[jcadam]

I see that the Iraqis have brought dishonor to a whole new level. I suppose this will result in Iraqi troops who are honestly trying to surrender getting shot.

[Nicko]

Tell me, when has war ever been honorable?

[Cipher13]

All is fair in love and war.

Remember you're invading their country.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The laws of war aren't really about honor. They are about mutual casualty mitigation. Using a white flag as a ruse is a war crime because takes away the means with which to surrender for other troops. Allied troops are now going to be more suspicious of Iraqis purporting to surrender, and much more trigger happy when presented with anything ambiguous. That inevitably will mean more Iraqi deaths.

The fact that Iraqi troops are resorting to such crimes is a sign that they either had no discipline in the first place, or what discipline they had has been lost. If that is the case, this is going to get very bloody.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If that is the case, this is going to get very bloody.

As opposed to your run of the mill war?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
As opposed to your run of the mill war?

Sorry. Let me rephrase that. This is going to get more bloody than it would otherwise had been if Iraqi forces had remained within the bounds of the laws of land combat (which are generally codified in the Geneva Convention, and which proscribe things like using faked surrender as an ambush ruse).

[gadster]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The laws of war aren't really about honor. They are about mutual casualty mitigation. Using a white flag as a ruse is a war crime because takes away the means with which to surrender for other troops. Allied troops are now going to be more suspicious of Iraqis purporting to surrender, and much more trigger happy when presented with anything ambiguous. That inevitably will mean more Iraqi deaths.

The fact that Iraqi troops are resorting to such crimes is a sign that they either had no discipline in the first place, or what discipline they had has been lost. If that is the case, this is going to get very bloody.

Surely its a bit late to be talking about the niceties of warfare? Have the US actually legally declared war?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by gadster:
Surely its a bit late to be talking about the niceties of warfare? Have the US actually legally declared war?

LOL that is a great point, have they officially declared war? This is an invasion after all.

[Speckledstone]

-Have the US actually legally declared war?
-This is an invasion after all.

Sorry folks, the law of land warfare applies whether war is officially declared or not. Claiming the Geneva or Hague Conventions don�t appy because war was not officially declared would be quite a rediculous statement to make. That�s not what your hinting at, is it?

[Mark Tungston]

they're getting what is coming to them. better now than when we get deeper.


we'll never show mercy like that again.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
we'll never show mercy like that again.

And that is supposed to be a good thing?

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
And that is supposed to be a good thing?

well they ruined it.

we were treating their white flags with respect for them and now they use it as a tactic


so they broke a honor code and will be treated accordingly






they brought it upon themselves

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
well they ruined it.

we were treating their white flags with respect for them and now they use it as a tactic


so they broke a honor code and will be treated accordingly






they brought it upon themselves

An honour code? You invaded their country! Don't expect ANY sort of honour or respect! Jeez. That's just crazy.

And yes, they did bring it upon themselves; but what about those who DO want to surrender? This has made a mess, and I know what you're saying... but it isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be.

[Speckledstone]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
they're getting what is coming to them. better now than when we get deeper.


we'll never show mercy like that again.

Please speak for yourself, not for the U.S. Military.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
An honour code? You invaded their country! Don't expect ANY sort of honour or respect! Jeez. That's just crazy.

And yes, they did bring it upon themselves; but what about those who DO want to surrender? This has made a mess, and I know what you're saying... but it isn't quite as simple as you make it out to be.

we asked - hey saddam...turn over your illegal weapons so you dont aid terrorists from attacking us and killing americans. he says: kiss my arse!

we gotta do something or we'll be living in fear for the rest of our lives wondering if/if not he is supporting terrorist


and i am not speaking on behalf od the military but theya re thinking the same thing. and i am not asking them to slaughter innocents but i suppose they will be more careful when they see a whiteflah no.


you anti-war mongers who live over seas dont get what it is like in america post 9/11

[finboy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If that is the case, this is going to get very bloody.

