Hoon avoids 'napalm in Iraq' quiz

[nonconformist]

Someone has to run the place in the time leading up to the elections, we could have picked Jesus of Nazerath and you would still have a problem with the choice so I'm not suprised by your statement.

Well, seeing as you said:

It was the Iraqi goverment that asked for Falluja to be delt with

and it's obvious the Americans would choose a pro-USA yes man.

 

[Speedo]

I'm sure not all soldiers think the way you do, but if they did, and war decisions were left to them, every war would be needlessly bloody.

Good. When Joe Average sitting at home on his ass in front of the TV realizes that war means that his pretty little butt might be in danger, then we'll start to see less of it.

 

[Jawz II]

hah, were did you think the iraqi government came from?

if GWB wanted them too, they would strip down and do the macarena

on a side note, from diffrent reports, it seems like the americans didnt use napalm in falludja, rather WP (willie pete), thats even more horrifying than napalm , its phosphor

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Banning napalm and allowing other types of bombs is like banning one type of bullet. Its not going to change a thing.

Very true.

 

[Jawz II]

not true

chemichal weapons are banned, and thank god for that

 

[cgannon64]

Chemical weapons are very different from napalm. Napalm is just a more effective type of bombs. We've used fire-bombs before it, and we will use them if we ban it. As is the case here.

 

[Cheetah]

Funny with all the syrians, iranians and suadis fighting. Suicide bombing is not an iraqi cultural thing, look it up. Also the Iraqi goverment wants us there, and is calling many shots atm. It was the Iraqi goverment that asked for Falluja to be delt with, and It's the Iraqi goverment that will be holding elections in 2005, a small fact that again, most of the people here overlook.

That is one of your weaker points. The Iraqi government is compossed of US-friendly people. They will never do anything that the White House don't agree with.

Quick question... how many elections did the British hold in India for the few hundred years they were there?

I'm afraid you can't compare that with Iraq so easily. The British were there with the objective of occupying and exploiting it. You are in Iraq to [find WMD / punnish Iraq for breaking the trade sanctions / fight terrorists / ] liberate the country from Saddam and make it a democracy.

And for a nation of 60 million... this is not a national resistance, it's anything but.

Yes, I doubt you would be able to manage with your current forces if 10 million Iraqies revolted, but that is another thread.

Finally a decent question sans the propaganda!

Yes, I did many times while I was in Iraq. I was wounded towards the end of my stay lightly and taken off the line, some small sharpnel in my right thigh and right side of my torso. During this time I handed out supplies and talked to many Iraqis, both Sunni and Shiite. I noticed that the Shiite's often had the horror stories of Saddam, little things like this.

" My husband and both of my sons were taken away by the Fedayeen, I never saw them again " ( this was EXTREMELY common, and really put things into prespective for me )

" My wife/daughter/sister had been raped by members of the RG/Fedayeen, I was forced to watch " ( This was common as well, and sickening )

" My son was shot and killed to set an example to others, our village was forced to watch "

" My feet were cut off because I spoke out against the actions of the goverment " ( Yes they cut off this poor womans feet, I woulden't belive it unless I saw it with my own two eyes )

At first I though Iraq was a waste of time, but then after hearing these stories over and over again, seeing the scars on the backs of children and women, seeing a mass grave and one of the rape rooms, I found myself glad to be there, and having a hand in putting an end to it. I met many iraqis that were good, hard working people, and I'm glad I did something, even in my minor role to help them.

I'd have to say, of my entire Iraq experance, the thing I am most proud of is guarding a school in june 2003, north of Karbala. I'm sure someone on this board will have something to say about my experance and that is fine, I'm proud of what I did over there.

And from what you tell, you should be proud.

There are very few people on this forum that has been in Iraq recently, so the more viewpoints the better. It is allways very interesting to gain more information. So I am gratefull for every post you make that holds information in it. Keep it coming. Even the discussion with Zulu was interesting.

Saddam was a dictator, no question about it.
I suspect all Americans come to Iraq with the wish to make it a better place. And the fact that you put your life on the line is honourable. Though I'm afraid that even though the intensions are good, the result is not.

Eyewitness stories are allways good, but one thing: You said you were wounded around the end of your stay in Iraq. Where are you now when you post? And wouldn't that mean that you were not in Iraq when Falluja was recaptured?

And for my general critique of the 2nd Gulf War: You're going about it the wrong way. If you wanted Iraq to be democratised, you should have lifted the economic sanctions and pushed for a change from within. Now, it's just a big mess and there is no way an election can be held in late January.

