I dunno. I certainly would rather that those engaged in war attempt to “minimize civilian casualties” rather than not give a hoot, or even attempt to maximize civilian casualties.
Sure, there is an element of hypocracy involved - in warfare, you can be sure that people will be killed, and if you conduct your war in places where civilians are to be found, civilians will be killed. The better course is not to engage in war at all. But sometimes the choice is not yours, or rather the alternative to war is unacceptable.
It is better that some attempt be made to mitigate its horrors, rather than no attempt.
I agree that in theory the goal is to try not to kill civilians unless it’s absolutely necessary to take out some kind of larger and immediate threat. In practice, though, it’s just become some crap we say to feel better about collateral damage. If we were really sincere about minimizing civilaian casualties in Iraq, for instance, we wouldn’t have invaded in the first place. Since the entire conflict was unnecessary, it seems disingenuous to me when I hear the White House blabber about how they’re trying to minimize civilian casualties. The MAXIMUM number of necessary civilian casualties in Iraq was zero.
It was. It’s just that the goal was to cause Japan (or Germany) to surrender. It was decided that bombing these cities would prompt a surrender quicker and with less casualties than the other available means.
Same thing in Iraq. The goal was to occupy Iraq and the United States has attempted to do so in a manner that minimizes casualties.
Got a cite that a terrorists goal is anything relating to less causualties? Or even claiming such?
Are you attempting to hijack this thread with this old song? :rolleyes: I know you havn’t been slleping under a rock the past 5 years and have participated in many of the dozens of threads on the very subject.
The parallel logic is that targeting civilians is a reasonable way to force a surrender. The further argument that slaughtering civilians is the best way to minimize civilian casualties is too depraved and ludicrous even for terrorists to attempt to make. That’s just an American rationalization for what they did in WWII.
I guess I missed the answer to my question then. Why was it necesary to invade Iraq?
It’s not ludicrous in all situations. After all, that’s the whole point, morally speaking, about war; it should only be entered into in order that overall, more people are saved. If by going to war it’s clear you’d do more harm then what would occur anyway, it’s a morally unacceptable action to take. On the other hand, a situation in which many people will die or be oppressed without intervention can mean a war is morally more reasonable.
Don’t you ever get tired of this? I know I do. It was a different time, a different type of war, and there is no comparison between now and then. None.
I guess you missed the OP, where it was specifically stated that this wasn’t about Iraq and he/she didn’t want it to turn into what you typically turn these threads into, an all Iraq all the time sausage fest. How many times do you have to hijack a thread with the same topic, only to get the same answers?
Dio, I generally agree with you but I think you’re off base here. The U.S. wanted to crush Japan’s industrial base and force it to capitulate as soon as possible. Same for Germany and Italy. Why would anyone want to minimize civilian casualities here? That doesn’t even make sense.
Heck, the atom bombs, as xtisme pointed out, probably did end up saving more lives compared to doing a land invasion (talk about a meat grinder). They also weren’t as destructive as the strategic fire bombing, which AFAIK is what really tore Japan up.
As they say, war is hell. It’s not a chest beating game to be played by empty suits.
Scroll up. At least three people have made that argument in this thread.
The WMD were a lie and the US had no authority to unilaterlally enforce UN Resolutions over the OBJECTIONS of the UN. None of the UN Resolutions sanctioned regime change anyway.
So tell me again, why was it NECESSARY for the US to invade Iraq and kill civilians?
I meant the terrorists making that claim, as you asserted.
I don’t care if you agree with the reasons or not, but those are the reasons. That is like you saying you have to go to the store for milk and your wife calls you while you are driving and said she found some in the back of the fridge, so wtf are you still doing driving dammit.
I didn’t assert any such thing. One more time, Sparky, I was equating the argument that killing civilians would force a SURRENDER. I specifically said that even terrorists weren’t sick enough to try to delude themselves that targeting civilians was a way to SAVE civilians.
My point is that if the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and non-defensive, then none of the casualties on either side can sincerely be argued as having been “minimized.” I didn’t know anybody was still trying to pretend the invasion was necessary anymore.
The goal of the terrorists (assuming you’re talking about the insurgents in Iraq) is broadly speaking to cause the United States to pull its military out of Iraq. They could have chosen several means to achieve: they could have worked to stablize Iraq in hopes that the United States would honor its pledges to withdraw when this occurred; they could have made deals with the occupiers, promising them they would publically declare their support for US policy as long as they were allowed a free hand in domestic affairs; they could have attempted a program of mass non-violent resistance, in order to turn world opinion and public opinion in the US against the occupation. But they chose terrorism as a strategy to achieve their goals - they chose to use a strategy that was based on maximizing civilian casualties rather than minimizing them.
It wasn’t. Occupying Iraq was a unnecessary goal and a generally bad idea. But it was the goal.
As the saying goes, if my aunt had a dick she’d be my uncle.
The goal, regardless of whether it was a good idea, was to occupy Iraq. Having set that goal, it was achieved in a manner that minimized casualties.
Arguing that a different goal would have achieved fewer casualties is a completely different issue. It’s like saying that the invasion of Iraq wasn’t so bad, because we could have invaded Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
I believe that in all cases where civilians aren’t the target the minimization of civilian casualties is built in automatically. If you are attacking a military target the object is to put all the bombs, shells or whatever on the target. You are trying to obliterate, neutralize or at least put the target out of action for a while. Every bit of ordnance that doesn’t land on the target is wasted effort and endangers the end result that you are after in attacking the target in the first place. Attacking a military target involves the expenditure of materiel and human resources and if the objective in attacking the target isn’t achieved then you have to do it all over again with more materiel and people.
As to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the objective wasn’t a military target in the sense of a factory or a railroad or ship yard. The objective was to wipe out a city in hopes and expectation that it would be the final straw that resulted in the Japanese surrender since they were already in bad shape and their leaders must have known it. Minimization of civilian casualities was never even considered since it was impossible given the objective and the nature of the weapon.
Um…you realize don’t you that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (especially Nagasaki) WERE military targets, being logistics and shipping centers…right? Undoubtedly they were picked to send a message to the Japanese in the hopes they would fold their hand…but they were also picked because they would hurt the Japanese ability to fight if they decided to press on.
Sure, but the military targets in those cities could have been attacked with conventional weapons. By the last few months of that war, Japanese air defenses were in terrible shape. B-29’s were area firebombing cities at night from low altitude and almost without opposition. The atomic bomb was in essence a continuation of that tactic.
Don’t assume that because I say that the whole city was deliberately the target in those bombing that I disapproved of them at the time or that I do so now.