"I don't think you can adopt a "blanket" rule....."
Then we agree. We spend a lot on our policy makers, administration, pentagon, and doctrinal development. Why do we have a simplistic and inadequate (IMO) doctrine being shoved down our throats.
”We can not play pattycake when the barbarians are at our gate...."
I don’t think we should at all. If you look at some of the predecessing comments I’ve made, you should see that.
”
I recommend a clean sweep. My policy is when you fight me you have the option of surrendering or dieing, where surrender requires a complete giving up of any and all weaponry including that which is informational. An enemy remains an active enemy in combative status until they have surrendered themselves and any thing they hold that could be construed as a threat to me and mine, whether that be a material weapon or informational weaponry. The only captives then are completely subdued captives and no coercion is necessary. Then when we have a captive, it is only under the most humane treatment we can afford. Most of you would call that barbaric, so be it, but it leaves no room for torture.
And
”
Lumping all into one is the problem, so lets distinguish and then simplify, simplify, simplify. Did I say simplify? well simplify some more then.
... and once you've made the distinctions, don't go back and lump them into all being one and the same again. |
