Top U.S. official: Iraq has executed some POWs; General: Iraqis hang woman for waving

[Fritz]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/spr...ted/index.html

Top U.S. official: Iraq has executed some POWs
Thursday, March 27, 2003 Posted: 6:54 AM EST (1154 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq has executed some prisoners of war in what the Pentagon's No. 2 general described Wednesday as one of many "disgusting" war crimes committed by forces loyal to Saddam Hussein.

"They have executed prisoners of war," said Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Pace did not elaborate. Earlier in the day, Pentagon sources told CNN they were looking into a report that Iraqi soldiers shot dead seven U.S. Army soldiers as they were surrendering with their hands up Sunday.

Iraqi television showed video of five U.S. soldiers in custody after their capture Sunday and the bodies of at least five other soldiers who had bullet wounds to their foreheads. Iraq has since taken two U.S. Apache helicopter pilots captive and shown video of them.

To the families of the prisoners of war, Pace said the U.S. military is doing "everything we can to locate and free their sons and their daughters."

"I don't know what to say to them that could help ease their pain. I can't imagine what they're going through," he said of the families. "We all hope and pray that this war can end quickly so that we can repatriate POWs."

General: Iraqis hang woman for waving to coalition troops

The Marine general said that what has surprised him most about the first week of fighting is the extent of war crimes carried out by the Iraqi regime. In addition to the execution of POWs, he said, Iraqis have used civilians as human shields, stored weapons in schools, set up command posts in hospitals and pretended to surrender only to open fire.

In one case, an Iraqi woman was hanged after she waved to coalition forces, Pace said.

"I've never seen anything like this," he said. "To do it so blatantly so early, not only is it a surprise, but to me it's disgusting."

Earlier, the International Committee of the Red Cross said its teams in Baghdad and Kuwait are negotiating over access to Iraqi and U.S. prisoners of war. But to date, their teams have not had contact with the prisoners. Pace said coalition forces have captured more than 4,000 Iraqi soldiers. (Full story)

The seven known U.S. prisoners of war are:

• U.S. Army Spec. Joseph Hudson, 24, of the 507th Maintenance Company. He and four others were taken prisoner Sunday after their convoy was ambushed by Iraqi forces in southern Iraq.

• U.S. Army Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, of the 507th Maintenance Company.

• U.S. Army Spec. Shoshana Johnson, 30, of the 507th Maintenance Company.

• U.S. Army Spec. Edgar Hernandez, 21, of the 507th Maintenance Company.

• U.S. Sgt. James Riley, 31, of the 507th Maintenance Company.

• U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer David S. Williams, 30, of Florida.

• U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer Ronald D. Young, 26, of Georgia.

Williams and Young were both in an Apache helicopter when it went down Monday near Karbala, about 60 miles southwest of Baghdad. The Pentagon has said a search-and-rescue operation was launched immediately after their helicopter was lost, but it had to be called off due to heavy Iraqi fire in the area

[Tarkus]

Just curious why we haven't heard anything from all the human rights protestors. Oh wait, it's not the US or Israel we're talking about.

Tarkus

[henry296]

I have a question about the "Rules of War". When does someone go from being a Combatant to a Prisoner? Is it when you put your hands up and say don't shoot or I surrender? Any military experts?

Todd

[andy m]

the tarkus rolling eye smiley count for the war now stands at: 2500!!! DING DING DING

please keep them rolling in! all donations gratefully accepted. if you would like to place a bet on how many roll eye smileys tarkus will post before this war is done, or if you would like to sponsor tarkus at a rate of 5cents per roll eye smiley, please visit:

http://www.rollingeyesmileyfund.com

thanks very much!

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by andy m
the tarkus rolling eye smiley count for the war now stands at: 2500!!! DING DING DING

please keep them rolling in! all donations gratefully accepted. if you would like to place a bet on how many roll eye smileys tarkus will post before this war is done, or if you would like to sponsor tarkus at a rate of 5cents per roll eye smiley, please visit:

http://www.rollingeyesmileyfund.com

thanks very much!

Since once again you prove too stupid to answer my question I'll do it for you.

"As Jews are being attacked on the streets, a United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on contemporary forms of racism released yesterday ignored the resurgence of antisemitism even as new violent antisemitic attacks were taking place in Paris, Berlin and Sydney.

