Answer mine. Yours falls into the stupid question category and doesn't deserve an answer. 
Stupid? Then I guess the entire thread falls into the same category.
It does not matter the why of war, specially once the shooting starts. We were told to occupy Afghanistan, so we occupied Afghanistan. We were told to occupy Iraq, so we occupied it too. Sometimes the soldier has no idea on the why, at least not at the heat of the moment. We lost thousands of civilians in the 9/11 attack, men, women and children, did that give us license to capture and torture their soldiers (or combatants)? Now, let's discuss torture, because some bleeding heart will eventually come on here and say we also tortured our prisoners. All the, known, interrogation tactics I seen used were no more than what they did to us in SERE school, which I do not consider torture. Though I am sure there may have been some Black sites, no permanent injury was done to any prisoners that I seen or am aware of, mental? Sure, and there may be some weak minded ones that couldn't recover, so it is what it is. But we never beheaded a single prisoner, or intentionally caused more harm than necessary to meet the objective. Yes, our weapons dismembered a few, but well, war is hell. The US has done everything that Russia is accused of doing, including incinerating entire cities. We have gone to war for reasons that, arguably, turned out to be of our own doing, or that of our allies. IMO torture is inhumane, and serves no real purpose but to harden the resolve of the enemy giving them no out but to fight to the death. It happens, in every war, but it is not our policy because as I said, it serves no purpose, and I on a personal level, do not condone it, no matter which side does it or their reasoning for it.
Well, considering your last post, we agree on some issues, and not so much on others.
It easy to try to justify military actions if your the "occupier. Your judgment of the Ukrainians treatment of prisoners you compare to American beheadings in Iraq and Afghanistan I find odd.
Whether one agrees or not, the Afghans, and the Iraqis, like the Ukrainians were and are fighting for their families, and their homes, and their way of life.
In Afghanistan, and Iraq, the United States was "the occupier". The "interloper", bombing, and shooting, both enemy and civilian.
Russia is the interloper in the Ukraine. For the Russian soldier to kill and destroy, until he is no longer unable to kill and destroy for whatever reason, to expect humane treatment while standing in the rubble of his captors family, and life, truly is unrealistic.
You speak of the carnage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq rather casually, and cavalier in terms of the death and destruction caused by the United States military to the civilians of both countries. "War is hell" I believe is how you put it, using a rather worn out phrase.
You seem ok with that, but concerned about prisoner treatment. Strange indeed.
When your part of the war was done you went home. They were left with the loss, and destruction.
I'm not Achilles, and you ain't Spartacus and you might see things differently if you were standing in the ruins of your own life with family members lying around, and the guys that did it were standin there apologizing with their hands up.
So as for the Ukrainian treatment of Russian invaders: I won't judge a man for a fight I'm not in.
