-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:07 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: News bias
While I understand the "win by any means" mindset (it was how I too was
taught), I think restraint gives credence to moral justification for the
violence in the first place. It is what is refered to as "honor on the
battlefield".
Is it better to die with honor or to win? And what is winning?
-Kevin
> "Sir, we had to destroy the village to save the village"
> So we should do away with the Geneva convention as it really doesn't
matter.
> We should do away with any war crimes tribunals as all's fair in any fight
> as any fight is a war. If you have to rape the cows, kill the woman and
> drink their blood, it doesn't matter as the ends justify the means. Am I
> getting this right here?
> "No quarter. No civility until victory is achieved."
>
>
> > >> Should all children be prevented from going to school as they may
> come
> > back with weapons? >> Does your definition of war have any limits?
> >
> > No. I was taught that there is no fair fight. We dont live in a world of
> > knights in shining armor and chivalry. If my group was at war with
another
> > group, and we felt that our very survival was at stake, then you can bet
> > that I will use every means at my disposal to prosecute said war to an
> > acceptable outcome for my side. No quarter. No civility until victory is
> > achieved. When politicians run warfare, then you get uncertainty and the
> > other crap we have going on. Every other force on the world stage needs
to
> > know that if you step up with your rounds chambered and your fightin
face
> > on, you are in it until one of us is dead. That is warfare. Period.
>
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
