Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't get me wrong, I DO agree with you. In my humble opinion, the ONLY way to avoid unnecessary deaths is to stop the war. Bring troop home, problem solved.
This said,
In Guerilla wars, they simply can’t be prevented. Why? Insurgents in the Middle East, or Vietnam before, hid inside of the populace. When this happens, civilians die when fighting them. They simply do. Doesn’t matter how much training, how restrictive the rules of engagement are, or even how small of a presence the occupying power may have. Civilian deaths are part of the collateral damage of war.
As much as I wish we could completely eliminate civilian casualties from warfare, or warfare all together, it is ultimately impossible. Even with the most advanced technology available.
I understand it's a messy war. But if we want to "end" it anytime soon, we need to get better at avoiding these kind of instances. This isn't the first time we've done something like this, and realistically won't be the last. I don't just speak for the United States, either - this is true for any allied force fighting ISIS.
Having been in that business, I will tell you, no, the US does not target civilians. Although civilian casualties are frequently unavoidable, our targeting practices do attempt to avoid them as much as possible. In fact, that was the specific reason a GBU-38 was used in this case.
When we blew up the hospital in Afghanistan we were told that there were snipers there also.........but there wasn't. So as far as we know they were killed for no reason.
So what do we do, send someone into the building looking for booby traps and civilians before a bomb is dropped? It is what it is and these so-called innocents are part of the problem. They allow this crap to happen and do nothing about it because they are either supporters or scared.
I don't think you can say that. What about in WW2, the people in France and Poland? They were part of the problem? Germans in Germany were afraid to speak up. Granted that was after they were disarmed.
I understand it's a messy war. But if we want to "end" it anytime soon, we need to get better at avoiding these kind of instances. This isn't the first time we've done something like this, and realistically won't be the last. I don't just speak for the United States, either - this is true for any allied force fighting ISIS.
In the ideal world, there should not be any wars, period.
But since we are living in a "fallen" (for lack of a better word) world, there will always be wars as long as there are power struggle.
Civilian casualties are not well seen around the world and many countries avoid them because it is inhuman and barbaric. Children, women, men and elders who live in troubled areas or war zones probably didn’t ask to be put in that situation in the first place, so it wouldn't make sense if they were targeted without reason.
Wars are mostly fought on battlefields and war zones, but diplomacy plays an important role in how events develop. Countries negotiate and accord to avoid killing civilians and invading or destroying cities and towns from either sides. If one side were to violate such accords, then the other side would not mind doing the same thing, and they would both lose more than they have won.
If countries kill children, it serves as propaganda to recruit more terrorists and grow in number, and if they choose not to kill those people, they might end up joining even if they don't want to. This puts those countries in a very awkward and difficult position.
The truth is, civilians are always the true victims of war, and most of them didn't ask for that situation, so it is only unfair to attack them like they were soldiers themselves.
I've been wondering this, in an all out war between countries, there is no such thing as civilians. Those people feed, pay, house, and generally help the enemy army, so therefore, they are enemies. There is no such thing as a “polite war”, so you shouldn't try to be polite. As for gurilla combat, it's practically impossible to differentiate civilians and the armed combatants that are killing both them and you.
TO me, personally, I don't want to discuss how to avoid killing civilians. I am more interested in knowing when will we bring troops home. I think it is more productive.
When we blew up the hospital in Afghanistan we were told that there were snipers there also.........but there wasn't. So as far as we know they were killed for no reason.
See my post #66, which speaks specifically to that incident.
I will say in addition that DWB failed to mark the building as a hospital as specified by the Geneva Conventions. Air crews are trained to look for those markings as the final failsafe to avoid bombing such buildings.
I don't think you can say that. What about in WW2, the people in France and Poland? They were part of the problem? Germans in Germany were afraid to speak up. Granted that was after they were disarmed.
lol sweet
90% of the Muslims in the ME agree with ISIS. I don't care about them AT ALL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
