On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 13:19:09 -0800, Gunner <
gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:24:36 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Gunner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:43:15 -0500, Wes Groleau
>>> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>>>> On 11-04-2012 18:17, ATP wrote:
>>>>> "EXT" <noe...@reply.in.this.group> wrote in message
>>>>>> And don't forget Jehovah's Witnesses, many were in prison for
>>>>>> their faith during the two world wars -- on both sides of the war.
>>>>>
>>>>> For refusing to serve, not for their faith.
>>>>
>>>> Refusing to serve IS their faith.
>>>
>>> Part of it anyways.
>>> Unlike the Quakers who wouldnt carry guns, but made great medics
>>
>>Today, medics and corpsmen carry guns. It is felt, rightly so in my
>>judgment, that they have a duty to protect their patient.
>
>As well as themselves. I became well aquainted with a number of
>medics in RVN and most all of them were well armed.
Ideally, Medics (either Civilian or in an organized military) wouldn't
need to be armed, because no civilized person or soldier following any
flavor of the UCMJ would be shooting at them - the red cross on their
uniform or tin pot helmet is supposed to mean 'Non-Combatant' on both
sides.
However, there are a lot of mercenaries, terrorists, criminals and
just plain bug-nuts crazies out there who don't believe in any
exceptions. Everyone who isn't on their side is automatically a
target.
For those cases, I have no problems with the Medics being armed if
they choose to be. And out of THEIR adherence to the Geneva
Conventions they won't start shooting at you if you aren't shooting
at them first - because if they end up dead they are of no use to
their patients. Deal?
You do better to take that deal, because once they drop you and remove
the threat, they'll probably do something insane themselves - like
try to get to you, treat you to keep you alive, and haul you off to
the hospital with the rest of the load. Figure _that_ one out.
--<< Bruce >>--