I would say surrender. If we can force a surrender with less violence, that is ideal.

Surrender and suffering seem to be on the absolute opposite of the spectrum. If you know you're going to be tortured and suffer to the point you wish for death, why would you ever surrender? If you know you will be treated humanely as a POW, then surrender is more appealing.

So here again, we can see the idiocy of the Bush administration in condoning things like waterboarding, as it only strengthens our enemy's resolve.

I also dont have any problem with them being roughed up. Muslims respect force, not mercy.

quote:

---

It depends on who the enemies are. These muslim crazies are a unique situation. The average soldier is a mercenary. When his country stops fighting, or tells him to stop fighting, he will do it. I mean, an American soldier isnt going to go back to Iraq after his tour is up, on his own, to continue the war. Same with the Nazis. Or any military. As opposed to these muslims, who are fighting for their own conscience. They will never stop the fight. So they must be destroyed, or their ability to wage war must be destroyed. There is no negotaiting with these people. We can negotiate with Iran, Korea, etc.. but not rogue murderers.

I also dont have any problem with them being roughed up. Muslims respect force, not mercy.

---

Stop interfering with their lives. That beats force, war, military. Lives. A much more efficient way to stop further bloodshed.

The only thing stopping this is greed. Im pretty sure you knows whos greed too.