 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
so the only way we can fight is if both of us give up all our weapons and send our troops at eachother one at a time
that would be the only way things would be fair (actually, even that would not be fair, because of differences in training and health)
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000 time: 07:27
|
|
If they dont bomb them now, they will lose soldiers when fighting them later on.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:27
|
|
The morality of airstrikes on troops is the same as war in general. Morally, war itself sucks !! But, once engaged in one, I see no problem with attacking all military personel and targets.
Lets put it this way, if you can't hit them in ways where you have an advantage, that only leaves ways that are "fair'--( probably defined as an equal chance of death on each side). Given that the US/UK is badly outnumbered, that hardly seems sensible.
Your question simply seems to be " Is it moral to have better weapons?"
My answer is heck yes.
and I also care about all the innocents involved, uniformed or not. Right now, I see the best option to be a speedy US/UK victory to minimize loss or life all around.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:27
|
|
Oh and "massacre" to me involves images of unarmed men,women and children being intentionally slaughtered, or a surrendering soldier being shot in the forehead. If you decimate an armored column, I think they call that a "resounding victory"
|
|
|  |
 |
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote: I blieve the phrase is: All's fair in love and war. |
This reminded me of a funny reply-quote I got from Apolyton a few days ago: "War is like love, it always finds a way". Go figure.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|