The end to ww2 which we won was achieved with over a million civilian casualties and nearly as many deaths .
Seems the one sure way to win a war is to inflict a heavy toll on the people who are supporting the soldiers .
I see no problem in bombing a farm that sells food to soldiers or a lumber yard that supplies building materials or a bank that holds their deposits .
When we make a war about attrition then you have to consider the civilians as the support for the military and thus they are enemy combatants and should be destroyed to bring a swift end to a war .
2007-07-22 03:30:31 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They are people. They aren't the ones we are fighting. We should be concerned. We should always do our best to minimize civilian casualties.
But I think we are being too concerned. We are fighting with one hand tied behind our back. If we fought full force without worrying too much about PC rules, we would have been out my now - & fewer civilians would have died in the long run.
"war is hell"
2007-07-22 03:44:28 · answer #1 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can't think of anyone who actually wants to harm civilians including our military. Civilian casualties in the currect actions are the result of:
1. Truly unintended consequences of legitimate military targeting. If you don't believe that try seeing how munitions explode and try to figure out how to contain that.
2. Confusion over combatant status. Our current enemy does not comply with any of the conventions of war. They attempt to blend in with the population so as to cause our soldiers to assume that they are not combatants. In a sense, by choosing such camoflauge the enemy is endangering the population purposefully.
Let's also be honest about civilian casualties. It is clear which side of this battle seeks to cause civilian death and dismemberment and which side seeks to avoid such tragedies. Whether you support the current war or oppose it, our enemy considers you a legitimate target of this war and would not cease to blow you into smithereens if they could, regardless of whether you wear a uniform or not.
The difficulty in the approach that you suggest is that the bulk of the civilian population in those areas in conflict is not directly or even indirectly aiding the enemy. It is just not clear which civilians do support the enemy. This is quite unlike most other wars except perhaps the Boer War during which the British developed the concept of concentration camps to eliminate any potential support for the Boer kommandos and the Vietnamese war where a solution to the problem was never found. The jury remains out as to how to best deal with this type of war.
2007-07-22 10:47:42 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because we're not at war. Not in any legal sense of the word.
The Constitution is very clear on what counts as a war. Congress must declare war. Congress never did here.
Congress authorized the use of military force to depose Saddam. And very few civilian casualties occurred during that mission. What we've done in the past four years AFTER "Mission Accomplished" is entirely different.
2007-07-22 10:35:05 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
You might feel very differently if those million civilian casualties were in your own country.
Look how ballistic we went when less than three thousand of our civilians were killed. We entered WWII because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Then we killed thousand of civilians at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Not to mention the entire continent of Europe.
We have on the whole, been quite lucky never to have had to deal with a million American citizens having been killed. But in my book killing unarmed, children and the elderly and other noncombatants, deliberately by bombing or shooting is unsavory and unworthy of a civilized country. And you just might feel the same way if it was your grandma killed by enemy bombs.
2007-07-22 10:42:11 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wonder - if the civilians that are being killed in Iraq were instead US citizens on US soil, would you be so calculating and cool headed about their deaths? Would you still say that they are justifiably killed because they support the soldiers? Are US citizens fair game for the enemies of the US because they support the soldiers in Iraq?
It is easy to say these things that you are saying and to agree with them when it is not you that is in the firing line. Perhaps you would be better served if you thought about it from another's point of view. Just a suggestion.
2007-07-22 10:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by cutsie_dread 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dig into the persons Psyche. You will see that even on here they are using the dead as a foundation for a weak argument that they know cant be won. NOW who's laking morals!
The media is the most guilty of this. Do you really think anyone cares about those who died at this point? As long as they can brandish those numbers like a gun they will. They have never seen their faces.
2007-07-22 10:38:54 · answer #6 · answered by The prophet of DOOM 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because civilians are the innocent ones who support nobody but are trying their best to eek out an existance.
.
2007-07-22 10:33:44 · answer #7 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Don't agree. I think those who wage wars should fight them. Let the rest of us figure out another way. I would HATE it if I was considered a part of Bush's war, just because I live in the same country.
2007-07-22 10:33:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
the wars been over for 4 years...we're supposed to be protecting Iraqis now
2007-07-22 10:43:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
aren't you concerned about the 3000 innocent American who died on 9/11?
2007-07-22 11:29:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