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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob who wrote (483553)	10/30/2003 11:22:08 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bob, what I see in the article is a report of the words of an officer that's trying desperately to find public support so that he will not have to face a courts martial or lose his retirement. I certainly understand the human emotions that lead soldiers to commit violations of the Conventions during times of war. When an officer that was likely leading a battalion does so, however, it removes all constraints on his men and such units are much more likely to continue with escalated acts. The officer should enforce military discipline and respect the Geneva Conventions. To fail to do so is a severe failing. No, I'm not a pacifist. Not in my personal life, not by my history and not in my views. I've been to war as a grunt on the front lines and I've been in a significant number of street fights against would-be bullies. I do find war objectionable but sometimes necessary. In my view it is truly a last resort and when we go to war we should be able to say that we left no viable alternative methods of resolving the conflict untried, that we entered into the combat phase with the best plan possible and that the combat is likely to fix the problems that led us into war. The war in Iraq satisfies none of the three threshold tests.