Yep. You can bet that the US military will have to stop taking chances on the "honor" of the Iraqi rank and file. Things will get much more messy over there.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
we asked - hey saddam...turn over your illegal weapons so you dont aid terrorists from attacking us and killing americans. he says: kiss my arse!

we gotta do something or we'll be living in fear for the rest of our lives wondering if/if not he is supporting terrorist

There is no proof that SH has ever supported any terrorist activity.

I am quietly amused by the "you don't know what it's like" statement. I lived through some extended IRA bombing campaigns in London. And who were the main financial supporters of said IRA? Starts with a "US" ends with "citizens".

[finboy]

It's amazing how some folks still deny that Iraq was supporting terrorists, when it's been going on since the 1980s. I guess they have a different definition of "support" or something.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
but what about those who DO want to surrender? This has made a mess,

That's the point we've been making. Disciplined troops abide by the laws of land warfare because it is in their collective self-interest to do so. An armed mob on the other hand, tries to take advantage of them. But ultimately when you do that, the result is more suffering all around.

[boots]

Originally posted by finboy:
It's amazing how some folks still deny that Iraq was supporting terrorists, when it's been going on since the 1980s. I guess they have a different definition of "support" or something.

For something that is supposedly so obvious, the administration has certainly done a crappy job of making the links. The best I've seen is circumstantial at best. The strongest link is the camp in the north of Iraq, but Saddam hasn't had a whole lot of control up there since the no-fly zones went up. Not a real strong link.

If you have more specific info, please post it. I'm interested, but no one ever puts up substantial links when asked about this.

(note: I don't believe that there is no link, just haven't seen an effective argument for it yet.)

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
we asked - hey saddam...turn over your illegal weapons so you dont aid terrorists from attacking us and killing americans. he says: kiss my arse!

we gotta do something or we'll be living in fear for the rest of our lives wondering if/if not he is supporting terrorist


and i am not speaking on behalf od the military but theya re thinking the same thing. and i am not asking them to slaughter innocents but i suppose they will be more careful when they see a whiteflah no.


you anti-war mongers who live over seas dont get what it is like in america post 9/11

I'm sorry, but I don't remember Iraq using weapons of mass destruction... so he has about as much right to them as the US does. But that isn't the topic at hand.

How dare you presume to know how we feel about this situation. How dare you presume that Americans were the only ones affected by 9/11. Hate to tell you, but I know people in New York City. What do you think of that? Guess what? Sydney was a target too. Yep. Guess what? Australian troops are fighting too. That's right. I know what it feels like better than you could imagine. I find it especially messed up that you specify "anti-war mongers", insinuating that A) I'm an "anti-war monger", and that B) somehow pacifists are completely dead to the world and are unaffected by everything that has happened. Do you really believe that, or did you just shot off your mouth without thinking?

Oh, and by the way - being anti war-monger is a good thing. Anybody who supports war-mongers is idiotic. Another slip up? Maybe. Or maybe you know how to hyphenate properly, but couldn't think of a better term than "anti-war monger", which is totally incorrect.

Y'know what else? I'm not anti-war. I would actually consider myself pro-war. I was for the previous strikes on Iraq, actually. I'm a huge fan of military technology and weapons systems in general. I'm very interested in them. I love explosives, and find them fun to play with. I want to buy a gun, because I think they're ****ing cool. I think the destructive power of a GAU-8/A is awesome, and there's not much cooler than an AC-130 in "don't **** with me" mode, or a KA-50 in an intense dogfight. Total Annihilation is my favourite game. Don't consider me a pacifist - you have no idea what I'm like. Do I sound like a bloody pacifist to you?

I'm not for this war. That is something I want to make very clear. I am not anti-war. I realise war is a very necessary thing, unfortunately. And I do so with much dismay. I'm ashamed of this species for said fact, but still it remains.

Do I agree that something has to be done about Saddam? Sure. Assassinate him, by all means. Don't bomb the goddamn country. George is just flexing his muscles.

Again - do not lump me into some anti-war ultra-conservative pacifists-r-us group who sit around in front of state buildings naked smoking weed and whining about the war in that country with all the sand and the moustache dude.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
An honour code? You invaded their country!