 

[ainwood]

not true

chemichal weapons are banned, and thank god for that

If people want to play semantics (not suggesting you are, BTW), then technically all explosives are chemical weapons. That is exactly what causes an 'explosion' - a chemical reaction.

 

[MarineCorps]

LEt me answer this with another quote:




And don't take the "We didn't have Nazis" moral high ground. A member of the Bsh family was involved with the funing of the Nazi regime.

Ever heard of the German-American Bund? I don't suppose you have.

Look at the nice family activities they have:

and this is the country which gave the world the KKK.

And would you like to know why those groups exist in the US? It's because of thise little thing called the Bill of rights. The first one promises Freedom of speech. These groups are protected under that.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

You said you were wounded around the end of your stay in Iraq. Where are you now when you post? And wouldn't that mean that you were not in Iraq when Falluja was recaptured?

Right now I am at home, cashing in my three months of leave/vacation and spending time with my family for the holidays and my birthday. It's great to be home and see my wife and mom, also play some civ3! my labtop's screen was cracked in one of the many,many many sandstorms and I was soooooooooooooo pissed off.

And I left iraq in early august with a good chunk of my unit for rotation, so I was not there for the second battle of falluja, but I was there for the first battle of Falluja in April and took part in it. I do have several friends I've been in contact with, and they do keep me updated on the situation there, it holds signifigance for me having fought in that city one already.

That is one of your weaker points. The Iraqi government is compossed of US-friendly people. They will never do anything that the White House don't agree with.

Well of course it is, that just is common sense. Now what differs is the fact they will hold there own elections ( god willing ) and can elect there own goverment. I doubt it will be a carbon copy of a western democracy, but it will be far better than what they had with Saddam.

... and I'll even admit I'm a fan of my man Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf AKA Baghdad Bob - "They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are
trying to sell to the others an illusion."

 

[zulu9812]

Bronx, rather than going through what you're saying point by point I'll do a summary. You have not answered my points, and you are clearly wrong.

First up, we'll examine our differering methods of analysis. I feel that I can analyse the situation in Iraq without a) having been there, and b) having been shot at). You feel that both of those criteria are required to comment. You were in Fallujah in April, but not in November. By your own admission, you are therefore not qualified to comment on what the Americans or the Iraqis did, because you don't have first-hand experience. I, on the other hand, don't claim to need it - so I can happily comment on anything I like. So all of your response to what I claim went on in the capture of Fallujah is meaningless, by your own argument. Not only that, but your comments (based on first hand experience) can hardly be called objective - you've deliberately raised the point about being in danger. My comments are based on external analysis. I wasn't born hating America, and I'm clever enough to see what the Iraqi insurgents are doing. I know that they kill more innocent iraqis than Americans or 'collaborators'. But they haven't killed 100,00 (more on that figure later). But I pick a side, and I pick the side that opposes foreign invasion by a rogue state.

Regarding the torture accusation: you are correct in that it is a minority of troops who are doing it. This is by definition, since only a minority of troops come into regular contact with prisoners in a prison environment. The question is whether a) whether more Americans would torture Iraqis if they got the chance, or b) Americans actually don't want to torture anybody, in which case we have to examine why they did. I think we can rule out a), as I'm sure you'll agree. Thus, we have to analyse why some American prison guards did what they did.

Let's compare with how the British treated their prisoners. There too, was abuse. British troops shot civilians, same as Americans. Beat prisoners, same as Americans. But what they did, whilst terrible, was generic soldier stuff that generally happens to prisoners. That doesn't excuse the British troops in question. However, the abuse committed by Americans was deliberately targetted to have the most effect on muslims. The British didn't try and make prisoners have sex with each other, have sex with the prisoners themselves, parade muslims around naked, set dogs on them, etc. This suggests a guiding hand, a pattern, and not generic soldiers-being-bad-to-prisoners stuat least General level. The troops who have been court-marshalled over this affair have repeatedly said that they were following orders. Worst of all, they have been used as scapegoats: the upper-ranks and government have used them to say "that's dealt with" and thus escape retribution themselves. So I don't feel that all US troops are bad. But the US military as a whole is very, very bad indeed.

