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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (213965)	7/31/2007 11:14:43 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

could we have firebombed tokyo during WWII under todays rules? jdn

To: MrLucky who wrote (213965)	7/31/2007 4:46:04 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

The use of force in self-defense must be necessary and limited to the amount needed to eliminate the threat and control the situation. Deadly force should only be used in response to a hostile act or a demonstration of hostile intent. Deadly force is defined as force that causes or has a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Failure to comply with ROE may be punishable under the UCMJ. That eliminates many USAF bombing runs and the use of cruise missiles. It eliminates all forms of artillery H&I fires (harrassing and interdicting fires), including all undirected Army, USMC, and USNAV indirect supporting fires. And it stops our Infantry from using reconnaissance by fire tactics. Looks like we have 3 bad choices: Imprison all the generals Kill all the lawyers or Bring the troops home and lose. Well - looking again - maybe one choice isn't so bad.