[danielf]

Originally Posted by punky

Mate, there are 2 sides to it. There is the facade that the Army has to put up, that they obey the Geneva Convention guidelines (which it does as much as it can do), and there is the hidden side in which they do what they have to do to get the job done. If the US army capture an insurgent, who knows where there is a planned attack on marines, or civillians, lives depend on the interrogrators getting that information out of him. Waiting it out is not an option, nor is asking them nicely. Add to that the emotion an interrogator might feel, if say, one of his comrades was killed by an insurgent, or might be if the insurgency continues. Thankfully i'm not part of an army, so I never have to be in that kind of position, but it leads us back to the moral argument we we're having a little while ago. How far can/should someone go to save a life. I do care actually, because this kind of thing is why the US aren't winning hearts and minds like the British would. All responses to a threat should be measured.

It is not very nice, but it's the way the world goes round.

Of course this is different anyway (as I believe), because I don't think it is interrogation, but just needless 'humour' at the Iraqi's expense, and I hope the US soldiers get what's coming to them.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. It just looked at little harsh when I first read it. One of the reasons why I wouldn't want to serve in the army I suppose...