RC> What do you mean? Anyone with half a brain can work out why.
 RC> They were total sadists and enjoyed torturing people to death,
 RC> just like the CIA who were involved with the Vietnam war....

  I've got half a brain, so why can't I work it out? Maybe I've got
the wrong half. I find it hard to believe that they were *all* total
sadists. At least half of them would have to be total masochists, or
it wouldn't work.

 BL> I don't really object to the torture of a beaten enemy is if
 BL> does you some good, especially since a beaten enemy doesn't
 BL> have a positive use otherwise

 RC> You're contradicting yourself. Firstly you say that a beaten
 RC> enemy has no use except for torture, then you say that women
 RC> should be in the army to help avoid this.

  You missed the `if it does you some good,' part. I really don't
think torturing people does you a lot of good, and that we should
work towards minimising torture by whatever means works. On the other
hand, if it does you some good, you way as well do it because a beaten
army is totally useless.

  I think women officers would go a long way to avoiding senseless
torture. If there is sense in the torture and it helps beat your
enemy, then I am all in favour of it.

Regards,
Bob

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

--- PQWK202