I think that this is more likely than not to be spin. For one thing, there are probably a lot of Iraqi civilians who are armed and perfectly happy to take the opportunity to shoot at Americans. When we take them prisoner we call them ununiformed combatants and don't give them the rights of POWs, but when they kill us then they are the objects of treachery. Secondly, we're talking about a religiously zealous army, many of whom believe that God will favour their attacks on Americans at any moment, so it is perfectly reasonable that one might surrender out of necessity, but have no qualms about changing his mind again when opportunity presents itself.

And I have an Iraqi friend who lived through the first gulf war and according to him, the people there were fed identical stories about the Americans as we were fed about the Iraqis. Propaganda surrounds a war and I think that in this case unless there is some extremely damning evidence (like a despatch signed by Saddam himself), I'm willing to err on the side of seeing this as incidental combat and not treacherous violation of the sport of war.

Besides, Americans were the first country to truely spoil fighting a sporting war with their revolution, so if anything, this is fitting. I seem to remember something about an ununiformed millitia taking out British officers back then.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I acknowledge some of your points, but you are so out there on others.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I'll respond to your post now.

The points that I acknowledge are that we receive American-slanted news coverage, and I know that in the Middle East they receive coverage slanted toward their viewpoint.

I acknowledge that Iraqi military members are capable of acting on their on accord, and that not everything they do does not necessarily come from the top.

I acknowledge that American revolutionaries resorted to non-sporting tactics, though I'm not convinced that they were "the first" to do so. But that's not a point I care to quibble since it's not germane to the discussion.

That said, I think some of the things you say are quite outrageous. (Not that they get me outraged, but I think they're extreme views which defy common sense.)

Do you believe that if we take someone prisoner who is not in uniform that we would give them treatment inferior to a POW? I take it your answer is yes. I don't believe that.

Your suggestion that troops surrendering and then picking up arms and shooting is a spur-of-the-moment decision is simply disingenuous.

I've been a bit put off by the extreme indignation that has been expressed in the news coverage over the Iraqi army's technique versus what we consider "sporting war", but come on. If you don't believe that this is really going on in the way that it is described, I don't know what to say. It sounds like you *want* to believe Iraqi propaganda while being dismissive of American propaganda. I know you believe that American media is controlled by the Jews, but I'm inclined to believe that it's largely representative of the truth, at least in facts though not perspective.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Do you believe that if we take someone prisoner who is not in uniform that we would give them treatment inferior to a POW? I take it your answer is yes. I don't believe that.

Believe it. What do you think the whole stink about the prisoners in Guantanamo is all about? The US captured them and decided not to treat them to the rights of POWs because they were not uniformed and can therefore be treated as mercenaries. I don't think they took them to Cuba so they could ask them questions politely either.

So yes, I believe that the US will avoid providing humane treatment for any prisoners that it can get away with not treating humanely. Did you see the kennels where the taliban prisoners were being kept? Outdoor with chainlink and a bucket to shit in.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Btw, I don't totally blame the Iraqis for employing these techniques. If you're trying to defend your homeland, you're going to want to use every tool at your disposal, especially if you can get away with it.

I wouldn't use civilian shields though, as Hussein has done in the past.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

The problem when you (as a nation) proclaim that you will not target civilians, it puts you at a great disadvantage. If this were a "conventional" war, the obvious strategy would be to simply level the entire city with conventional weapons. But in order to not kill too many civilians, you have to engage in close-quarters urban fighting. This will lead to more trickery by the Iraqis, and more American/coalition casulties. Public opinion will also start to turn if too many American soldiers die.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Saying that Saddam Hussein is doing a "good job" in this regard reminds me of my sophomore year American Studies class in high school, when our teacher asked if Adolf Hitler was a "good leader." He was trying to get us to feel out whether you could separate the level of job performance as a leader from the motives and intent while in the role. Sounds like you believe the answer is yes. I'm not sure where I stand there. Hmm.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I wasn't even thinking about it like that, but yeah.

As far as these tactics go, "Good job, Saddam." Though doooook seems to not want to credit Hussein.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Of course Hitler was a good leader - he was one of the best leaders. He polarized his country and made regular workaday stiffs into microtyrants on their own accord. He came very close to conquering the world because he surrounded himself with intelligent people and he listened to them. He's historically one of the best leaders there ever was.

Now he was a big meanie, to say the least, but that's part of being a good leader too.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)