Those laws against war crimes never stopped any country from committing war crimes past nor present.
That's like saying that burning down an orphanage and shooting the survivors as they run out is OK if the police don't catch you.
You can kill them, but do it nicely. 
Have you even
read the laws of war? They cover far more than you think, such as POW treatment, acceptable collateral damage, lawful vs. unlawful combatants, etc. If you are truly for shooting civilians, torturing captured soldiers to death, and expelling the populations of conquered countries from their homes in order to make way for one's own, then be open about it.
You really don't know when to stop do you?
These people you're calling "mentally ill", are giving YOU the rights to speak. Those people you believe shouldn't be pissed on, have been cutting soldiers up into bite size pieces. They don't care about anything, they've used their children as weapons; can you even imagine the horror these soldiers go through everyday?
Before you say something stupid, because i know it's a bit of a habit for you, sit down, breath and thank god you're at home.
The last time I checked, we shot first in 1991. The odds of those insurgents being terrorists is very low, considering the fact that it took this video to bring their deaths to light. If they were really terrorists bent on destroying the US, the media would have been all over it since day 1, pee or no pee. Also, even if they were terrorists, it is unlikely that they could really take over the US. It would be the 18th century all over again, and only by luck did the conditions needed for a single federated America come to be.
Penguin you've already violated the portion of wisdom that says it's better to be thought an idiot than to open ones mouth and prove it is true.
Now it is time to follow another bit of wisdom that says when you find yourself in a hole it is best to stop digging.
All tongue in cheek aside, you really do not have a perspective regarding mental health, conduct in combat or even barracks life experience. It is fine to deplore the act but it is folly to sit in judgement of those whose experience you cannot fathom any more than a person totally blind from birth can comprehend the color orange. Rather than sit on your mount olympus and cast judgement on the individuals from your vast store of experience in life, you should hold your comments to the minimum.
Combat, war, whatever you call, it is not logical, not glorious, not fun, not sane and not easy to deal with day in and day out. There are no non casualties in combat. Everyone takes some kind of wound mentally if not physically.
The act is not good because it does nothing to help end the conflict and will instead feed the propaganda machine, building more resistance to completing the conflict and getting our troops home. That is the single one thing that is the most wrong about it. A secondary negative to it is that it tends to lower the support our troops need to continue the conflict our politicians have been unable to solve any other way.
In some ways the men and women in WW2, especially in the Pacific, had it more difficult than our troops do in the 'stan and irag. They would understand the act but also know it is a result of the circumstances rather than a problem in character. Someday you may understand but I would not wish the experiences on you that would give you that understanding.
Regarding the fact that war being bad making it more difficult to convince people to fight one is a matter of politics. So is the 'propaganda machine' you speak of. I won't discuss those as a matter of not breaking the rules.
Thus barring those thorny subjects, we can proceed into whether those men are mentally ill. First you said that my lack of combat experience prevents me from arguing that those men are sick. However, it does not take a genius or fellow soldier to realize that peeing on dead bodies is not a sign of a healthy mind. In a self-contradictory way, you then argued that
all soldiers become that way. However, that in and of itself is judgement, and also relates back to the thorny issue of popular support mentioned above.
Its not ok for us to do that to them, but its ok for them to do that for us?
I guess the man their pissing on that killed 7 of their brothers and fellow soldiers is innocent?
You are partially correct. If you hold that one side may pee on the other's dead, then you also hold that the other side may do likewise unto the first.
Can we agree that 9 out of 10 americans would have pissed on em too?
Even all your friends jumped off a bridge, it's still not a good idea to jump off a bridge.
-Penguin
