>John, you talk such sh!te sometimes. Soldiers are on the ground to achieve and objective - not solely just to kill each other. A chess game doesn't end when all of one side's pieces are off the board. Without some rules, such as Geneva Convention, you'd get both sides just fighting to the bitter end, till ALL of one side is dead, and the remainder of the "victors" will be lucky if they can scrape enough men together to hold what they've won. Otherwise, no-one would surrender, for fear of being dispatched and/or tortured. This happened with some of the Japanese on the Pacific islands (not sure which) who'd been told that the Americans were monsters. Even civilians were throwing themselves off cliffs rather than be captured.
>

It might make it so that old men in soft chairs didn't leap into destruction too.

>>If I'm going to get shot at and rish being captured and tortured, then I think I should pretty much be allowed to implement a scortched earth policy. If we had done that in Vietnam and in this skirmish, they would have been over a long time ago.
>
>What the F was Agent Orange then!?
>

Chemical warfare, but limited in scope of effectiveness. Not nearly as effective as nuclear.


>>
>>I don't like war, and I dislike prolonging it even more. I think we should have nuked them on 9/12 and then gone about our business. Do I get your vote for president?
>
>I think you're rattling our chains here. What country should have been nuked? Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia?
>

Those sound like a good place to start.<g>

>Never mind president - how the hell did you ever make sherrif (you make the sherrif of Nottingham seem tame), or stay in the job?

Sheriff is speeled this way over here!<g>

If I were king of the forrrreessssstttttt....