[vundy33]

The only patronizing that I noticed was this post:

Now which part of the Constitution are the Navy Seals in question alleged to have failed to uphold? You seem to believe that the Iraqi terrorist that was captured has constitutional rights. Is that right or did you simply misspeak? Perhaps you were referring to the Iraqi constitution.

Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would not question my patriotism in the future. Patronizing is believing that those who have not served in the military are less patriotic than those who have served.

They are covered by the Geneva Convention though, which in my mind has some riciculous rules. Listen up.

Let's say there's an enemy 20 yards in front of you. You pop 3 rounds at him, one of which hits him in the hip. He goes down and doesn't move. We are required to give medical aid to them, which is no problem to me. I would rather just kill them than to help them, but I'll do it gladly. Anyway, say you have some contact behind you and your squad run to take cover where the insurgents you just shot were. Say you were running and you go to jump over his body and he just raises his AK up at you. Do you know that by the Geneva conv. law that you cannot engage him while he's hurt, on the ground, legally, he has to get up and engage you before you can shoot him. Ridiculous, right? There are many more rules like it.

Of course, 99.9% of troops are going to send him to Allah as soon as he goes for his weapon, even if he is laying down. I'm just trying to get across to some of you the fact that we are severely handicapped in what we can and cannot do. We can't even use certain weapons like the Mark 19(Auto grenade launcher) in Iraq because they cause to much damage.I can understand that, but I'm just trying to prove a point.