Ahem. If we are putting this in the first person, well, so did you.
Also, "neccesary" war is a mind set.
For me, ultimately, it all comes back to this: we created this mess. We must now fix it. We MADE this war "necessary".

Ciph, you also say you don't "remember him using" WMDs. Do you doubt he has them? I don't. Not for a second. Of course, there was also all those SCUDs he didn't have, either.

TO further confuse the issue, I AM anti war. And proud of it. And confused as to why that would be a BAD thing. I deeply suspect our own armed forces are also anti war.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's the point we've been making. Disciplined troops abide by the laws of land warfare because it is in their collective self-interest to do so. An armed mob on the other hand, tries to take advantage of them. But ultimately when you do that, the result is more suffering all around.

Yeah, I know, but equating all Iraqi troops with these animalistic individuals is unfair nonetheless.

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry. Let me rephrase that. This is going to get more bloody than it would otherwise had been if Iraqi forces had remained within the bounds of the laws of land combat (which are generally codified in the Geneva Convention, and which proscribe things like using faked surrender as an ambush ruse).

Well, I don't think an Army that has a history of using chemical weapons in mass quantities against enemy troops (the Iran-Iraq war) is going to be stopped by anything such as the Geneva convention.

Simey. I would like your opinion on saddam's strategy. I posted this earlier.

"I have been wondering for about a week now what Saddam's strategy would be. I wondered if he would order the immediate destruction of the oil wells or if he would order an immediate mass missile attack using short range Frog missiles on US/UK forces in order to sow dissarray. In the beginning it seemed almost too easy, the way US/UK forces were advancing into Iraq. I would have thought that if one were clearly at a massive tactical disadvantage that one would have to resort to tactics where the tactical advantages were nullified. Such tactics could have included luring the opposing forces into very close proximity, either through a system of trenches in the desert or in cities where the opposing forces would have difficulties using tanks and aircraft due the proximity of friendly soldiers. Such a tactic, in order to be sustainable, would involve getting one's soldiers to beat a hasty retreat as soon as the opposing forces withdrew their soldiers in order to start artillery and aircraft support. Instead it seems that Saddam has many soldiers that will simply sit put in the trenches and cities and fight like crazy until they're all eliminated.

This brings me to your original post. I have an idea that Saddam never intended to defend the areas under the no-fly zones in the north or the south. I think that he must have thought that the allied airmen knew the area too well, and that his forces would never be able to make preparations without the risk of being spotted. I think he has concentrated his strategy on defending the larger area in the middle with massed landmines, burning oil trenches and rings of more and more loyal soldiers further towards the city. I suspect that if he has any Chemical weapons left, he would use them in the last battle for the city itself, where the death toll would be catastrophic. I think he's enough of a Hitler look alike, that he would never consider surrendering.

I think, judging from the very few actual reported Iraqi defenders up until now, that he has concentrated almost his whole army around Baghdad. I suspect the initial claim of the US/UK that the entire 51.st Iraqi division had surrendered was premature, as it seems that it is that division that is doing the brunt of the fighting in Basra, Um Qasr, Nasiria and elsewhere, supported by small numbers of Republican Guards and armed irregulars. The numbers reported in the news- 500 in Nasiria fighting 5000 marines, 150 in Um Qasr etc, are either huge lies for propaganda purposes, or the real bulk of Iraq's few million armed irregulars, 400 000 man army, including 70 000 Republican Guards and 10 000 Special Republican Guards (Saddams SS Leibwache) are still waiting for the fighting to come close enough so that they will not be completely at a disadvantge with respect to Armour and Aircraft. Talking about which, I wonder why not one single Iraqi Aircraft has taken off yet. Have they all been destroyed or are they also waiting for the really big battles to begin.

Still, this cold talking of strategy is bloody sick though."

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Ahem. If we are putting this in the first person, well, so did you.
Also, "neccesary" war is a mind set.
For me, ultimately, it all comes back to this: we created this mess. We must now fix it. We MADE this war "necessary".

