RE execute:
If you catch a guy planting IEDs, sniping at our guys, actively engaged in combat against our people, he should not be treated to a taxpayer-funded vacation at Club Gitmo.
Don’t bother to take him prisoner. It isn’t “Nazi”, it’s common sense. How did our people deal with die-hard Japanese on Peleliu, Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? They killed them. With machine guns, flame throwers, grenades, and bayonets.
Kuribayashi had about 22,000 Japanese troops on Iwo; not many of them surrendered. Almost ALL of them (19,000) died at their guns. The ones that surrendered were, for the most part Korean conscripts or so badly shattered from the bombing that they were mental cases.
I agree with you on the “throwing troops into no-win situations”. But in the real world, if we HAVE to go in somewhere, we go in to win it and end it.
I NEVER want to see another airliner crashing into an American building, or a suicide bomber detonating on an American street.
For some reason US POTUSs try to avoid going down in history with Hitler, Stalin and Po-Pot.
Call them RINOs if you like for that, its just reality.
It sounded like you were saying that our US soldiers should have executed the ones who surrendered w (hands up no weapons), versus killing those who fight to the end.
That would be very short sighted.
I agree with you. I will admit to never reading exactly all the things that took place on Iwo Jima. My impression was that the Japanese there were killed under combat situations. I’m not aware of mass executions.
I don’t think you’re attempting to say mass executions were reasoned there.
With this in mind, I agree with your take on killing terrorists caught red-handed.
1. They aren’t playing by internationally recognized rules of engagement
2. It’s okay to kill someone who has proven themselves to be a terrorist
3. Do people realize that IEDs can’t tell if it’s a U. S. troop vehicle or a civilian vehicle?
Kill such people on the spot. Leave them there for their buddies to come scoop up.