You're confused. That's obvious. Nobody ever said they should.
Also, the enemy in Vietnam were Vietnamese - - they lived there. They took POWs (at least the NVA did). Comparing Vietnam with Iraq is comparing apples and oranges.
“You’re confused. That’s obvious. Nobody ever said they should.”
I thought that was the issue we were discussing? Bottom line, when an enemy combatant is not longer a threat either because he is wounded and unarmed when the fighting is over, or he has surrendered, it is wrong to kill him. If he is running, out of ammo, or otherwise not fighting, he is still a target and should be shot at.