Re: OT: sponge burning!
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: OT: sponge burning!
- From: Arnt Karlsen <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 23:49:05 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <20070319225702.GF31767@santiago.connexer.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070326023618.GC19415@santiago.connexer.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20070330022259.GB17704@miami.connexer.com> <20070330032821.GB4883@laphapless> <460D15BF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:50:55 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 03/29/07 22:28, dave wrote:
>> on Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:22:59PM -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>>> Of course, wounding the enemy is nearly *always* more desirable than
>>> outright killing him. That is because every wounded soldier takes at
>>> least one other soldier (or other person, even if not a soldier) in
>>> order to care for his wounds in the short term. So, from a resource
>>> perspective, wounded soldiers place a much heavier burden on a
>>> military force than corpses.
>> I disagree. Antipersonnel weapons from the lowly infrantryman's rifle
>> to napalm and various cluster weapons, mines, and suchlike are designed
>> to kill first, maim second.
..correct, if you mean "hit the target and nothing else."
.."maim first" is "the lowly infanteryman" and upward's job.
>> In the rapidly moving combat environment
..you don't want that yourself, you want to inflict it on the enemy, and
do so in full compliance to the full 4 Geneva Convention to convince the
enemy, both they and Mankind are _much_ better off solving Mankinds
problems by surrendering. "Und Sie, W.?"
>> you want to make sure the opponent is thoroughly dead, so you don't
>> have to worry about it later. Maiming is an added bonus around the
>> perimeter of the kill zone, but not the primary objective of the
> So you shoot the possibly-wounded Iraqi? What about the live grenade he
> might be lying on?
>> Wounded soldiers will only be tended to when it's safe to do so. The
>> business of killing the enemy comes first.
> That doesn't seem to be the case with the US military.
..true. Idiot stunt like in the ambush in the Forrest Gump movie, or
even landing on enemy airbases _during_ attacks and under heavy fire to
pick up buddies shot down by flak on strafing runs and then toss
overboard your parachute to make space for him, has happened at least
once both in Germany during WWII and in Vietnam and is why Mankind can
put up with American "intelligence", everybody _knows_ they can use that
kinda friends in such a bad pinch.
..which is probably _why_ they managed to get away with such idiocy, such
idiots has no more protection than non-idiot combattants, they are fair
game at least on takeoff under the Conventions.
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.