Iraqi POW's-What do we do with them???

Got a quick question..perhaps it was answered somewhere already, I don't know? What are they planning to do with say..the Republican guard or any other captured fighting iraqi soldiers? Are we holding them and letting them go after the war is over? Or are they going to kill them? I'm really confused about this because it looks like we are just holding them, if so aren't we just asking for all this to start over again in a few years when these men that we let go regain power?

very confused here???

Iraqis may be asking this about American and Britons. They may even be toying with your doubts. Once we have shaken ourselves free of the notion that something as appalling as a war should be susceptible to something as inherently absurd as "international law", the answer is simple: "we do what the Geneva conventions demand".
This proposition, I believe, has been widely advocated by hacks and Rumsfeld with respect to the televising of US POW's.

Then they will be released. It is the leaders of the regime we are after here. No, we don't just execute prisoners of war....unlike some...

Gazrok - unlike who?

BTW, We might remove Saddam, but I can't honestly believe that we'll allow democracy to flourish in Iraq. If we do we'll end up with an anti-US administration. So it's quite likely that a lot of Iraqi administrators will remain in their jobs, we'll just change the leadership to something pro-Western...

as there isn't compelling evidence for it yet, but by the looks of some dead being shown on a certain nation's tv, some look execution style, not combat-related....

If we release them, whats to say that they will not build power again-maybe many years from now-and develop someone like Saddam, Or even worse, many "mini Saddams" will be on the loose?
This just looks to me like a viscous(sp?) circle to me??


[Edited on 25-3-2003 by magestica]

Have we all seen the video? Its highly unlikely that they hit four or five guys in the middle of the forehead in combat, no doubt in my mind they were shot execution style. It also seems obvious they were shot right where they lay in the garage, there are no blood marks that show they were dragged there, just laying in their own blood.

If they- the iraqi's-use chemical warfare on our troops, how would we retaliate? Would we nuke them?

No. The US would never use a nuke unless they had to. If they had a choice between death and torture/slavery, I think they would choose death. Better to take an enemy with them.

What we would do would be to quarentine, then retaliate with an allout assault.(ground/air/sea at the same time, on all fronts)

Iraq would be signing its own death warrent if they used chemical weapons. An attack like that would justify the war for many more people.

You had better think again there joe...
Let me just say...I hope they don't run into any chemical warfare!!!

for chemical attacks. If they were to use them, then it would certainly legitimize the war immediately. However, our retaliation would likely be less concern of collateral damage, and more concern for knocking out targets (whether they're imbedded with civilians or not). So far, we've been handicapping ourselves to play nice...but if chemical attacks occur, the gloves will come off...

Nukes will NOT be used, I am sure. They simply wouldn't be necessary, and would only further undermine our position in world standing (and lets face it, it's not exactly saintly right now...)

[Edited on 25-3-2003 by Gazrok]

As Gazrok says, we won't need nukes. We could free Iraq with just our regular forces. We wouldn't be justified in the use of a nuke.