Puh-leeze. You should know better than to post a statement like that in this forum without some pretty hard proof.
The dead were buried because that is what humans do with our dead. In modern warfare, with small-scale battles, the winning side cleans up the battlefield, and buries the dead.
If necessary, mass graves are laid.
One of my former co-workers, who did a stint against the Soviets in Afghanistan, mentioned that the Soviets would occasionally bombard areas in which vultures were circling, on the premise that there might still be mujahedeen in the area. One more good reason to bury the dead, I guess.
(I actually have a small question about this. My Pakistani/Afghani pals used to throw around an insult which phoenetically sounded like “gondoo.” When my pal mentioned the above story to me, he used the same word to describe the birds. I never figured out for certain if he was calling the birds A-holes, or if he and his pals were calling me a turkey buzzard. If anyone can set me straight on this, I’d appreciate it.)
In hindsight, I can only agree - that was my opinion, not fact.
After the first POW’s were shown on TV, there was a huge outcry in much of the world, citing clear violations of the Geneva Convention(s). Also shown on TV were soldiers shot in the same location of the forehead, possibly indicating execution.
Following the backlash, the Iraqi’s said they would comply with the Geneva Convention. Thus far, they have not granted any POW access to the International Red Cross.
After the shallow grave in Nasariyah was unearthed, the Iraqi’s came out with a statement that basically said “from now on” they would bury bodies with honour.
So I’ve only circumstancial evidence - and dubious New York Post accounts. They do not amount to a body of evidence or “hard proof”.