On 2006-May 31, at 01:29hrs AM, Lindy Mayfield wrote:

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.
[ "If there has to be war", let everyone fully participate, children,  
politicos, hot chicks, queers, babies, with phosphorous, rape,  
torture, no rules, pulling out eyeballs, guns, dogs, knives,  
fingernails, spitting, clawing,screaming ............  Maybe there  
would be fewer advocates of war.   POD ]

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


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