There were no Geneva Conventions at the time of the Revolutionary War. Additionally, the Geneva Conventions apply to states, not to revolutionary groups. Some revolutionary groups, who by definition aspire to state power and to be accepted by other sovereign governments, will act in accordance with norms of civilized behavior. Others will not. That's not the issue. "Any means necessary"? Are you saying that if you were backed into a corner, you would kidnap your neighbor's children, kill one, and then hold the second one hostage in order to save your life? Would you shoot a woman in the back for committing the crime of seeking drinking water - because doing so, in your mind, increased the chances of your surviving? Would you take your neighbor's mother hostage and threaten to kill her unless your neighbor drove a truck full of bombs at your enemy? Would you torture your neighbor's sister in order to gain your neighbor's obedience? Today, apparently innocent Iraqis died when their van approached a Marine checkpoint and ignored orders and warning shots. The Marines pulled the triggers, but the victims were killed by Saddam's Fedayeen. It is understood that the violator is liable for whatever resultant casualties and suffering - and that responsibility extends to the commanders who gave the orders. It is also understood that soldiers in civilian clothes are subject to summary execution on the spot - though the US is unlikely to rely on that right. On a larger level, a country that makes such criminal behavior its national policy loses whatever claims to legitimacy and recognition that it might have had.
I would do whatever my conscience permitted, which I think is what Saddam's regime is doing. The differences in what their consciences, my conscience, or your conscience permits are debatable ethical points. And I hereby dare you to take any standpoint and make an argument of ethical certitude. It will invariably prove undefendable. P.S. Before attempting to match my dare take some time and research the field of epistemology.
I'm quite familiar with the field of epistemology. If you are incapable of forthrightly answering my simple questions, then you have been studying so much that you have forgotten how to be a human being. And if you think Saddam's regime is acting with "conscience," they you are using a definition so broad as to be utterly meaningless.
Your response is stupifying. Are you really proposing that what has occured a mere 225 years ago no longer has bearing on the US decision-making process? Do you do realize our constitution is nearly this old? Is its lack topicality reason enough to dismiss its content? How would I possibly know what Saddam Hussein would do if in Bush's shoes? How would you? Has he not dispersed rations to the civilians of his own country in preparation for the siege we lay on his people? LEFTIST!!? Did you call me a leftist? I have not taken any stance on any political decision. You suppose too much. The denunciation of another for the sharing of personal views... am I to be criticised for this, mocked even? What are we fighting for anyway?