Replies

We are foolish at this late date to allow any more surrenders.

What you are advocating is both foolish and a war crime. Foolish because the bulk of the Iraqi military is still out there, and the last thing we want to do is encourage them to fight to the death in Baghdad.

It would be a war crime because the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted. War crimes on the part of the Iraqis don't justify them on our part. We won't sink to their level.

What I would favor doing is bombing the next press conference that Iraqi Information Minister holds. He wears a uniform, and is therefore a legitimate target. If it kills a few Al Jazeera propagandists, that's OK by me. It would send a message that it isn't healthy to be near anyone in in Iraqi uniform.

What you are advocating is both foolish and a war crime. Foolish because the bulk of the Iraqi military is still out there, and the last thing we want to do is encourage them to fight to the death in Baghdad.

Apparently a number of people are getting so riled up about Iraqi soldiers violating articles of the Geneva Convention and committing war crimes that they want us to respond by violating acts of the Geneva Convention and committing war crimes.

What I would favor doing is bombing the next press conference that Iraqi Information Minister holds.

I certainly cannot find fault with that suggestion.

What you are advocating is both foolish and a war crime.

I agree that we cannot shoot people who try to surrender, but we can be tougher about forcing them to disarm and move away from their vehicles before they get close enough to cause problems.

In addition, we can be more aggressive in bombing Iraqi troops from the air before our ground forces encounter them. First, they can't surrender to a B-52, so there is nothing to stop us from killing more of them. Second, more aggressive bombing should increase the number of true surrenders.

I hope that we've officially served notice to Al Jazeera that no further pictures of American dead will be tolerated. They should know by now that we have the ability to enforce that demand.

It would be a war crime because the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted. War crimes on the part of the Iraqis don't justify them on our part. We won't sink to their level.

I'm sorry chief, but that is just stupid.

This whole "war crimes" thing has always blown my mind. War is a crime. It may be necessary at times, but let's face it: two groups going out and killing as many of the other as possible is not a very nice thing to do.

Be that as it may, war is won by he who does the most damage to his opponent. In other words, he who is able and willing to stoop to thew lowest level and do the most horrible things.

Case in point, WWII. We won it by dropping two nukes on Japanese civilians and killing nearly half a million of them in a matter of seconds. It was a horrible and deplorable thing to do, but it did win the war for us. The Japs knew that they could not keep up with the attrocities we were capable of.

Personally, I'd wipe my ass with the Geneva Convention "laws". Just like all our enemies do.

the Geneva Convention states that surrenders must be accepted

not if they are used as military tactics. foolishness... and you are of course, WRONG to advocate we intend to continue such a dangerous course of action, in the clear evidence indicates they are using this to kill American soldiers.

you support the iraqis at your own discretion.

I say they should be killed, rather than sacrificing our own boys.... you disagree? Then I say you are one of them.