Is the kiling of people in war justifiable to you? (page 2)

ElijahTheThird

YES!

Unfortunately there are now laws that protect the bad people from getting their just due.

The second question I posed centres on whether we as say the "good" guys would in order to minimise losses on our side pursue a course that would actually cause more losses to innocents on the other side.
For instance using bombing of "enemy" cites so that we didn't need to send troops in as this was more dangerous for us.
But the bombing of cities from the air would make it more likely that the other side suffered losses of innocents.
So are we making our "own " people of more worth than the others? Is our way of life and safety worth the death of uninvolved people?

I not talking of accidental death but if we deliberately take a course that is it the detrement of innocents on the other side.

Personally I find this distasteful.
I was wondering how people opinions on war have changed since being a witness as many former witness criticise them for wanting the deaths of what the witness would see as their enemies.

BluesBrother

Sleepy,
My opinions have always been the same. An anti war stance is just internal to me, I suppose.
As U K residents maybe it is easier to be objective, and see the need for restraint following Sept.11th.
I believe the death of any innocent person, ofwhatever race to be equally abhorant.

sleepy

If the Germans and Japs had won the war I wonder what the spin on Dresden , Berlin , tokyo and other city ( not military but directed at people)bombings would be in the history books?
Would people be studying in school the evils of Britian and America?

Before anyone jumps on me I'm glad Germany and Hitler were defeated etc..I'm just thinking in terms of how we justify our "own" acts of terror and condem others.

Also the death toll from sept 11 is down to around 3000 about the same number of people who have died in the northen Ireland conflict, and far less than are killed by murder in america.

I wonder how many afghaistanies have died, anyown know?

607BCisAbigLIE

WIthout war, we would be on a Nazi regime.

WIthout war, the ancient Israel poeple would have never come to live to worship God

Without war, fanatics like the Al-qaida would terrorise other countries in endless death toll

Without the ones who have died in WWII, we wouldnt have the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Despotism, anti-semitism, racism, dictatorism, even if those are still existing in our days, it would have been pretty much worse if no one had ever died to protect the world from them.

In a world like we live in, it is impossible to attain peace without human casualties. But that doesn't mean that war is always the solution. But unfortunately, diplomatics often comes after the casualties are very high.

War is not good nor it is bad, it is much in a grey zone....

Englishman

Depends on which war we are talking about.

WW2? Yes, otherwise the aggressor would have run all over England, millions would have been "purged".

Falklands War? No. This was a battle over an island group that the UK wanted to dump anyway, we had already sold the "Invincible" to Australia in preparation for reducing our commitment in the South Atlantic. This war was IMHO, fought just to glorify Maggie Thatchers reputation, as she was losing her grip as Prime Minister. Nothing like a war to unite a nation. Argentina were comparitively easy meat anyway.

War Against Terror, ie flatten terrorist sympathetic/supporting countries? Yes, absolutely, providing ultimatum is given first. The US acted very honourably in giving Afghanistan a chance to give up it's terrorists before invasion. Putting the Brits into Kabul as peacekeepers diluted the isolationist criticisms.

Englishman.

Bring on the dancing girls!

SixofNine

WIthout war, the ancient Israel poeple would have never come to live to worship God

Now who's telling the bigLIE? lol

Farkel, trained by the best the WTS had to offer

"I didn't mean what I meant."

Is the kiling of people in war justifiable to you?

Share this