You have to wonder...

[legaleagle_45]

So, the idea is to kill as many civilians as possible?

Actually, the idea is to minimize casualties as much as possible(including civilians) while still winning the war.

 

[Unkotare]

So, the idea is to kill as many civilians as possible?

Actually, the idea is to minimize casualties as much as possible(including civilians) while still winning the war.

Not according to some people posting here.

 

[S.J.]

So, the idea is to kill as many civilians as possible?

You act as if civilians never die in war.

I also never said the idea was to kill as many civilians as possible.

Sounds to me like you did.

No, sounds more like you "suggesting" he did.

 

[Ernie S.]

The idea is to make it just as unpleasant to wage war as possible so that the will of the people is broken.

 

[Unkotare]

The idea is to make it just as unpleasant to wage war as possible so that the will of the people is broken.

Then why didn't we cover the entire nation of Iraq in a massive cloud of biological and chemical weapons in order to defeat Saddam's regime? We could even have adjusted them to cause horrible suffering but not actually kill if we wanted to. We didn't we drop dirty bombs on every city block of Baghdad until Saddam and his boys surrendered? We didn't we sew poisons into every field so that the country would have suffered some degree of famine for decades? How about slaying every first-born male in the country and taking the eyes out of every man of fighting age?

 

[Ernie S.]

The idea is to make it just as unpleasant to wage war as possible so that the will of the people is broken.

Then why didn't we cover the entire nation of Iraq in a massive cloud of biological and chemical weapons in order to defeat Saddam's regime? We could even have adjusted them to cause horrible suffering but not actually kill if we wanted to. We didn't we drop dirty bombs on every city block of Baghdad until Saddam and his boys surrendered? We didn't we sew poisons into every field so that the country would have suffered some degree of famine for decades? How about slaying every first-born male in the country and taking the eyes out of every man of fighting age?

As recently as WWI, chemical agents were used in warfare.

I'm not arguing that killing civilians in a war is a good thing. What I am arguing is the was SHOULD be horrible. It should be so horrible that is is only contemplated if a country is exterminating a segment of their population or wages war on a global scale.
The Axis powers in WW II thought Italy, Japan and Germany should rule the world. They had to be stopped. Italy was pretty easy, considering, but Germany and Japan presented unique problems. We beat the living CRAP out of Germany, causing horrible devastation to infrastructure, their ability to wage war and demoralized the population.
Japan presented a different set of problems. Their army would have fought to the last man had not the 2 bombs been dropped. A land invasion of Japan would have cost maybe a million lives. More would have been military casualties than civilian, most likely, but the people would have still hated us when we were through.
Since 1945, we have involved ourselves in 4 more wars. We have accomplished little except for regime changes and made no allies of consequence.

Why? Because we didn't go to war against countries. We went to war against armies. We haven't done the horrible things one must in order to win wars.

 

[Unkotare]

The idea is to make it just as unpleasant to wage war as possible so that the will of the people is broken.

Then why didn't we cover the entire nation of Iraq in a massive cloud of biological and chemical weapons in order to defeat Saddam's regime? We could even have adjusted them to cause horrible suffering but not actually kill if we wanted to. We didn't we drop dirty bombs on every city block of Baghdad until Saddam and his boys surrendered? We didn't we sew poisons into every field so that the country would have suffered some degree of famine for decades? How about slaying every first-born male in the country and taking the eyes out of every man of fighting age?

As recently as WWI, chemical agents were used in warfare.

I'm not arguing that killing civilians in a war is a good thing. What I am arguing is the was SHOULD be horrible. It should be so horrible that is is only contemplated if a country is exterminating a segment of their population or wages war on a global scale.
The Axis powers in WW II thought Italy, Japan and Germany should rule the world. They had to be stopped. Italy was pretty easy, considering, but Germany and Japan presented unique problems. We beat the living CRAP out of Germany, causing horrible devastation to infrastructure, their ability to wage war and demoralized the population.
Japan presented a different set of problems. Their army would have fought to the last man had not the 2 bombs been dropped. A land invasion of Japan would have cost maybe a million lives. More would have been military casualties than civilian, most likely, but the people would have still hated us when we were through.
Since 1945, we have involved ourselves in 4 more wars. We have accomplished little except for regime changes and made no allies of consequence.

Why? Because we didn't go to war against countries. We went to war against armies. We haven't done the horrible things one must in order to win wars.

So, you would have approved of doing all those things I mentioned in Iraq and Afghanistan? It sounds like you would, but I want to confirm.