"The consistent failure of the United Nations, dominated by more than 60 Moslem countries determined to block any discussion on antisemitism, only encourages further attacks against Jews," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center's dean and founder. "By continuously minimizing the resurgence of antisemitism, the United Nations has unfortunately become part of the problem and not the solution. In this official report on racism the UN's Special Rapporteur devoted 57 paragraphs to the impact of 9/11 on Moslems and Arabs while only managing to report in one lone paragraph that Israel and Jewish NGO's were concerned about an Egyptian miniseries that they said was antisemitic," he added.

While the report was being discussed in Geneva, new antisemitic attacks blaming Jews for the war in Iraq occurred in Berlin, Paris and Sydney, Australia.

In a related development, Dr. Shimon Samuels who is representing the Simon Wiesenthal Center at the UN Human Rights meeting has demanded that the racism report be tabled until such time that a full section delineating the resurgence of antisemitism worldwide be included in the text."

Tarkus

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by andy m
the tarkus rolling eye smiley count for the war now stands at: 2500!!! DING DING DING

please keep them rolling in! all donations gratefully accepted. if you would like to place a bet on how many roll eye smileys tarkus will post before this war is done, or if you would like to sponsor tarkus at a rate of 5cents per roll eye smiley, please visit:

http://www.rollingeyesmileyfund.com

thanks very much!

I think SkyDog might be challenging him for the EyeRolling championship, his War posts are littered with them too.

As for all this "rules of war" B.S., I personally find what Iraq is doing is just plain smart. If everyone followed the "rules of war" you may as well all just line up in a row and open fire, and the biggest or best armed force wins. Ruthless and deceptive tactics are what allow a smaller or ill-equipped force to beat a larger one from time to time.

What Iraq is doing may be horrible, but that's what war is. Maybe if more people thought of that there wouldn't be so many people so eager to send the troops over there.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
Ruthless and deceptive tactics are what allow a smaller or ill-equipped force to beat a larger one from time to time.

What Iraq is doing may be horrible, but that's what war is.

True enough, but don't go being ruthless and then cry about "civilian" casualties.

[JPhillips]

Executing prisoners is disgusting. Its something that only heartless men could do. If we ever find the guys responsible, I personally would be in favor of a second Nuremburg.

As to the Iraqis hanging women and shooting at their own people, this is not the same. If we were invaded we would shoot people who went to the enemy as well. Hell some of you here are in favor of shooting US protestors, so I don't know why this is offensive. This is not to say that the Iraqi regime is sunshine and skittles, but I don't think its a war crime to shoot collaborators.

[Ksyrup]

I think there's a difference between fighting a guerilla-type war, and shooting surrendered enemy forces. I think it's crazy to expect them to line up in the street to be shot because "that's how war is supposed to be fought," when they clearly cannot win that way. You have to expect them to try to win, and that means fighting to a tactical advantage. We did the same thing to the British in the 1700's - when they expected us to line up across from them and shoot (and they had the clear numbers to win, of course), we didn't.

However, for them to be executing POWs goes well beyond fighting a tactically advantageous war. So does using chemical weapons, if it happens.

[ACStrider]

Anyone heard anyone from France, Germany, or Russia comment on Iraq's underhanded tactics? Yeah, me neither.

[scooper]

Originally posted by Fidatelo


What Iraq is doing may be horrible, but that's what war is. Maybe if more people thought of that there wouldn't be so many people so eager to send the troops over there.

And just maybe such tactics are part of the reason we are over there in the first place. The Butchering of Iraqi civilians by Iraqi militia didn't start when the U.S. entered Iraqi soil.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
True enough, but don't go being ruthless and then cry about "civilian" casualties.

Exactly. The regime's tactics may have given them some military advantages. True. No rational person denies that. The problem is that their tactics cause and greatly increase the likelihood of civilian casualties.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by scooper
The Butchering of Iraqi civilians by Iraqi militia didn't start when the U.S. entered Iraqi soil.

No, but the butchering of US and coalition soldiers did.

I'm not saying that the US shouldn't have gone to war because something like this might happen. Whether the US should or shouldn't have attacked Iraq is no longer relevant. However, all the people who supported the war shouldn't be acting all shocked and alarmed that Iraq is now using these tactics. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by scooper
And just maybe such tactics are part of the reason we are over there in the first place. The Butchering of Iraqi civilians by Iraqi militia didn't start when the U.S. entered Iraqi soil.

