Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (69820)	4/16/2003 12:30:19 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Perhaps someone should tell American forces on the ground to be a little less trigger-happy I think the U.S. forces have been anything but "trigger happy" in the war. Careful, your bias is showing. (again)

To: zonder who wrote (69820)	4/16/2003 1:29:06 PM
From: runes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

<<...a little less trigger-happy...>> And here is a bitter irony. The preferred method for controlling an unruly (and dangerous) crowd would be using tear gas. But that is banned by the Geneva conventions on chemical warfare which doesn't distinguish disabling chemicals from the lethal variety. ...Which means that the soldiers only have their M16s to respond with when the crowds start to advance in a hostile fashion. You can not deny them the right to self defense. ...A bad situation with no good solutions. And no, I would not consider this a case of being trigger happy. Warning shots were fired first and restraint was used. If it wasn't you would have seen a lot more casualties (it takes 30 to 60 seconds to empty the 20 shot magazine. Figure an 8 man squad, two minutes of chaos and do the math. It could have been much much worse.)