Yeah, we did invade it, too. It wasn't Australia who initiated it. "He started it", essentially, and our prime minister just happens to be Bush's bitch, and I'm ashamed to be associated with said invasion. I'd like to disassociate myself from our governing body as much as possible.

Ah, necessary... because the US started a fight, it has the right to call it "necessary" thereafter and "finish" it? You're right. The US created the war. It started it. It made this mess. That doesn't make "finishing" it any more reasonable.

Originally posted by maxelson:
Ciph, you also say you don't "remember him using" WMDs. Do you doubt he has them? I don't. Not for a second. Of course, there was also all those SCUDs he didn't have, either.

TO further confuse the issue, I AM anti war. And proud of it. And confused as to why that would be a BAD thing. I deeply suspect our own armed forces are also anti war.

I don't doubt it for a minute.

Being anti-war isn't a bad thing, the point I was trying to make is that I'm not anti-war, that's all. I don't like war. I don't feed off it. But sometimes muscles are the only things people will listen to.

I'm not pro-war either, mind you.

[maxelson]

No. You're missing the point. We created this mess 30 years ago when the CIA and precious Kennedy administration got involved with the overthrow of a different tyrant in Iraq. Guess who was inserted in his place?

And I have NO doubt that finishing this mess off IS necessary. Absolutely. I may differ on HOW to clean it up. But I KNOW this mess needs cleaning up.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by maxelson:
No. You're missing the point. We created this mess 30 years ago when the CIA and precious Kennedy administration got involved with the overthrow of a different tyrant in Iraq. Guess who was inserted in his place?

And I have NO doubt that finishing this mess off IS necessary. Absolutely. I may differ on HOW to clean it up. But I KNOW this mess needs cleaning up.

Ah, yes. Created this mess by playing international-good-cop. Something the US never had the right to do... and something that ultimately caused this shitstorm.

It's gonna happen again. Nay, it is happening again. The situation can't be "corrected". The damage has been done, and things will only get worse. As you said - look what happened last time.

I agree with you - it needs to be cleaned up, but this is NOT the way.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:
It's amazing how some folks still deny that Iraq was supporting terrorists, when it's been going on since the 1980s. I guess they have a different definition of "support" or something.

Post. Proof.

[daimoni]

.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Simey didn't equate all Iraqi troops that way. Check his posts again.

All is not fair in war. When troops (notice I didn't say all troops) wave a white flag for surrender as a ruse... it makes it harder for others to surrender peaceably. No matter which side.

I never said Simey did. Somebody else did.

And yeah, that's the problem - they've messed things up for others now - but that doesn't mean others weren't legitimately surrendering.

If I was a troop, I'd probably be very cautious, even to the extent of not accepting Iraqi surrenders...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
Simey. I would like your opinion on saddam's strategy. I posted this earlier.

"I have been wondering for about a week now what Saddam's strategy would be. I wondered if he would order the immediate destruction of the oil wells or if he would order an immediate mass missile attack using short range Frog missiles on US/UK forces in order to sow dissarray. In the beginning it seemed almost too easy, the way US/UK forces were advancing into Iraq. I would have thought that if one were clearly at a massive tactical disadvantage that one would have to resort to tactics where the tactical advantages were nullified. . .

I think your idea of his strategy is probably about right except that I'm not sure that what we have seen so far has much strategy to it. The indications are that central command and control has pretty much broken down, and that instead, what we are seeing is local guerilla-style resistance. That can be quite effective at inflicting casualties in the short run, but without command and control, and without resupply, there is a limit to how much utility you can get out of that strategically.

Of course, that may not be the case closer to Baghdad. Command and control may be intact there, although allied troops are only about 60 miles from Baghdad right now. If we are going to start seeing organized resistance, it is going to have to be soon.