Dang scooper. You beat me to it. The more I learn about Saddam and his henchmen, the less I care whether or not they have WOMD, or harbor terrorists. They have terrorized, brutalized, raped and tortured their own people. This regime must fall. Period. This should have happened 12 years ago. If Bush, Sr. and his boys knew of what was happening in Iraq 12 years ago, then I'll use that Oscar guy's words: SHAME ON YOU MISTER BUSH! It DISGUSTS me that we have let this go on as long as we have.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Exactly. The regime's tactics may have given them some military advantages. True. No rational person denies that. The problem is that their tactics cause and greatly increase the likelihood of civilian casualties.

Which they can then whine about and try to twist into a PR coup. Again, these are just smart tactics. Will it work? I don't know, but why not go for it? At this point they have absolutely nothing to lose.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by henry296
I have a question about the "Rules of War". When does someone go from being a Combatant to a Prisoner? Is it when you put your hands up and say don't shoot or I surrender? Any military experts?

Todd

Funny you should ask. FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare contains lots of information on this and similar questions. I imagine that the other services also have similar documents. (This is from the General Reimer Digital Liberary.)

The applicable bit, from Chapter II, is

Power of the Enemy Defined. A person is considered to have fallen into the power of the enemy when he has been captured by, or surrendered to members of the military forces, the civilian police, or local

It appears that the Iraqi's have violated most of the provisions dealing with prisoners. Note also that they have employed nearly all of the prohibited Strategems from section II.V., and use of civilians as cover, and use of civil is also prohibited.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
Which they can then whine about and try to twist into a PR coup. Again, these are just smart tactics. Will it work? I don't know, but why not go for it? At this point they have absolutely nothing to lose.

Unfortunately, you're right. Anyone who is looking at it logically and with any sense of decency wouldn't fall into that trap, but what is TRULY sad is that some people (mainly those who are already anti-American and/or anti-Dubya), will actually fall in line with these butchers on civilian casualties.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
As for all this "rules of war" B.S., I personally find what Iraq is doing is just plain smart. If everyone followed the "rules of war" you may as well all just line up in a row and open fire, and the biggest or best armed force wins. Ruthless and deceptive tactics are what allow a smaller or ill-equipped force to beat a larger one from time to time.

However, the "rules of war", as codified in the various Geneva Conventions, have the force of international law. Real law, not like Security Council resolutions. Violations of the Geneva convention can, if severe enough, result in prosecution resulting in the severest form of punishment practiced by the occupying power. Any sort of moral authority the Iraqi regime wants to claim is weakened as they continue to violate Geneva Conventions. The Conventions are binding on signees even if the war they are involved in is "ilegal". In addition, many of the provisions are binding on signees even when fighting non-signees.

The "rules of war" are designed to reduce the amount of injury to civilians and infrastructure. They do not call for "lining up and opening fire", but they prohibit certain strategems whose use inexorably leads to civilian casualties and mistreatment of prisoners. If one side feigns surrender, then it is much less likely that its troops will be allowed to surrender. If they are not uniformed, it is more likely that civilians will be killed. If they locate themselves in places of worship, hospitals etc., it is more likely that those places will be destroyed.

[Ben E Lou]

Aardvark,

Well, of course, you're right. However, when you're dealing with outlaws, the law is not a constraint. It is like that scene in Beverly Hills Cop when they're in a shootout with Victor Maitland's henchmen, and Billy (Judge Reinhold) stands up, shows his badge and says, "Police!!! You're all under arrest!!!" Of course, it does no good. They just shoot back. Sure, Billy had the law on his side, but that didn't mean squat to the outlaws until overwhelming force was used.

Sounds familiar, huh?

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Arbitrary Aardvark
However, the "rules of war", as codified in the various Geneva Conventions, have the force of international law. Real law, not like Security Council resolutions. Violations of the Geneva convention can, if severe enough, result in prosecution resulting in the severest form of punishment practiced by the occupying power. Any sort of moral authority the Iraqi regime wants to claim is weakened as they continue to violate Geneva Conventions. The Conventions are binding on signees even if the war they are involved in is "ilegal". In addition, many of the provisions are binding on signees even when fighting non-signees.

The "rules of war" are designed to reduce the amount of injury to civilians and infrastructure. They do not call for "lining up and opening fire", but they prohibit certain strategems whose use inexorably leads to civilian casualties and mistreatment of prisoners. If one side feigns surrender, then it is much less likely that its troops will be allowed to surrender. If they are not uniformed, it is more likely that civilians will be killed. If they locate themselves in places of worship, hospitals etc., it is more likely that those places will be destroyed.

