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, 02:37:13 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 4805 times)
Inverted Things
Avelaval
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,305


« on: February 11, 2006, 09:01:53 PM »

Anything is acceptable in war. The last war we actually fought in was WWII. Just ask congress. Anyway, war no longer has much point. There are at least six coutries who can blow anyone off the map. This makes war obsolete.
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 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.