Moving on to the accusations of Saddam Hussein with-holding food from his people duing sanctions and instead of spending oil money on food, spent it on palaces (or whatever). This simply isn't possible. All the money from Iraq's oil revenues (and I mean ALL of it) went directly into a UN bank account. A UN tribunal in New York then decided how this money would be spent, and every decision about that money went through that tribunal. About a third went to covering UN costs in Iraq. Some more (the proportion varied) went to reparations to Kuwait, and even sundry businesses around the globe who lost money because of the Gulf War. The remaining money was spent on food. The money was spent by the UN and the food delivered to Iraq. The food destribution network in Iraq was described by the UN as "second to none". But the people starved, simply because there wasn't enough food to go around. The UN realised this and raised the cap on how much oil Iraq could sell. However, whilst this helped in small way, Iraq couldn't actually meet the new cap: they didn't have the infrastructure to refine all the extra oil. Most of the refineries had been damaged or destroyed in the Gulf War, and repair parts were banned under the dual-use clause. I'm not going to argue this point with you, it has been well documented. But don't just take my word for it. I encourage you to read Iraq Under Siege ed. Anthony Arnove, which goes into great depth about sanctions. Look, I'll even give you a link to where you can buy in on Amazon. Blaiming the UN in this matter is ludicrous. The UN is not some quasi-government which exists in isolationof the USA. The USA has always controlled the UN. The fact that they got opposition about the war from the UN shows just how much global opposition there was.

Now let's look at that figure of 100,000 dead in Iraq. Note that's not a combined death toll of military and civilian: that's only civilians. Not only that, but the Lancet total is a conservative estimate. That means that in many situtations where the death was unclear, they gave America the benefit of the doubt and didn't include them in the total. So we have at least 100,000 civilians dead in Iraq. Now, after all your talk about how chaotic and brual war is, to ask for death certificates is unreal. How do you identify a person from just a limb? How do you account for all the disappeared? Did they just vanish. The families spoken to in those instances were sure their loved ones were dead. Finally, Lancet is a very well respected journal. It's a clinical journal, and they are apparently very good at compiling statistics. They are independent, they are not humanitarians, they are not "lefties". I would trust their figure over the US's any day.

Over the whole piece, Bronx, you have displayed the the hypocrisy which I always knew this would come down to. You apply different criteria to your judgement of the Iraqis and your judgement of the US military. When someone points out that the US actually uses weapons which cause mass destruction, WMDs become city-destroyers. When discussing WMDs in relation to the the Iraqis, they became small, nasty things which only have to kill a few people to qualify. You talk about killing without mercy in war as if it was a necessity, but then try and claim the moral highground when someone criticises you on it. The Iraqi insurgents do nasty things like setting of car bombs, whilst the US does 'necessary things' like dropping bombs on civilian populations.

Now I'd like to finish on this:

Now if they had a weapon, were provideing aid to the enemy or were a CLEAR AND PRESENT danger to me or my fellow Marines, I would have without hesitation.

Providing aid to the enemy? Does tha include medical aid? If you saw a Red Cross worker treating an Iraq who had a rifle by his side, would you shoot both of them?

 

[Jawz II]

If people want to play semantics (not suggesting you are, BTW), then technically all explosives are chemical weapons. That is exactly what causes an 'explosion' - a chemical reaction.

i see were youre coming from, is itthat much worse to burn someone to death or to shoot them?, in the end the result is the same, and sure hell be in unimaginable pain a short time, but hey dead is dead, right?

wrong, theres a reason for geneva convention and similar treaties

for all the horrors of war, there are many examples of soldiers showing mercy to their enemy, after theyve surrondered, maybe capture them instead of shooting them on the spot, or even worse torturing them to death or something

now, how merciful would you feel after you saw someone on your side burned alive? considerably less than if you saw him shot dead, i think (trust me some on fire running around and screaming is not very pleasent)

in short, those conventions are meant to limit the tragedy, whats wrong with that?

 

[Uiler]

Some comments about the survey that showed 100 000 civilians dead. This is what the article says (I have access to the Lancet):

The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6 4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1 2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000 194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1 419) than in the period before the war. Medicine, College of Medicine, Al-Mustansiriya University, Baghdad, Iraq (R Lafta MD, J Khudhairi MD); and School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA (Prof R Gar eld DrPH) Correspondence to: Dr Les Roberts les@a-znet.com

