2007-07-05 11:10:46 · 9 answers · asked by jimmy j 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Many will say "no" just because of how horrible it sounds to say "yes" but the fact of the matter is that if we weren't willing to have casualties in WWII, we'd all be speaking German!
Whether you think the situation in Iraq warrents such sacrifices is another matter entirely.
2007-07-05 11:25:50 · answer #1 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing "acceptable" about casualties in war. However, technology, or human will, has not progressed to the point where casualties can either be severely minimised or completely avoided.
It's a sad reality of war but that doesn't make it any more justifiable. Every effort should always be made to avoid civilian casualties.
EDIT: Just want to clarify I'm speaking of CIVILIAN casualties. Soldiers know that there's a possibility they could die when they sign up.
2007-07-05 18:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by Morkarleth 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we don't fight we will be taken over. Casualties are a part of war. What exactly is the point of your question? Do you think we should just acquiesce? Bin Laden would love that. Give in without a fight. I hope there is something that you hold dear and would fight to the death to defend. Otherwise I cannot figure out why you would ask this question.
2007-07-05 18:19:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's easy to accept casualties when you're not the one ducking bullets.
When ever things go wrong I say: "at least no one is shooting at me"
Because believe me, there is nothing worse then knowing someone has you in his gun sights while some rich boy is spending his time in the Texas Air National Guard drinking beer!
,
Dying for something really important, like saving a persons' life is fine. Dying to insure that person will have sufficient gas in their car,,not so fine.
/
2007-07-05 18:26:01 · answer #4 · answered by MechBob 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes I do, if the casualties occur in a war that serves our national interests. But Iraq doesnt qualify.
2007-07-05 18:13:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as "acceptable" casualties..... That is just another word (like collateral damage) that is used to divert the fact that, in war, most people killed are not the enemy.
2007-07-05 18:49:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There will always be casualties in war unless you know some immortal people who will fight for us.
2007-07-05 18:14:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As far as war, yes. This also means civilians on the opposite side. If we could just level countries wars would be a swift action.
2007-07-05 18:14:04 · answer #8 · answered by apple juice 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"how many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died" B.D.
NO!
2007-07-05 18:16:36 · answer #9 · answered by JBS7878 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