Why hurt the innocents to stop the enemy?

[Laika]

I am unfamiliar with Galbraith

J.K.Galbraith was a Canadian Born economist who worked for the US government during World War II including with war-time price controls (and was involved in the Strategic Bombing Survey after the war). He later went on to write popular works which challenged the consensus view of economics.

Did you read this? It's supporting what I'm saying.

yeah. I could have researched this better. Wikipedia backs up your view, so I'm wrong on this. my apologies.

 

[Nietzsche]

yeah. I could have researched this better. Wikipedia backs up your view, so I'm wrong on this. my apologies.

No need to apologize. It seems incredibly counter-intuitive that Nazi Germany, having been at war since '39 would not go into 'Total War' footing until 43, and even then it was an extremely circumcised implementation, but that is indeed what happened.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No need to apologize. It seems incredibly counter-intuitive that Nazi Germany, having been at war since '39 would not go into 'Total War' footing until 43, and even then it was an extremely circumcised implementation, but that is indeed what happened.

Because Goehring was an assclown.
I know, I know...you disagree. Fair enough. But he was an assclown. *nods solemnly*

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The point is not to prove that we are better than they are. The point is that terrorist groups like ISIS, like the Nazis, had to be stopped at all costs. My man Churchill had it right on this one. The faster this is over, the less people will die overall. And, if we refused to act if there was risk of innocents being killed, we would get destroyed pretty damn quickly.

There is no need to resort to hurting innocents. But some people love to justify it and make excuses as to why they had to. Never under any circumstance should an innocent have to suffer. Now some innocents end up getting hit in the crossfire, but you try to avoid hurt the innocent at all costs. Should a mother and children have to suffer because some troops couldn't bother to plan properly? People with that mentality do that because it's the easy way to defeat the enemy. But what's easy isn't always right. You will defeat them by becoming better than them. People who act just as ruthless as the evil enemy eventually become the new enemy. How many times have we seen revolution where one revolutionary defeated a tyrant, only to become tyrant themselves? Their own evil will be their undoing. How can one condemn the idea of innocents being hurt when they themselves hurt innocents to defeat an enemy. How can one condemn torture when they themselves torture? Doesn't ANYONE see how hypocritical this is? Being as ruthless as the enemy will not defeat the enemy for good. You cannot fight fire with fire. Because it creates a bigger fire. You will need water to douse the flame.


And they keep making ISIS out to be the main threat of the world. They are a threat, but they aren't even close to what the main threat is. They are just grocery clerks in comparison to the main threat though.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no need to resort to hurting innocents. But some people love to justify it and make excuses as to why they had to. Never under any circumstance should an innocent have to suffer. Now some innocents end up getting hit in the crossfire, but you try to avoid hurt the innocent at all costs. Should a mother and children have to suffer because some troops couldn't bother to plan properly? People with that mentality do that because it's the easy way to defeat the enemy. But what's easy isn't always right. You will defeat them by becoming better than them. People who act just as ruthless as the evil enemy eventually become the new enemy. How many times have we seen revolution where one revolutionary defeated a tyrant, only to become tyrant themselves? Their own evil will be their undoing. How can one condemn the idea of innocents being hurt when they themselves hurt innocents to defeat an enemy. How can one condemn torture when they themselves torture? Doesn't ANYONE see how hypocritical this is? Being as ruthless as the enemy will not defeat the enemy for good. You cannot fight fire with fire. Because it creates a bigger fire. You will need water to douse the flame.


And they keep making ISIS out to be the main threat of the world. They are a threat, but they aren't even close to what the main threat is. They are just grocery clerks in comparison to the main threat though.

This is a straw man. My point was that, even when all measures are taken to avoid civilian casualties, they will still occur. In war they are unavoidable. We have a responsibility to reduce the number of them as much as possible, though. For example, before bombing runs, we drop leaflets from the sky warning civilian populations to look out.

 

[Forgemaster]

Civilian casualties are unavoidable, unfortunate yes, but in the pursuit of peace, and to put an end to ISIS, or any enemy for that matter, it is more important to press on than to give up, and there are many many good men and women who wish to be the better men. But wars are not won with niceness, sometimes you must do what is necessary to put an end to tyranny, that doesn't make you the next enemy

 

[Theweirdtophat]

This is a straw man. My point was that, even when all measures are taken to avoid civilian casualties, they will still occur. In war they are unavoidable. We have a responsibility to reduce the number of them as much as possible, though. For example, before bombing runs, we drop leaflets from the sky warning civilian populations to look out.

I understand. There will always be innocents that get hurt. My point was one should do whatever they can to not hurt innocents, and accidents do happen, where if a soldier shoots the enemy and a stray bullet hits a civilian. It was an accident and was not intentional. My point was one should not intentionally harm innocents to get the enemy, like Trump seems to be saying where he would target the families to get to ISIS though. That is wrong. You never plow through innocents to get an enemy.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand. There will always be innocents that get hurt. My point was one should do whatever they can to not hurt innocents, and accidents do happen, where if a soldier shoots the enemy and a stray bullet hits a civilian. It was an accident and was not intentional. My point was one should not intentionally harm innocents to get the enemy, like Trump seems to be saying where he would target the families to get to ISIS though. That is wrong. You never plow through innocents to get an enemy.