1) The technique used may seem fairly weird and inconclusive to lay people but it is apparently a standard technique used in war zones. For example, the same technique was used to calculate the number of civilians dead in Kosovo and Bosnia. So everytime you hear X civilians died in Bosnia it was calculated using this technique.
2) It was published in a very reputable medical journal. I think combined with (1) we can accept the validity of the technique.
3) There was a huge variation in the results. I think ranging from 10 000 to 200 000 extra civilian deaths. The reason for this is because in some areas death rate actually fell e.g. the Kurdish reasons while in the Sunni areas it rose dramatically. It is probably more clear to look at the death rate rather than the numbers killed. Going by memory I think it turned out something like the deathrates were 2.5 times that of pre-war Iraq. This is taking out Fallujah but leaving in all the regions where the death rate fell so one cannot say they were being biased against the US. If one goes by region and say take out the Kurd regions, the Sunni regions of course will have a civilian death rate higher than 2.5 times, esp. if you include Fallujah.
4) They calculated the pre-war death rate by asking people at the same time. So there is no question of bad official death rates prior to the war.
5) Regions, and samples were chosen by random.
5) Death certificates were actually asked for. Not every single time because they didn't want irate relatives to chase them out because they thought they were being accused of lying. Death certificates were asked for at the end of the interview to ensue that the interviewee did not change his/her story based on whether they would be asked to confirm it. Interviewees were assured that no names would be taken.
6) It is possible that men of fighting age died in combat. However half of the reported deaths are of children (<15) and women which means that over half of the deaths (since not all the men would have been fighters) would have been innocent civilians.
7) The article points out that very few of the deaths were blamed on wrong-doing by individual US soldiers (5%) who apologised. The vast majority of the deaths are attributed to US "helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry."
8) A very good question is raised by the article. "It seems difficult to understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties they induce." Me: The US armed forces constantly claim that they are reducing civilian body counts, but they have a policy of never actually even estimating how many civilians die. How can they know that what they are doing is having an effect? Why are they so scared of doing civilian body counts to make sure for example that the effect of smarter weapons is not being cancelled out by causing a false sense of complacency amongst the bombers and causing them to bomb more without accurate information? Or seeing how accurate their intelligence really is? Sometimes smarter weapons miss and it would be good to see whether they are tending to cause large amounts of civilian deaths when they do. This survey shows, even in a war zone and with little budget and no military protection (the researchers were literally risking their lives in some places) you can get at least a rough estimate of the effect that you are having on the civilian population.

Figure 2 shows the number of deaths reported during the study period, disaggregated as non-violent deaths, violence in Falluja, and violence in all other clusters. An increase of violent death was noted during the occupation, and violence was geographically widespread, with violent deaths reported in 15 of 33 clusters (45%). Violence-specific mortality rate went up 58-fold (95% CI 8·1&#8211;419) during the period after the invasion. Table 2 includes 12 violent deaths not attributed to coalition forces, including 11 men and one woman. Of these, two were attributed to anti-coalition forces, two were of unknown origin, seven were criminal murders, and one was from the previous regime during the invasion. Of the 28 children killed by coalition forces (median age 8 years), ten were girls, 16 were boys, and two were infants (sex was not recorded). Aside from a 14-year-old boy, all these deaths were children 12 years or younger.

Evidence suggests that the mortality rate was higher across Iraq after the war than before, even excluding Falluja. We estimate that there were 98000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000&#8211;194000) during the post-war period in the 97% of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja. In our Falluja sample, we recorded 53 deaths when only 1·4 were expected under the national pre-war rate. This indicates a point estimate of about 200000 excess deaths in the 3% of Iraq represented by this cluster. However, the uncertainty in this value is substantial and implies additional deaths above those measured in the rest of the country.

We attempted to confirm two non-infant deaths per cluster, but in four of the 33 clusters no non-infant deaths were reported, and in some clusters interviewers confirmed deaths in more than two households. In 63 of 78 (81%) households where confirmations were attempted, respondents were able to produce the death certificate for the decedent. When households could not produce the death certificate, interviewers felt in all cases that the explanation offered was reasonable&#8212;eg, the death had been very recent, the certificate was locked away and only the husband who was not home had the key. We think it is unlikely that deaths were falsely recorded. Interviewers also believed that in the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths.

We believe it unlikely that recall bias existed in the reporting of non-infant deaths, because of the certainty and precision with which these deaths were reported, and the importance of burial ceremonies in the Iraqi culture. The under-reporting of adult deaths recently or since the invasion to hide combatant deaths would lead us to underestimate the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The increase in reported infant mortality among interviewed households is consistent with a well documented pattern seen in armed conflict.[22 and 23] Many mothers reported that security concerns led them to deliver their children at home since the invasion. It is surprising that beyond the elevation in infant mortality and the rate of violent death, mortality in Iraq seems otherwise to be similar to the period preceding the invasion. This similarity could be a reflection of the skill and function of the Iraqi health system or the capacity of the population to adapt to conditions of insecurity.