Two things should be fairly obvious. First, what Saddam's strategy is matters less than whether his troops are willing or able to implement it. It's quite possible that orders to use chemical weapons in the city could be given, and that the troops would be unwilling to carry them out. It would amount to murdering their own population, quite different from using chemical weapons on Kurds. It also wouldn't have much utility against fully prepared and well-equipped US and British troops. And finally, it would be suicide because the second Iraqis start firing chemical shells, they will receive radar-guided counter-battery fire.

Secondly, I think it is quite apparent that the US and its allies are still using enormous restraint. I think that is deliberate, part of a strategy to separate out the real resistance from the troops willing to surrender. I haven't seen any footage or reports of heavy fire at all. In particular, no carpet bombing, and no use of heavy artillery. Instead, the tactic used has been to send in the infantry, almost without cover. That increases US and allied casualties, but decreases the risks to civilians and surrendering Iraqi military. I'm sure you are probably right that Saddam wants to draw US troops into close quarters firefights. But I'm not so sure he is succeeding as a tactical matter, or if it just happens to coincide with the strategy being used by the allies.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by daimoni:
No. It is our right and our duty to protect and serve and yes, even police the world.

When I say 'our' I mean all of us on this great blue ball of muck. Not just America and the so-called coalition of the willing.

Unwilling nations can STFU.

I don't believe in dotted lines on a map. And I make no separation between an American from an Iraqi from an Indian from a German from an Australian from a Chilean from a Canadian, etc... we're all human.

I agree with you in principle, but look where playing the good guy got you last time. Here.

It just isn't as simple as you make it sound, and as we'd all like it to be.

Originally posted by daimoni:
Sorry. I misread your post then.

No probs.

I think it was Mark that mentioned it.

[finboy]

Originally posted by boots:

(note: I don't believe that there is no link, just haven't seen an effective argument for it yet.)

General overview:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

It lists Hamas, but I think Hezbollah was sending missiles from Iraq through Syria not too long ago as well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by maxelson:
No. You're missing the point. We created this mess 30 years ago when the CIA and precious Kennedy administration got involved with the overthrow of a different tyrant in Iraq. Guess who was inserted in his place?

And I have NO doubt that finishing this mess off IS necessary. Absolutely. I may differ on HOW to clean it up. But I KNOW this mess needs cleaning up.

You know, that story that was in the Times the other day really short-circuits Iraqi history. Saddam wasn't the leader of the Ba'ath party at the time of the 1963 coup, and the Ba'ath party was never particularly friendly to the US. It was and is an Arab nationalist/socialist party allied at that time with Nasserite forces in Egypt and Syria, and loosly allied with the Soviet Union. To imply (as many seem to be doing) that Saddam was ever a US puppet is playing seriously fast and loose with history.

[BlackGriffen]

Note what Simey said about this making it harder to surrender. It makes the troops seem less disciplined, but who would benefit from such a situation? Iraqi command. You have a disloyal rank and file, it is in your best interest to make it harder for them to surrender, so they have to stand and fight.

BlackGriffen

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
you anti-war mongers who live over seas dont get what it is like in america post 9/11

Please is america the ONLY country to have experienced a terrorist attack

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
General overview:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

It lists Hamas, but I think Hezbollah was sending missiles from Iraq through Syria not too long ago as well.

Hey finboy: what happened to that story the other day about the press release the Islamic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (killers of Leon Klinghoffer) put out. They said that one of those commanders was killed in Saddam's bunker at the begining of the war. Andrew Sullivan linked to it, but his archives for last week aren't working. Did you see it anywhere else? If a top terrorist was meeting with Saddam at the time of the strike, that is at least interesting for those who deny any connection.

Also there is the little fact that the Abu Nidal group were sheltered by Iraq for years. Of course, it was probably also Saddam's government who put a bullet in his head. Oh, wait. No. That was just a suicide with two shots.

[daimoni]

.

[Cipher13]

I'm off to bed now, but I wanted to mention this point.

Now that the US has decided to start this war; now that American, English and Australian troops (mostly, apologies about others I've not mentioned) are now engaging Iraqi troops; I know it has to be finished, and I hope the allies emerge victorious, with as few casualties as possible - on both sides.

