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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Howe who wrote (151930)	11/18/2004 2:48:31 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"??? I guess you just proved that you really don't understand the situation those marines were facing and face daily." And the truth is that he or I or anyone else for that matter who hasn't faced combat can't either. What amazes me how sure of themselves, these armchair generals are. And how naive and oblvious they are to the ways of our enemy over there. mike

To: David Howe who wrote (151930)	11/18/2004 5:25:39 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There was a civilian camera man only a few feet away from the incident. Clearly he didn't think the threat level was high. Clearly the soldier did not interrogate the prisoner, ask any others present if the man had been searched. Sure war is hell, but its a hell of the administration's own making. --------- msnbc.msn.com Lt. Col. Bob Miller, told NBC News that depending on the evidence, it could be reasonable to conclude that the Marine was acting in self-defense. “The policy of the rules of engagement authorize the Marines to use force when presented with a hostile act or hostile intent,” he said. “So they would have to be using force in self-defense, yes.” But Miller added: “Enemy combatants — in this case, insurgents — who don’t pose a threat would not be considered a hostile.” [how about an insurgent lieing down on the ground bleeding... ]