Trump is ridiculous. Not defending his views.

 

[Forgemaster]

Is he saying that about Syria or the refugees coming to the U.S. I genuinely don't know

 

[leibowde84]

Is he saying that about Syria or the refugees coming to the U.S. I genuinely don't know

I don't think Trump knows either. It makes no sense what he actually said. Pretty close to gibberish.

 

[leibowde84]

I understand. There will always be innocents that get hurt. My point was one should do whatever they can to not hurt innocents, and accidents do happen, where if a soldier shoots the enemy and a stray bullet hits a civilian. It was an accident and was not intentional. My point was one should not intentionally harm innocents to get the enemy, like Trump seems to be saying where he would target the families to get to ISIS though. That is wrong. You never plow through innocents to get an enemy.

That being said, if an enemy must be taken out immediately to stop them from continually terrorizing the civilians around them (who, by the way, are the same civilians you are concerned about), then a price must be paid. ISIS, according to everything we've seen and heard, will continue to murder and torture innocent people without reason, both at home and abroad, until we figure out a way to stop them (which, most likely means killing them). So, our hesitation in bombing military targets because of possible collateral civilian casualties will cause more harm than good. The faster we take out ISIS, the more lives will be saved.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

That being said, if an enemy must be taken out immediately to stop them from continually terrorizing the civilians around them (who, by the way, are the same civilians you are concerned about), then a price must be paid. ISIS, according to everything we've seen and heard, will continue to murder and torture innocent people without reason, both at home and abroad, until we figure out a way to stop them (which, most likely means killing them). So, our hesitation in bombing military targets because of possible collateral civilian casualties will cause more harm than good. The faster we take out ISIS, the more lives will be saved.

Then target them, not the civilians. Doing the easy out and bombing every square inch will not help. Why don't you tell me how one would feel intentionally bombing or shooting innocents. Can anyone even imagine the amount of guilt one would feel? This attitude of throwing away innocent lives as if they were refuse is kind of disturbing. These are not plastic chess pieces you're removing off of a board, are innocent human lives you're dealing with. And maybe if someone planned properly, they wouldn't have to suffer. These are lives that could have been saved and the evil group would be defeated You can't hope to defeat someone evil by becoming evil yourself. Don't tell me it's ok because you're picking the lesser of two evils. By doing that, you're still picking evil though, when we are supposed to be better. We're supposed to be good

 

[leibowde84]

Then target them, not the civilians. Doing the easy out and bombing every square inch will not help. Why don't you tell me how one would feel intentionally bombing or shooting innocents. Can anyone even imagine the amount of guilt one would feel? This attitude of throwing away innocent lives as if they were refuse is kind of disturbing. These are not plastic chess pieces you're removing off of a board, are innocent human lives you're dealing with. And maybe if someone planned properly, they wouldn't have to suffer. These are lives that could have been saved and the evil group would be defeated You can't hope to defeat someone evil by becoming evil yourself. Don't tell me it's ok because you're picking the lesser of two evils. By doing that, you're still picking evil though, when we are supposed to be better. We're supposed to be good

We don't intentionally bomb or shoot innocents. If you think that we do, I would be curious to see the evidence you have to support this. And, in this conflict, we certainly are not "bombing every square inch" of any area, and have not instituted anything close to carpet bombing. So, it seems that you are confused as to what our actions have been in regards to ISIS. Compared to the rest of the countries in the coalition, we are doing just about the least damage. 60 Minutes had an interesting interview with one of our fellow coalition leaders from Turkey (I think), and he didn't even consider the US as doing much at all in terms of bombing anything. We need to do more, imho.

 

[leibowde84]

Then target them, not the civilians. Doing the easy out and bombing every square inch will not help. Why don't you tell me how one would feel intentionally bombing or shooting innocents. Can anyone even imagine the amount of guilt one would feel? This attitude of throwing away innocent lives as if they were refuse is kind of disturbing. These are not plastic chess pieces you're removing off of a board, are innocent human lives you're dealing with. And maybe if someone planned properly, they wouldn't have to suffer. These are lives that could have been saved and the evil group would be defeated You can't hope to defeat someone evil by becoming evil yourself. Don't tell me it's ok because you're picking the lesser of two evils. By doing that, you're still picking evil though, when we are supposed to be better. We're supposed to be good

The US has been very hesitant, more so than most other coalition countries, in taking out military targets. And, there is no evidence that civilians have been intentionally targeted by us. Donald Trump has absolutely no power over the military, and he is a nutcase, so his statements are irrelevant. So, I'm confused where you are getting all this "bomb every inch" stuff.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

We don't intentionally bomb or shoot innocents. If you think that we do, I would be curious to see the evidence you have to support this. And, in this conflict, we certainly are not "bombing every square inch" of any area, and have not instituted anything close to carpet bombing. So, it seems that you are confused as to what our actions have been in regards to ISIS. Compared to the rest of the countries in the coalition, we are doing just about the least damage. 60 Minutes had an interesting interview with one of our fellow coalition leaders from Turkey (I think), and he didn't even consider the US as doing much at all in terms of bombing anything. We need to do more, imho.

