Some Poignant Questions, Please Give Your Opinions?

[HARDCORE]

?In Gulf War I, the defeated enemy (Generals) were forced to sign a formal surrender!?

In Gulf War II, however, no surrenders that I know of were ever signed or formalized!? As such, does not everybody (enemy) captured in this conflict, even after our President Bush declared this war over (some time back), still qualify as POWs? :cd:

Also, even the Iraqis, and other Middle-Eastern zealots & hired-guns, who are ambushing our troops on a daily basis - "are they not also being treated as POWs when caught?!" :cd:

?If this is so?, and I have no idea for certain, then can not the highest-ranking POWs that we captured out of that deck of 54, personally surrender for the Nation of Iraq? I mean, we have nabbed some pretty highly placed bastards since the onset of this conflict, have we not?

?Now let me ask you this??

If the "Highest Ranking Captive Iraqis" sign an instrument of surrender (even now), would that not make ?ALL? who then fire upon, ambush, or otherwise harass our forces, nothing more than common criminals, assassins, murderers, spies or terrorists?

" And just what do you do to animals like these when they are caught?! ?Duhh!!?

So do you think that (maybe) the prospect of being shot on sight, would make many of these Iraqi and Fanatic back-shooters think twice before engaging in ambushes, terrorism, etc!?
---------------------------------------------------
* And for the record, President Bush, in opening up the way for U.N. forces to now carry a fair share of the "Post Hussein" load of ?Iraqi Peace Keeping Duties!? And the President did say that: "These ?Coalition, Multi-National Forces?, would be under the command of United States Officers!

"And to this I say - HIP, HIP HURRAH GEORGE on a sound decision, well made and well thought out!!"

VERITAS

[BLUEHAWK]

HC -
Interesting...

> Dunno if everybody in Iraq would be POW, but they can now be classified as enemy non-combatants when so desired, nice point though about surrender! I mean, usually there is SOME kind of surrender in a war, isn't there? They've got more than 2/3rds from that deck of 55, so maybe one of those guys would be authorized; King of Spades, maybe? That oughta be tidied up, if'n Iraq was actually a sovereign nation, or what, very confusing. Seems like an awful lot of effort to go through without a surrender at minimum... on the other hand, maybe they REFUSE to surrender!

> Don't think anybody oughta start shooting prisoners of any rank, unless fired upon. However, I sure WOULD like to see some from that deck be, at least, sent to the War Crimes Tribunal, post haste. That might go a ways toward softening accusations about american arrogance?

> I'm fairly certain that Iraqis already know they are subject to being shot on sight, among other nasty consequences. I believe we gotta stop pointing rifles at children in their own courtyards though... that seems to be one way we got ourselves into My Lai... different enemy, different geography, same problem.

go ahead, commence firing...I'm unarmed and expecting it, but I'm no human shield.

[reconeil]

YES, YES, YES,...to all your quite valid questions.

In fact my Friend, and regarding POW's, if handled sensibly and/or as in most other counflicts worldwide and throughout history (plus borders secured),...there should be no doubt whatsoever that the daily murders and terrorism experienced after The Iraqi War would be next to nil, or at maximum infinitely less than currently experienced.

Automatically turning a vicious and murderously hostile and fanatical enemy loose right after capture (whether as an individual or en mass), instead of lengthy penning and lengthy interrogating OVER & OVER,...is as lethally-foolish as it gets. Much unwarranted loss of American Blood (Iraqi Blood also) makes the point about being: "As lethally-foolish as it gets" regarding FOOLISH politically micro-managed and/or FOOLISH politically-correct warfare and aftermath.

Besides, and even though quite common nowadays in Iraq, doesn't anyone else think it quite strange and weird that a soldier on the loosing side (ie. defeated Iraqi) is permitted protesting (armed or not)? Any SANE PERSON (ie. NOT politically-motivated and/or politically-correct) must think such absolutely asinine, to say the least.

Regardless, This SANE PERSON honestly believes that the only people presently having The Right to Protest in Iraq,...are all brave American and British Soldiers. Any others grouping to protest in a hostile manner should be shot. I know such is a little harsh. But,...at least such should explain to many not fully understanding WHOM ARE IN CHARGE, exactly WHOM ARE IN CHARGE. Hell, if done so,...WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BECOME IN CHARGE, instead of just being uniformed targets of opportunity.

Granted many P-C Liberals will cringe at any of my suggestions for saving lives of: "America's Finest" and/or The U.S. Military,...and undoubtedly think such quite unfair to The Defeated Iraqis. But, and since not an Iraqi, French, German, Russian or American Liberal Citizen (seem to all speak the same language), I say to such naive people: "Screw-you one-and-all" and; "Personally Scarlet,...I don't give a damn".

Neil,..."A Yankee/Rebel"

P.S. Less (also unnecessarily) worrying about Church and State here in America,...whilst being more so concerned about such a trouble causing thing in Iraq,...most certainly couldn't hurt ALSO.

[HARDCORE]

Blue & Recon -

"Exactly!!"

VERITAS