[Vision2020] Canadian bacon

[eevans@moscow.com]

Aaron Schneider wrote:
>  Carl Westberg <carlwestberg846@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Schneider, your point is well taken. However, could this not be put 
> down as collateral damage? 
> 
> Carl Westberg Jr.
> 
> 
> The provision for collateral damage is explicitly set forth in the passage I 
quoted. 
Specifically, attacks involving civilian casualities "which would be excessive 
in relation
to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" are prohibited.  
Attacks which
are not excessive, or which only have peripheral collateral damage are 
acceptable under
the geneva convention.
> 
> While I'm sure that Spears and Timberlake would debilitate Canada's militiary 
(motto:
Canada has a militiary?), the effects on the civilian population would be 
unconscionable.
> 
> -Aaron Schneider

Because Canada has no visible military, we have no way of differentiating 
between the civilian and military populations. Therefore it cannot be denied 
that we must assume, in the name of national security, that the entire Canadian 
population is part of the military - there are no civilians.

Cheers,
-Ed Evans


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/