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 (6551)	5/21/2007 3:32:16 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

Tim. You are in a war with terrorists. You beat them when you kill them or they surrender and under no other circumstance. It's not like fighting to defeat a foriegn nation. They are ready willing and committed to fighting to the death of you. "It almost seems like your saying US soldiers should give away information, and not try and escape if captured. I'm pretty sure you don't mean that, but its what the combination of quote and reply in your posts implies." OK. Where are the prison camps these US soldiers are being housed by the terrorists, giving their name rank and serial number? That was a different war. This is a war against terrorists not a foreign Army. Kill the enemy and you win. Fight to the death until or unless you are ready to surrender. When you surrender, you better mean it. "What if they pretend to agree but don't give you all the information that they have that you need? What if you have a problem telling if they are giving you the information or not (they could be giving false information, or they could be giving you some information and claiming they don't know anything else, they might be lying or they might be telling the truth)." Kill them all unless you are convinced they have surrendered. It's not complicated. Of course you should remain skeptical of the information you get. "Or if they just say "I won't give you any information", and you shoot them, does that really mean "war over by Christmas? You haven't gotten any information from them, and you haven't exactly acted in such a way as to win the hearts and minds of those sitting on the fence. The fence sitters are waiting to see if we can do what we say we can... defeat the terrorists. There is no room for namby pamby approaches with terrorists. If you are effective they fall off the fence on your side. You are in a war with terrorists. Killing them is the only way you defeat them. If you don't accept those terms go home. Part of our problem is the idea that we can somehow convince them otherwise. Find them and kill them.

To: TimF who wrote (6551)	5/21/2007 4:15:08 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Part of the problem with considering my unconventional approach in Iraq is that the mission in Iraq has once again morphed. We defeated Saddam, mission accomplished. We helped establish a national Govt, mission accomplished. We haven't succeeded in securing the country, partly because of terrorist interventions that are ongoing but also because we have allowed ourselves to get caught up in suppressing insurgencies that are non-terrorist in nature... and there is some traffic back and forth between the two (Terrorist/Insurgent). That complicates my suggestion. If it were just about defeating terrorists, my approach would be more sound.

To: TimF who wrote (6551)	5/21/2007 5:02:48 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"in isolation, but I don't understand it as a response to the quoted text preceding it Unless I got it out of order, it is responsive to the comments about how we expect US soldiers to behave when captured. There has been quite a bit of commentary about finding a way to get the terrorists to respect the Geneva Conventions, which reflects on the prisoner of war training for our soldiers. Ya gotta be kidding me, Geneva Conventions? So, the Brits couldn't figure out why the American Revolutionaries refused to fight according to convention either ... that's the connection. Time to consider the unconventional?