That's all fair and good, but regardless of all that if some hugely overpowering force was storming my home town I'd use every dirty trick in the book to fend them off. It's just survival instincts and I really find it hard to believe people are shocked that it's happening.

The "coolest" dirty trick I've heard Iraq has used is dressing up like Americans and then murdering Iraqi forces that are attempting to surrender. Between that and the Iraqi's feigning surrender only to kill US soldiers it really will make it tough for Saddam's troops to bail. Americans will be leary of accepting surrender and Iraqi's will be worried that if they do surrender it might get them killed anyway. That is the definition of evil genius if you ask me.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I think there's a difference between fighting a guerilla-type war, and shooting surrendered enemy forces. I think it's crazy to expect them to line up in the street to be shot because "that's how war is supposed to be fought," when they clearly cannot win that way. You have to expect them to try to win, and that means fighting to a tactical advantage.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to gain a tactical advanatage, and there is a vast gulf between lining up in the street and violating the Geneva Conventions. The basic idea is that you are allowed to practice all sorts of strategems as long as you maintain "good faith" with the enemy, i.e., maintain the meta-rules of war, involving prisoners, surrender, the difference between military and civilians, truces etc. It is prohibited to pretend to surrender, to not wear something identifying one as a combatant, to attack under flag of truce, to broadcast false information as to an armistice or truce.

Violation of the above rules, if symetrical, hurts the individual soldiers of both sides. The Geneva Convention is essentially a human rights document for soldiers and civilians involved in a war.

You are allowed to ambush, to plant fake documents, to use spies and sabatours (against military targets), to broadcast false information, to engage in intelligence operations etc.

We did the same thing to the British in the 1700's - when they expected us to line up across from them and shoot (and they had the clear numbers to win, of course), we didn't.
[/quote]

Actually, the Continental army did fight in pretty much the same formations as the British. The number of actual irregulars was very,very small. They often outnumbered the British, and tended to be at least trained a little. Much of the Continental Army was made of state militias, or men who had served in state militias. At all times, or nearly all times, members of the Continental Army and state militias wore identifying emblems (arm bands etc.) if not outright uniforms. They bore arms openly (of course it is much easier to hide an automatic rifle or a grenade, especially in a jeep, than it is a musket.) I cannot recall a time when the Continental Army violated a flag of truce, but there may have been.

[Easy Mac]

But the thing people overlook is that the rules of war constantly change. You're telling me we didn't violate any of the rules of war in Vietnam? If we have spies or other informants somewhere near Saddam dressed as Iraqi's aren't we technically violating the rules of war?

To think there are rules to war are asenine. The British invaded us, and we completely broke any formal rules of war at the time. Why should we think the same wouldn't happen in Iraq? War isn't about formality, its about survival, and all rules go out the window when we have to survive, be it you, me, or Saddam. Does it sicken me that they would use civilians, or feign surrender (which, when I heard about Iraqi's surrendering in mass, it was the first thing I thought of, and it scared me far more than open combat)? Of course it does, but I don't think war is pretty. I'd venture to say in 50 years there will be a completely new set of rules to war, as the same occurred 50 years ago.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
But the thing people overlook is that the rules of war constantly change. You're telling me we didn't violate any of the rules of war in Vietnam? If we have spies or other informants somewhere near Saddam dressed as Iraqi's aren't we technically violating the rules of war?

To think there are rules to war are asenine. The British invaded us, and we completely broke any formal rules of war at the time. Why should we think the same wouldn't happen in Iraq? War isn't about formality, its about survival, and all rules go out the window when we have to survive, be it you, me, or Saddam. Does it sicken me that they would use civilians, or feign surrender (which, when I heard about Iraqi's surrendering in mass, it was the first thing I thought of, and it scared me far more than open combat)? Of course it does, but I don't think war is pretty. I'd venture to say in 50 years there will be a completely new set of rules to war, as the same occurred 50 years ago.

Easy, for the most part you're right. My only point is that when dealing with outlaws, we shouldn't expect them to follow the laws. Read my Beverly Hills Cop analogy above. I'm pretty proud of that sucker.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
To think there are rules to war are asenine.... War isn't about formality, its about survival, and all rules go out the window when we have to survive, be it you, me, or Saddam.

