They want to stop when you kill all the men.  That's not chess, but I hope you would agree that even in war there should be some sense of fairness.

And on the other hand, I would argue with your point.  I personally think that killing as many of the soldiers as possible would make them want to stop.

And my argument to what you say is that if you start executing grandmothers, burning children with white phosphorous, nuking, raping, torture, and all the other stuff that goes on that we sometimes call war crimes, that it could move the war from conventional to unconventional and therefore drag it on much longer than it would have gone.  Guerrilla warfare, terrorism, insurgency, or whatever names we use.

The best is no war, IMHO, but if there has to be war let the soldiers fight it out.

Lindy

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of Carey Fisher
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>
>         You mean like the British RAF did against Germany's  civilians ?
> With a little help from the american govt.
>
>   
Ya know, in war, ya gotta make the other side WANT to stop.  Or else YOU 
lose!
Why do you think they call it war?  If it was just
killing soldiers, they'd call it chess.

*Carey Fisher, Chief Technical Officer

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist