From the FA:

The ban will not affect small ‘standard’ digital cameras, in theory. But in all honesty, who would be willing to go in public taking shots with a digital camera and risk having to explain the differences between DSLR and non-DSLR cameras to angry Kuwaiti authorities? I for one certainly would not.

In my opinion, the only reason the Kuwaiti authorities didn’t issue a full scale ban on all digital photography apparatus is because every self-respecting smart-phone these days comes with a couple megapixels strong built-in camera that would basically make the ban useless.

In other words, they don't want you taking pictures in public places, period! It's just that they big kids don't want to give up their camera phones, or else they would ban them too!

Jeez, how many of the people on here have even been to the Middle East ever?

The terms of the condition could be to stop the holocaust, to remove Nazis from power, imprison Hitler or whatever, but the answer to your question is "yes". Especially when the alternative is assured death for hundreds of thousands of innocent people and radiation damage for future generations.

A conditional surrender is still a surrender, it's different from a truce.

Yes, I have wondered and thought Japan would have surrendered anyway. They had nothing left. No invasion was necessary, Japan was ready for truce, if not total surrender. All they wanted was to keep their Emperor's dignity. US didn't want that. Or maybe something was lost in translation. http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf

I think the word "uninvited" should fit in somewhere there.