I agree with this 100%.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
I agree with this 100%.

So, what you're saying is that the US should just nuke Baghdad and get it over with? Or do the rules of war only apply to one side?

Tarkus

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Easy, for the most part you're right. My only point is that when dealing with outlaws, we shouldn't expect them to follow the laws. Read my Beverly Hills Cop analogy above. I'm pretty proud of that sucker.

Oh I agree completely, but then every 50 years the outlaws change as well, and I'm just worried one day we'll cross the line between being stopping the outlaws and turning into them.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Oh I agree completely, but then every 50 years the outlaws change as well, and I'm just worried one day we'll cross the line between being stopping the outlaws and turning into them.

We have probably been there a time or two....

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Tarkus
So, what you're saying is that the US should just nuke Baghdad and get it over with? Or do the rules of war only apply to one side?

Tarkus

If you want to Nuke baghdad, go nuts, but that might be frowned upon by the rest of the world. Hey, I'm not saying that what Saddam is doing is good. I'm certain he'll get his in due time. But it's a lot easier to forgive the sins of the underdog.

It's like this: If you want to attack me, don't expect me to fight clean just because you will. And if you're gonna attack me dirty, don't expect the rest of the world to view you as anything but a bully.

Is it a double standard? Sure. But is it reality? Hell ya.

[Tarkus]

I hear what you're saying, but have you heard any country outside those in the coalition come out and deride Iraq for their war tactics to this point? Yeah, I haven't either.

Tarkus

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Tarkus
I hear what you're saying, but have you heard any country outside those in the coalition come out and deride Iraq for their war tactics to this point? Yeah, I haven't either.

Tarkus

It's hard to deride someone for doing a lot of things that you yourself would do if in their shoes.

That said, if Saddam unleashes Chemical weapons or something equally horific I'm sure that will get everyone's attention.

[Bee]

I wonder if things were reversed and Iraq was invading the US with a vastly superior military how many of us would be in favor of "illegal" tactics to defend our way of life?

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
It's hard to deride someone for doing a lot of things that you yourself would do if in their shoes.

That said, if Saddam unleashes Chemical weapons or something equally horific I'm sure that will get everyone's attention.

So you honestly feel that France or Germany should not condemn the execution of American and British prisoners by the Iraqi military?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Bee
I wonder if things were reversed and Iraq was invading the US with a vastly superior military how many of us would be in favor of "illegal" tactics to defend our way of life?

I would use you as a human shield.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Fritz
I would use you as a human shield.

That's just because I'm 6'3" and 240 lbs, there's lots to hide behind.

[Fidatelo]

Originally posted by Hammer755
So you honestly feel that France or Germany should not condemn the execution of American and British prisoners by the Iraqi military?

No, they should codemn it. But I also don't think it should be enough to convince them to join the fight.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Fritz
I would use you as a human shield.

ditto

Tarkus

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Bee
That's just because I'm 6'3" and 240 lbs, there's lots to hide behind.

Hm, maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you as much as I have. I'm about the same size but I've probably got a good 20-30 years on ya.

Tarkus

[Aylmar]

I think it's pretty obvious that the Iraqis think that by executing prisoners, it will lessen the American resolve to be in this war. Unfortunately for them, it tends to have the opposite effect in most cases, IMO.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Tarkus
Hm, maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you as much as I have. I'm about the same size but I've probably got a good 20-30 years on ya.

Tarkus

I wouldn't worry too much, it might have been muscle when I played football in college but now it mostly just kind of jiggles around.

And I doubt you have many years on me either unless you're pushing retirement.

[Arbitrary Aardvark]

Originally posted by Bee
I wonder if things were reversed and Iraq was invading the US with a vastly superior military how many of us would be in favor of "illegal" tactics to defend our way of life?

If Iraq was obeying the laws of war, I would not be in favor of illegal tactics. If they are most likely to defeat us anyway, and both sides obey the laws of war, I, and a lot of civilians, and a lot of soldiers, are much more likely to survive the war and the aftermath.

Of course, Iraq being Iraq, since they are likely to shoot me out of hand anyway, I would be in favor of "illegal" tactics.

In the rules of war, as in many other fields, trust, once broken, is hard to re-establish.

