Which of the following is acceptable in war? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 06:49:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Which of the following is acceptable in war? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Unless explicitly specified, assume civilians are not acting in support roles
#1
War itself is never acceptable
 
#2
Killing civilians acting in support roles as collateral damage
 
#3
Targeting civilians acting in support roles
 
#4
Killing civilians as collateral damage
 
#5
Targeting civilians when military targets are out of reach
 
#6
Targeting civilians to terrorize and/or demoralize
 
#7
Targeting civilians because keeping them alive would be costly logistically/economically
 
#8
Targeting neither military of civilian; but killing indiscriminately when loyalties are uncertain
 
#9
Killing indiscriminately regardless of suspected loyalties
 
#10
Targeting civilians for personal pleasure
 
#11
War is acceptable, but NOTA specific actions are
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 36

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Which of the following is acceptable in war?  (Read 4832 times)
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« on: February 10, 2006, 08:50:55 PM »

2,3,4,5,6, all depending upon circumstances.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2006, 10:40:57 PM »

I voted for the second, third, and fourth options.  But I do think that if our soldiers are operating under constant fear of investigation and court-martial for every little mistake they make, then we're bound to lose any war we fight.

I agree.  We can't hope to win a war if we take all our options off the table at the outset.

There was no war more moral than WW II.  Morality required that we fight it.  And we had a policy of deliberately targeting civilians, in order to de-house them and demoralize them.  Cloudy days that made it harder to hit military targets were called "women and children days" by the air force pilots.  The famous firebombing of Dresden was undertaken specifically to kill as many civilians as possible so as to force the Germans into unconditional surrender.

I would rather win a war like WW II through means that may be brutal than allow monstrous evil to prevail.  Sometimes, ugly choices have to be made.  It is unrealistic to think otherwise.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 11 queries.