They haven't intentionally bombed innocents before. What do you think happened in WW2 with Japan getting nuked and tons of civilians were killed though? Is that not enough proof? Innocents have been intentionally killed in some instances. Like in the Iraq War. Iraq wasn't being the aggressor, they were being invaded. Saddam while evil, had nothing to do with 9/11 had no weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, which he didn't, who gave us the right to say who can have nukes and who can't. America was doing stuff over there even before the Iraq War started.. That Iraq war did cost civilians and they all weren't accidents. Not to mentioned it created diaspora among the Mandean population, too. Even not so long ago, some areas were bombed and when innocents were killed they are all accidents..

 

[leibowde84]

They haven't intentionally bombed innocents before. What do you think happened in WW2 with Japan getting nuked and tons of civilians were killed though? Is that not enough proof? Innocents have been intentionally killed in some instances. Like in the Iraq War. Iraq wasn't being the aggressor, they were being invaded. Saddam while evil, had nothing to do with 9/11 had no weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, which he didn't, who gave us the right to say who can have nukes and who can't. America was doing stuff over there even before the Iraq War started.. That Iraq war did cost civilians and they all weren't accidents. Not to mentioned it created diaspora among the Mandean population, too. Even not so long ago, some areas were bombed and when innocents were killed they are all accidents..

I was referring to our war against ISIS, not past wars conducted by leaders who aren't in power any longer. Do you have any relevant examples in this war against ISIS. Because, these are nothing more than straw men. We aren't arguing about past military actions in Germany or Japan. Our current leaders should not be judged by the actions of those long passed. And, it seems like that's all the ammunition you've got for your argument. Do you have anything relevant, as in actions taken against ISIS specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

They haven't intentionally bombed innocents before. What do you think happened in WW2 with Japan getting nuked and tons of civilians were killed though? Is that not enough proof? Innocents have been intentionally killed in some instances. Like in the Iraq War. Iraq wasn't being the aggressor, they were being invaded. Saddam while evil, had nothing to do with 9/11 had no weapons of mass destruction and even if he did, which he didn't, who gave us the right to say who can have nukes and who can't. America was doing stuff over there even before the Iraq War started.. That Iraq war did cost civilians and they all weren't accidents. Not to mentioned it created diaspora among the Mandean population, too. Even not so long ago, some areas were bombed and when innocents were killed they are all accidents..

You've got to be the 15th person to use this straw man too. We surely can learn from mistakes in the past, but when people try to judge our current leadership by the actions of past leaders long gone, it is infuriatingly absurd.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

You've got to be the 15th person to use this straw man too. We surely can learn from mistakes in the past, but when people try to judge our current leadership by the actions of past leaders long gone, it is infuriatingly absurd.

You said that they haven't before and aren't doing it now and I'm correcting you? Have you seen what has been actually going on? Just because it doesn't make the front news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you seriously believe that there aren't some soldiers that have intentionally went after innocents to get the bad guys? Have you seen any war at all? Because almost every war has involved going after innocents. Even in the Civil War it has happened. They don't tell you the Union burnt towns, raped women and killed civilians and livestock and there's writing and even photographs that show this.


It's like nothing pleases you. People tell you and even show evidence and you shoot it down anyway so why ask for evidence in the first place? Even recently a hospital had been bombed because they knew there were bad guys but bombed it anyway and civilians got caught in the explosion. And I can probably say nothing at all and you'll still say I'm pulling a straw man. That word has been used so many times it's lost it's meaning around here.

 

[leibowde84]

You said that they haven't before and aren't doing it now and I'm correcting you? Have you seen what has been actually going on? Just because it doesn't make the front news doesn't mean it didn't happen. Do you seriously believe that there aren't some soldiers that have intentionally went after innocents to get the bad guys? Have you seen any war at all? Because almost every war has involved going after innocents. Even in the Civil War it has happened. They don't tell you the Union burnt towns, raped women and killed civilians and livestock and there's writing and even photographs that show this.


It's like nothing pleases you. People tell you and even show evidence and you shoot it down anyway so why ask for evidence in the first place? Even recently a hospital had been bombed because they knew there were bad guys but bombed it anyway and civilians got caught in the explosion. And I can probably say nothing at all and you'll still say I'm pulling a straw man. That word has been used so many times it's lost it's meaning around here.

Nope, never claimed that the US had never do e those things. I said that they hadn't done those things in this conflict with ISIS. Thus, your "correction" was a straw man.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Nope, never claimed that the US had never do e those things. I said that they hadn't done those things in this conflict with ISIS. Thus, your "correction" was a straw man.

You said we don't shoot bomb citizens intentionally and said that they have done it before way back in history, a couple decades and there have been incidents where citizens died in order to get the enemy. They've done it before recently. You don't think they are doing it now? Why would this war be the exception? Just because they don't show it on the news often doesn't mean it didn't happen.