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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6542)	5/21/2007 2:43:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"You have a rather unique perspective here. I'm not arguing that its wrong (or that it is right), I'm just pointing out it is untraditional and not common." I am arguing only for what could work and I am aware it is unconventional. I would hope that people could see it as I do. It isn't any more immoral than what we are doing now and far less than adding torture to our cadre of strategies ... and it doesn't bind our soldiers into psycho conflict. "The US instructs its soldiers to make an effort to avoid giving away important information if they are captured, and to escape if they can. According to your definition of surrender, it would seem that American soldiers who abide by the codes they are told to follow, would not have actually surrendered." Right. How do you think it is working in a war with Terrorists? If the British had stuck with their historically far superior fighting policies and rules of engagement during the American Revolution, they'd have been defeated ... oh wait, they were!!! Because they were too stubborn to change when fighting a smart enemy that wouldn't play according to their rules. Kill the enemy unless or until they have surrendered on the terms I've laid out. War over by Christmas ... or maybe not.