Human Shields

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
You are the most pretentious poster on this forum, boasting of your accomplishments which fail to reveal themselves. You also appear to suffer from verbal diarrhoea.

Ok.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
You are the most pretentious poster on this forum, boasting of your accomplishments which fail to reveal themselves. You also appear to suffer from verbal diarrhoea.

You can't make unsubstantiated statements like that! Where's your references???

Originally posted by FMF
I find the NATO war against Serbia troubling where (if I've got this back of a fag packet toll right) the Serbian army lost 400 or so, but maybe as many as 5,700 innocent civilians were killed too. NATO meanwhile lost no combatants. This is surely an example of "doing your best" to minimize your own casualities, and not an example of "doing your best" to avoid inflicting casualties on innocent civilians.

All wars are troubling. You should be troubled by every war. If ANY soldiers or civilians die in warfare -- that's bad. All granted.

The ratio of civilian/military deaths is completely irrelevant. The main issue is to get the war over as quickly as possible with a "just" outcome and with as few deaths as possible in the following rank of importance:

1) The fewest of your soldiers die because without them you risk that you won't win and therefore the outcome won't be "just" (because "we" are always right, right?)
2) The fewest civilians die -- as long as they are irrelevant to eventual victory, there is no reason for them to die.
3) The fewest of the other side's soldiers because there is no reason to kill more than necessary to win.

In war (apologies to VL), winning isn't everything -- it's the only thing.

Originally posted by kmax87
You can't make unsubstantiated statements like that! Where's your references???

Just read his posts.