Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England says she is not sorry

[rambone]

Spot on. War is hell, and I'm not really concerned about complying with some pencil head's idea of "fair." And war should be hell. It should be brutal. It should be vicious. It should be ruthless and severe. Were it so, I suspect there would be a little bit less of it in the world today.

Weakness is provocative. ROE are a form of weakness. I can tolerate a respectable level of chivalry, but only if the opposing sides plays by the same rules. Otherwise, I will default to the meanest, nastiest set of rules being used by any given participant at the time. I would wage war to win. Not make friends. Global reputation be damned.

No ROE? So you think Americans should go over and act like terrorists while they police the world? Killing the civilian population indiscriminately? Capturing people off the streets for no reason to torture & decapitate them?

Hey, a few radicals on "their" side did it.

 

[Ted]

I wonder how many here would be in favor of torture to prisoners, if it were done to someone they loved.

 

[Effingham]

I'm working on a story where a general makes a statement to his fellows.

This is the statement the general makes (as it occurred to me the other day):

"It is a sad thing for a man of culture to say, but fighting must be reduced to the least common denominator. It is a good thing to be civilized, but if your enemy is a barbarian, he will not understand your civilized approach to warfare, and it will be to him a sign of weakness. This only emboldens him and gives him an advantage over the civilized warrior. To fight the barbarian, you must become a barbarian. Afterward, when the battle is won and your swords are restored to your walls, you can again have the luxury of being civilized."

Opinions?

 

[rambone]

I'm working on a story where a general makes a statement to his fellows.

This is the statement the general makes (as it occurred to me the other day):

"It is a sad thing for a man of culture to say, but fighting must be reduced to the least common denominator. It is a good thing to be civilized, but if your enemy is a barbarian, he will not understand your civilized approach to warfare, and it will be to him a sign of weakness. This only emboldens him and gives him an advantage over the civilized warrior. To fight the barbarian, you must become a barbarian. Afterward, when the battle is won and your swords are restored to your walls, you can again have the luxury of being civilized."

Opinions?

I'd ask you all the same questions as I asked 88GT in post #41.