Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Rick please kill ex-senator bob kerry thread

Rick, could you please kill the tread on ex-senator bob kerry. I think everyone but jayh is tired of it. tom

Hi Tom:<P>You're right. It's almost time. I'm just letting to sit to see if anything positive is ready to happen. A guy can hope, anyway.<P>Rick

I agree Rick, wish I had never gotten involved. But my mouth (see keyboard) sometimes gets way ahead of my brain.<BR>Have a great day.<P>------------------<BR><B>T LEE</B><BR>Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! <P><B>APATHY!.........Freedoms greatest enemy!</B>

Rick I agree with the other folks, it's sad but true, the Kerry thread should go away, not to silence a dissenting voice but stop the maliciouse use of that voice.<P>Bullwnkl.

Amen, the game ain't worth the candle.<BR>BCR

It's too bad that thread was pushed into absurdity by a troll. It really was a good topic that warranted serious discussion. No one believes targeting non-combatant civilians is proper, but what about civilian "combatants"--ie, collaboraters, spies, informants, saboteurs, etc. Anytime a civilan does the above, he/she becomes a combatant and fair game. In Vietnam it got very fuzzy. What do you do when the VC strap explosives on a 10 yr old's back and sends him into a bunch of GIs? Crud, many of the VC WERE children. The big questions in my mind: <P>- Did Kerry KNOW he was killing non-combatant civilians?<BR>- Were these civilians truly non-combatants?<BR>- Did these civilians willingly assit the VC?<BR>- Was there any danger to Kerry's team if they didn't shoot those civilians?<P>War is always confusing. It's never the clear-cut "us vs them" we all expect to see. My critera is this--if a soldier does his best to target only combatants, that's all we can ask. As tragic as it is, some collateral damage is acceptable. We in the US Military try our best to minimize civilian causalties, but we fully understand there will always be some. War is hell. War is terrible, but it is not the most terrible thing.<P>Blaine

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">Originally posted by AFP:<BR><B>It really was a good topic that warranted serious discussion.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Yup, but it went down the sewage pipe pretty fast. I'd say kill it - it achieves nothing.<P>-- Mats

Yea... Kill It!

Rick:<P>As is not too unusual around this fire, I have a different view. I think it would be counterproductive to start killing whole threads, just because one or two posters crossed "our" line of civility. The best way to handle it is for everyone to ignore the offenders, but, living in the real world, and having seen this kind of thing before, that never works, someone always has to have the last, last, final, ultimate word.<P>My suggestion is to handle it "off the books" so to speak, if the offenders are really nasty, suspend their posting priviledges or whatever seems reasonable to you. <P>My real suggestion is more to the other members of this fire, if someone crosses the line, just state that you are going to ignore their posts, and do it. Or do it without stating it, very few people will continue for long without feedback. I enjoy the give and take of civil discussions and find that while it is entirely possible to disagree without being disagreeable, some people are incapable of maintaining a logical, civil, discussion and resort to ad hominem attacks as a futile effort to support their arguments. Just my 1/50th of a dollar's worth. CAT