Too many innocent children and people are dying in the middle east everyday. Politicians tend to brush off this as collateral damage and acceptable in a fight against terrorists; unfortunate, but acceptable. Is this right and/or moral?
2006-08-04 11:56:42 · 17 answers · asked by looooboooo 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They can strive to limit the losses. It used to be a lot worse. Until they go back to fighting wars in open fields you will always have it
Wars in general are not moral. The innocent always suffer whether is the wife and kids of a fallen soldier or collateral damage.
2006-08-04 12:00:29 · answer #1 · answered by Bill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the people we are fighting don't care enough to protect their own people and instead actually use them as shields and hide among them, then why should we care? They want to die because they would go to paradise. I don't see what the harm it is to help them get there. The allies and axis powers bombed cities with no regard to civilian casualties in WWII. Allied leaders expressed regret at having to do that, but it was seen as a means to an end, and we had a "total war" mentality.
In other words, our mindset was "We didn't start this war, but we will damn well finsih it"
Also, no one over there is innocent. If you live over there, you have to know this is coming at any given time. The middle east has been the most violent region in the world for THOUSANDS of years. Collateral damage is unfortunate, but definitely acceptable. No killing is morally right or justified, but if its me or you in a fight, I pick ME.
2006-08-04 12:08:27 · answer #2 · answered by machine_head_327 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The current situation in Lebanon has been brewing for years. The Lebanese gov't has not done anything about Hezbollah when they have had chances to take action on the terrorist group. Therefore, the gov't has to face the consequences when said terrorist group invades Israel and Israel retaliates and takes out innocent civilians.
Another point worth mentioning is that these terrorists hide behind the innocent civilians knowing that they will be "collateral damage" and that when the western TV and Al Jazeera cover the destruction there will be many people condeming Israel and her supports for taking out civilians.
It's all a game and civilians are just pawns. It's sad, but it's true.
2006-08-04 12:05:18 · answer #3 · answered by bazeballboi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Collateral damage is acceptable in a war. That's not to say the Iraq war, is a right war. You cant have war without death. Remeber the US was founded on terrorism and the death of innocents.
2006-08-04 12:47:10 · answer #4 · answered by ↓ImWithStupid ░░▒▒▓▓ 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can't fight a war without it, since we don't do things like they did for a while in the old days and agree to have the two armies meet on a remote field somewhere and fight it out.
Anyone who starts a war is responsible for the collateral damage on both sides, since everyone knows it will happen.
2006-08-04 12:03:04 · answer #5 · answered by Catspaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not acceptable, but it is a harsh reality of war. Usually "innocents" are the first to feel the sting of death in these conflicts.
What makes it all the more immoral are those who use noncombatants as shields for their soldiers, equipment, etc. Then when something happens to those innocent people, the perpetrators are the first to scream out against the deaths which they orchestrated.
2006-08-04 19:35:09 · answer #6 · answered by Charles C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the middle east, fighters often hide in public places, homes, hospitals, mosques, etc... so if the local population allows this kind of cowardly behavior then yes the will be collateral damage.
2006-08-04 12:01:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its part of war .. todays "soft" views are not realistic and i think can actually lead to more deaths in the long run ... in times past it was not uncommon and acceptable to completely wipe out an enemys' males and carry all the women away for slaves and wifes ... this ensured no future revolts ... acceptable? people should think about what the price of war is before they run their mouths or throw a grenade acroos the fence at another nation,
2006-08-04 12:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and Yes.
I would love to send you to Iraq with only a gun to protect you and no translator. Then, you tell me if you can distinguish the terrorists from the civies.
As far as moral, is it moral for a religion to call for their followers to kill everyone who does not believe in ONLY their religion? Is it moral to exterminate people based on race? Is it moral for a dictator to starve their civies because they are self serving and crazy?
As for acceptable, a Marines sayings comes to mind "Kill them all and let God sort them out."
2006-08-04 12:18:40 · answer #9 · answered by Camping Chick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not acceptable, but it happens and nothing can be done about it... The gov does there best to try to reduce it, but it does not always work...it's sometthing that can't be controled...And in every conflict children are always the first to suffer.
2006-08-04 12:04:19 · answer #10 · answered by Jack 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