-----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. In the rapidly moving combat environment > 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 engagement.
So you shoot the possibly-wounded Iraqi? What about the live grenade he might be lying on? [snip] > 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. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDRW/S9HxQb37XmcRAmgrAJ46tmMACi92GpKkZkisRXmE+YJ1hgCg5SKX LVPqtTQCgBTxPzBcuEK//GY= =3ytH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