Passive surveillance systems often have low sensitivity, and the fact that the estimate of coalition casualties from http://www.iraqbodycount.net is a third to a tenth the estimate reported in this survey should be of little surprise. What is particularly revealing about the Iraqbodycount.net system is that, as a monitor of trends, it closely parallels the results found in this survey: most casualties arose after the end of major hostilities in May, 2003, and the rate of civilian deaths has been rising in recent months. This finding indicates that passive media-based monitoring should have a role in future conflicts where the collection of health data is not practical. However, it should be used as a monitor of trends rather than as a count estimator, as Iraqbodycount.net has been most commonly cited in the media.[14]

Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%) involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed might have been a combatant. In a second case, a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the adverse consequences of their use of force. The remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry.

Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15&#8211;60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the greater number of male deaths was attributable to legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident-related fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years of age.

US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying "we don't do body counts".[14] The Geneva Conventions have clear guidance about the responsibilities of occupying armies to the civilian population they control. The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly caused by the occupying forces were women and children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention IV, Article 27 states that protected persons "&#8230; shall be at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against acts of violence&#8230;". It seems difficult to understand how a military force could monitor the extent to which civilians are protected against violence without systematically doing body counts or at least looking at the kinds of casualties they induce. This survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained. There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise tallies. In view of the political importance of this conflict, these results should be confirmed by an independent body such as the ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO. In the interim, civility and enlightened self-interest demand a re-evaluation of the consequences of weaponry now used by coalition forces in populated areas.

"smarter bombs" can still kill.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1022-01.htm
(original source Christian Science Monitor)

In the Gulf War, just 3 percent of bombs were precision-guided. That figure jumped to 30 percent in the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, and to nearly 70 percent during the Afghan air campaign last year.

Yet in each case, the ratio of civilian casualties to bombs dropped has grown. Technology, say analysts, isn't the key issue. In Afghanistan, tough terrain, inability to discern combatants from civilians, and paucity of fixed military targets led to estimates of 850 to 1,300 civilian deaths. Red Cross food depots depots were hit twice, as well as some mosques, and so was a wedding party of mostly pro-US civilians last July.

By one estimate, the number of civilians killed per bomb dropped may have been four times as high in Afghanistan as in Yugoslavia.

The air campaign to free Kosovo of Serbian control in 1998 underscores the point, according to Fred Kaplan, author of "The Wizards of Armageddon." "Ton for ton, the bombing killed civilians at the same rate as the [Rolling Thunder] air campaign over Vietnam," Mr. Kaplan wrote. One reason was that the improved accuracy of "smart" bombs "emboldened commanders to aim more bombs at targets that required it," he says &#8211; leading to more frequent misses.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Providing aid to the enemy? Does tha include medical aid? If you saw a Red Cross worker treating an Iraq who had a rifle by his side, would you shoot both of them?

I could and still be well within my ROE, he has a weapon and it has nothing to do with the red cross worker. Would I? no, contrary to what you think of me I am not some murderous miscreant looking for a few more kills. Is that red cross worker taking a big risk, yes an extremely big risk. In an ideal situation the rifle would be secured and the threat defused, granted this is ideal and nothing ever goes that smoothly in peace or war.

As for our arguement, it's not going to get anywere cause neither of us are willing to give. You think you are right and I think I am right, simple as that.

 

[zulu9812]

I could and still be well within my ROE, he has a weapon and it has nothing to do with the red cross worker.

Are you kidding me? The US Rules of Engagement call for the shooting of a wounded soldier lying on the ground with his rifle not in his hands + any aid worker who gives him medical treatment???

 

[Bronx Warlord]

He could eazily grab the rifle, or use the red cressent worker as a shield while doing so. The situation you gave me is not that clear in detail, and things happen in combat at two speeds, a crawl or the speed of thought. If the guy had his intestines blown out and was clinging to life I doubt many would bother shooting him unless they were an ice cold sociopath. If he was still capibile of movement, was making a move for his weapon and still presented a threat then yes, many would shoot him and rightfully so.

This is were our differing experance comes into play, you have no idea of what it means to be shot at, or to know that at any second you can die. As for the aid worker, well they should smarten up and kick that rifle away before giving medical attention and this whole situation can be avoided no?

It's not a video game were you respawn, Soldiers above most others take there lives seriously because they know how quickly they can come to an end.

 

[zulu9812]

Well, what got me was shooting the aid worker part - you still haven't clarified that part.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

As for the aid worker, well they should smarten up and kick that rifle away before giving medical attention and this whole situation can be avoided no?

... do you really think I would shoot an aid worker? are you that much of a left wing bomb thrower?

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[zulu9812]

No, but you did imply that if you saw someone of the age 15-60 "providing aid to the enemy" you would shoot them without hesitation

 

[nonconformist]

So if a US soldier were lying injured being treated, an Iraqi could rightly place a gun against his head and fire it? Puh-leeze.