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 (6568)	5/21/2007 5:36:33 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"How would having our soldiers behave differently when captured be to our benefit?" I thought I demonstrated that the 'capturing' you imply does not occur in the war with terrorists. The context for that type of capturing is bound in GC. "How is the current way we tell them to behave equivalent to the way the British fought the American revolution." The popular view is that the British expected the Revolutionaries to comply with convention. Since many of the Revolutionaries refused it resulted in a failure for the force that had superior fire power and training (the British). Whether that is a completely valid picture of the circumstance or not, it is what I was using as a comparative. No matter how much we whine that terrorists should respect the GC, they are not and wont be bound by the GC. It does no good to train our soldiers to expect the GC treatment when captured and to conduct themselves accordingly, when there is no such agreement with terrorists. That doesn't make our commitment to decent treatment of prisoners null and void. However, it does mean we should re-think our terms of surrender and capture, and what would constitute the defeat of a terrorist ... lest we go down complaining that they aren't fighting nice.