, etc, or indeed whether or not to broadcast

Thus, regardless of the actions of the news companies upon receival of this footage, the soldiers have been treated in exactly the same way in this respect

So - two questions arise from this :

1) Surely both sides - as national military forces - are guilty of subjecting the surrendered to the same humiliation : that of being filmed etc. whilst in a submissive position etc.

2) News companies are not signatories of the Geneva Convention, so how are their actions relevant once they receive the footage?

>>Bonkey

There are guide lines that TV stations can show POW’s but that they should not be interviewed or interrogated on TV like “ did u bring flowers or bullets to my country etc.” Iraqi TV interviewer (from memory) or show footage of POW’s been humiliated. IMO all western TV stations have not show Iraqi POW’s in close in 1 to 1 interviews or silent ‘mugshot’ coverage. They have clearly not been shown in exactly the same way.

With regard to the western stations releasing Al-jeezera footage showing the US POW’s> TV Stations get loads of footage, that they’re not obliged to show all of it and along the line of Editorial /Producer control they take an editorial decision to broadcast it. Once it’s broadcast by one ,other TV Station's editors would feel its already in the public domain and therefore able to use the content. The original TV station who releases the footage would have broken the Geneva Convention and would be liable for any criminal prosecutions at a later date.


The Iraqi's are clearly hoping that this will then put further international pressure on the US to stop its illegal war,
>>>>Bonkey

illegal war? Who’s declared it illegal? Don’t u mean it hasn’t got full UN backing.
Or can u provide details of a court of law that’s declared it illegal

As was pointed out on Sky tv last night (bizarrly enough) special forces from the USA Britain and Australia are working behind enemy lines dressed as civilians and using some of the dirtiest tricks in the book (hell they wrote the book)
>>>>>>>Jake

eh Jake part of the whole reason for wearing a military uniform is that it identifies u as a soldier and not a civilian etc. If you were special forces in Iraq in civvies this makes u a spy. If u are captured on the battlefield in uniform this means that u would be protected by the Geneva Convention. If u were captured in civilian clothes the Iraqis would prob kill u on the spot or you would be guest of honour in one of Saddam’s Palace’s, which nicely double up as Torture Chambers.


The fact remains, for the US to ignore the convention, and other nations to follow it, gives the US an advantage on the field of battle.
>>>>>>>>Klaz

WHAT! Now stop me if ive got this wrong,but are the US/forces shooting civilian refugees fleeing from Basra, are the US surrendering and then shooting @ their captors? Or are they all walking around out of uniform so they can use the locals as human shields. Or how about delirately mortaring Basra to put down the recent revolt. Maybe ive got this wrong or maybe u should check yur facts.