[LeoWindhorse]

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”

[Berlin_Freeper]

Absoluetely.

[Bender2]

Re: killed “in the field.”

Gadzooks, if it is good enough for President zerO... it should be good enough for Bebe!

[LibWhacker]

Seems so obvious. Don't know why the reasons for it escape so many; namely, to punish the terrorist, to make the retribution swift and sure, to prevent him doing it again, to reduce enemy numbers and deter others.

Just as obvious to me, if you actually do not enjoy warfare and want to end it in the current millennium, you should also attack all those who aid and abet the terrorist just as unmercifully and unapologetically as you attack the terrorist himself -- Friends, family, neighbors and state sponsors alike. Of course, that would probably mean total war, but terrorists bring it on themselves.

And wouldn't it be nice to get it over with so we could live in peace for a change? Nobody wants this hanging over our kids' and grandkids' heads for a hundred years or more. Sure, we might lose. But we might also lose a never-ending war in which the enemy's principal strategy is to wear us down by throwing a long series of proxy terrorists at us.

Just my $0.02.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I was told by one who was there, that after Malmedy, his unit took no SS prisoners. Omar Bradley also said he was “sick and tired” of reports of surrendering German snipers. After that, they never took a German prisoner with an empty clip. (A common tactic was for the Wehrmacht to leave one or two troops behind to delay an American advance. They would take pot shots at the Americans for half an hour or so and then surrender, secure in the knowledge that they were protected by the Geneva Convention. If they killed one or two Americans first, so much the better. The Americans countered that tactic.)