I'm still against this war and am disgusted by my own countries involvement, as well as the involvement of the US and the UK. I'm also still disgusted by the troops I've seen on television cheering and high-fiving when they make a direct hit, and those who are treating the Iraqi people like sub-human monsters from the depths of hell.

I hope this is all over very soon, as I'm sure everyone does, and as painlessly as possible.

It's too late to hope for anything else, or to protest against the war, or even really whine about it - the event horizon has been breached.

[boots]

Originally posted by finboy:
General overview:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

It lists Hamas, but I think Hezbollah was sending missiles from Iraq through Syria not too long ago as well.

Don't mean to be obtuse about this, but all this link does is regurgitate the "We say so, so it is" stuff that we've already heard. There are no specifics. There is no mention of how we know these things. Do we have records of trasnactions? Why not show them? I think this is what I'm more interested in seeing. I don't tend to believe what I'm told simply because I'm told.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Also there is the little fact that the Abu Nidal group were sheltered by Iraq for years. Of course, it was probably also Saddam's government who put a bullet in his head. Oh, wait. No. That was just a suicide with two shots.

No wonder OBL declined to hook up with Saddam....Not exactly the most stable of hosts.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by shmerek:
Please is america the ONLY country to have experienced a terrorist attack

The only one on that scale, yes. But that isn't the point. We are the clear targets of terrorists who would use WMD if they could. You should be worrying about that too. Just because your terrorists have been happy with small attacks doesn't mean they always will be. I was in Italy at about the time the Red Brigade blew up the Bologna train station in the 1970s. The Red Brigade are no longer viable, but just imagine if a group like that had had access to WMD?

You collectively seem to think that such a nightmare isn't possible, but it is. We woke up on Sept. 11th. I hope that it doesn't take something equally horrific for Europe and other parts of the world to wake up.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
I don't tend to believe what I'm told simply because I'm told.

well, you're a wonderful person.

(waits to see if boots will believe this)

[maxelson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You know, that story that was in the Times the other day really short-circuits Iraqi history. Saddam wasn't the leader of the Ba'ath party at the time of the 1963 coup, and the Ba'ath party was never particularly friendly to the US. It was and is an Arab nationalist/socialist party allied at that time with Nasserite forces in Egypt and Syria, and loosly allied with the Soviet Union. To imply (as many seem to be doing) that Saddam was ever a US puppet is playing seriously fast and loose with history.

Did not say he was a puppet. I am saying we were instrumental in that action. Which we were. And please to point to NYT article. I saw other stuff elsewhere.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You know, that story that was in the Times the other day really short-circuits Iraqi history. Saddam wasn't the leader of the Ba'ath party at the time of the 1963 coup, and the Ba'ath party was never particularly friendly to the US. It was and is an Arab nationalist/socialist party allied at that time with Nasserite forces in Egypt and Syria, and loosly allied with the Soviet Union. To imply (as many seem to be doing) that Saddam was ever a US puppet is playing seriously fast and loose with history.

IIRC, Saddam became vice president of Iraq in 1970, and then staged his coup in 1979. There were a lot of people suprised to learn that Stalin was his personal hero after he had become well entrenched in the mid 70's.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Did not say he was a puppet. I am saying we were instrumental in that action. Which we were. And please to point to NYT article. I saw other stuff elsewhere.

I wasn't saying you were saying that he was a puppet. Sorry if it sounded like I was saying that. I'm reacting to the tenor of a large number of posts over the last few months that seem to imply a much closer connection US and western to the Iraqi Ba'ath regime than ever was the case.

The NYT op ed is here. There was a thread about it the other day. But as I say, I think the history as he presents it is at least debatable.

[denim]

Originally posted by Nicko:
LOL that is a great point, have they officially declared war? This is an invasion after all.

Yes, several months ago when Congress gave Bush the authority.

[denim]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
An honour code? You invaded their country! Don't expect ANY sort of honour or respect! Jeez. That's just crazy.

No, we could have just carpet bombed them with nukes. We're trying to be more discriminating than that.