Its kind of like violence in politics. In a country where, even if your candidate looses, you have a chance of winning the next election, and the police aren't going to arrest you, members of losing parties tend to be peaceful, and members of all parties tend not to use force to intimidate opposition candidates and voters. In countries where there is a high likelihood that the winners of an election will use that as an excuse to murder and steal, then election violence is more likely.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Tarkus
ditto

Tarkus

We get a few more and we could have a human shield conga line going.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Aylmar
I think it's pretty obvious that the Iraqis think that by executing prisoners, it will lessen the American resolve to be in this war. Unfortunately for them, it tends to have the opposite effect in most cases, IMO.

I don't really think it's designed for anything other than to kill Americans. I think they hate us so much that they just want us dead.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Fritz
We get a few more and we could have a human shield conga line going.

andy m would probably volunteer.

Tarkus

[Aylmar]

Originally posted by Bee
I don't really think it's designed for anything other than to kill Americans. I think they hate us so much that they just want us dead.

While it's hard to disagree with that assessment, I also think that Saddam (or his cronies, if he's being fitted for a pegleg) are trying to play on the conventional wisdom that the American public is unable to stomach casualties.

[Bee]

Originally posted by Aylmar
While it's hard to disagree with that assessment, I also think that Saddam (or his cronies, if he's being fitted for a pegleg) are trying to play on the conventional wisdom that the American public is unable to stomach casualties.

I agree with that as well. Just from reading the accounts of the shooting of the POWs, it sounded more like a "spur of the moment kill the Americans" kind of thing than anything thought out.

[CamEdwards]

I find it odd that rather than condemn the actions of the Saddam regime, or at least comment on how horrible it is that a woman is hanged for waving at coalition forces, andy m decides instead to comment on an eye rolling smiley.

Way to go andy! Keep picking up on the important parts of people's posts.

[WSUCougar]

Is this a moral war, based on right/wrong and good/bad? Or is this strictly a matter of national security and survival? Or, if it’s both, which aspect defines the conduct of your military? Does the coalition need to retain its moral ascendancy? Does it have to fight by the rules of war when the Iraqis obviously do not? Why?

We as a nation (speaking as an American) thrive on the notion that we are defenders of what’s right (freedom, human rights, etc.). Though we perpetually debate amongst ourselves (and with the world) the definition of that “rightness,” and often prove hypocritical in our actions, at the root of that is the common belief that we are on the good side. I know there are many who don’t feel that way, but I’m speaking in generalities. And good guys aren’t supposed to break the rules of war. Americans don’t shoot prisoners. We don’t use human shields, and we don’t fake surrenders. We are the good guys. What other nations fall into this category? I’m sure our lists would vary greatly, but there are several countries which I doubt would make anyone’s list.

Yet the lines get fuzzy. We (the U.S.), and the world with us to some degree, are so hung up on the dreaded WMD issue. Oh dear god, Iraq might use chemical or biological weapons against us. The slightest hint of - merciful heaven! - nuclear weapons (used by anyone, but the U. S. particularly in this instance) is horrific to most people. And why? What is so morally reprehensible about these weapons in the context of the discussion in this thread? Taken in a military (as opposed to a terrorist) application, where is the great moral evil? Are they so hideous simply because they are so damned effective at killing the enemy? What imaginary line gets crossed when you use a certain type of weapon? A massive bunker-buster bomb is okay, but mustard gas isn’t. Firebombing Tokyo or Dresden in World War II was okay, but nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was this incredibly evil deed.

Would you be willing to employ nuclear weapons (or some other form of “bad” weapon) if, with 100% accurate intelligence, you knew that Osama Bin-laden and 5,000 Al-Qaida terrorists had been found in a hidden camp in Afghanistan? Would you ever be willing to employ nuclear weapons (or other “bad” ones), under any circumstances? What changes your parameters?

One should be very careful about conceding that it is “okay” for Iraq to scorn the accepted rules of war because they have their backs to the wall and anything goes, because that works both ways. It’s called no quarter. Once your enemy has demonstrated that they will do anything and everything, and cannot be trusted under any circumstances, it is folly to think and act as if this isn’t the case. Dropping a tac nuke on the Republican Guard becomes more viable.

This is all about power and its application. The Iraqi regime is at the extreme end of their spectrum, and we are not. Our hand is stayed, for the moment, by our righteousness as a nation.

[Mountain]

One of the dieffernces between nukes and other weapons is nukes cause tremendous amounts of collatral damage which lasts for decades after their use. I think it is inherently wrong to punish entire generations for the sins of their fathers.