User blog comment:Codfan/Inaccuracies?????/@comment-1260687-20100224040159

"To Griever, Robert McNamara or somebody said when developing the M16A1, that it is better to wound an enemy than ourtright killing him because if you kill him, they're just gone, you can't do anything, if you're wounded, comrades have to get you out of there and therefore, less men, and it demoralizes the troops."

And I'm telling you what we train for. There is no allowance given to deliberately wound your opponent, to draw blood and then step away. Every engagement undertaken is designed to sap the enemy of willpower and manpower by the wholesale slaughter of whoever we encounter. There are no half-measures taken, since as I said earlier, a wounded man can still fight as long as he's drawing air, and that means he can kill you and anyone else around you. That's an unacceptable risk. Ergo, we are trained with the mindset that it is unacceptable to fire your weapon without killing intent. Warning shots are given, wounding shots are not intentionally made. Dead bodies are the intended result of gunbattles; survivors are sometimes an unintended consequence. I will acknowledge i can be disappointing to see a friend shot, but it's not so demoralizing when you know that he will likely survive, and be back in the same spot with you in another year, and you'll both have the chance to kill the shit of whoever did it, along with all of his friends, and that if you go down, a dozen others are standing by to pick you up. All they get is shredded beyond recognition and a shallow grave when it's up to us. You don't demoralize the enemy by hurting them, you do it by killing and destroy them with unbridled, blatant, there-for-all-to-see fury and violence, and leaving no survivors. It's like I told another guy on here, you're more than welcome to discuss this, but you're talking moonwalking with an astronaut.