'Staggering' loss of civilian life from US-led airstrikes

1) We did fight Russia for about 60 years with the Cold War and the numerous proxy wars across the world.
2) Sadly we don't have unlimited resources to assist the entire world and must pick and choose our battles. Chaos in the middle east would mean chaos on the global economy because of their influence in the oil markets. We have to prioritize. Nobody denies we have an interest in protecting these regions because it helps us, but democratic/peaceful regimes are a win win for everyone, except dictators and terrorists.
3) Don't tell me what my family our my friends families in Syria want us to do until you've spoken to them. I've spoken to Syrians. I've spoken to Syrian refugees. They want their country back and they can't get it back without some help. The Assads are not going to give it back to the people.

You seem to think it's better to let them kill each other in much higher numbers, than for us to intervene, kill a few, but spare a great deal more by not letting the war drag out. The best strategy in war is to end it as quickly as possible. There's a really great Churchill quote on this, I wish I could find it...

 

I hope so too. But I recognize there is a greater chance of them being killed by the Assads or ISIS for being Christian than there is of the US purposefully dropping a bomb on them.

You can't avoid civilian casualties in war. It's the saddest fact of war. But again, WE try to avoid them. THEY, the Assads and ISIS, have no qualms with killing thousands of their own just to make a point. But somehow we're the most evil in this scenario?

 

It just goes back to another conversation you were too simple to follow along in, you risk the few to save the many. You are STILL silent about the thousands of civilians killed by ISIS while being "staggered" by the few hundred that died as collateral damage by the US while trying to eliminate ISIS.....and I think we all know why that is. Sorry but I'm not sorry your ISIS brothers are losing, you are just going to have to come to terms with it.

 

You're one taco short of a combination plate.

 

What is the difference a lot innocent people are dying. At this point its a waste of money. Its just an endless war with no real way of winning.

 

I didn't make the stupid post comparing the situations, the OP did.

 

To respond to the last part of the post, what do you suggest? Not bother bombing ISIS anymore?

 

I wish I could go over there and fight for my family. I wish I would have joined the military. I even looked into joining as recently as last year, but unfortunately they won't take me back I've had back surgery.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully being obtuse, or if you legitimately believe my position is defending the death of civilians. I'm simply explaining to you that in war there are civilian casualties and that is absolutely 100% unavoidable. Your position is to continue to allow the deaths of a far greater number of civilians so there isn't blood on YOUR hands.

We all dislike the killing of civilians. Not a single person here is rooting for the deaths of civilians. You keep misrepresenting people's positions and reiterating the same nonsense.

You're advocating for more violence by doing nothing. Do you not get that? You're worried about getting blood on your hand, but it's already on you. We're sitting here watching this play out for SIX FRIGGING YEARS. And what have we done to help these people? Nothing. Because "it's not our place." Bull ****. That's cowardly.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." JSM

 

I don't think its going to make a difference if you bomb them or not bomb them. They can always find some other random person to blow themselves up or run their car into somebody. Really there is no good answer.

 

You can't stop the random lone wolf terrorists that are popped in Europe, agreed. That's not why we are bombing ISIS though. They are actually a military force attempting to conquer land and people groups. They were pretty successful at it in fact before we helped push them back.

 

Well, that could have been an interesting thread, and important one. But you really couched this thread as "everyone but me is a HYPOCRITE!!1! And don't dare post in my thread b/c I will attack you and PORVE you are a HYPOCRITE!!1!"

Unfortunately, having studied more about war than I ever wanted to, this 300 number, horrifying for innocent civilians, fits most armed conflict. Don't even get me started about the civilian Germans and Japanese people that this country killed about 72 years ago.

Sadly, two other points are relevant.
1. Human beings will always sympathize more with people closer to them who seem more similar to them than they will with people half a planet a way who seem very different. We are a tribal species.

2. It's fair to ask. How many civilians would die in Syria if we weren't involved? It's a very grim, sad question, but there is, for some, a moral obligation forsaken if you stand by and do nothing when witnessing slaughter.

Cheers.

 

We've all acknowledged that this is sad, and we wish it didn't happen. But it did. Now we are arguing with you on the justification of even being in the region. You can't start arguments and then get upset when we oppose them. Every singly person here is in agreement that civilian casualties are sad and should be avoided at all costs. We just recognize that it's an inevitable cost of war.

 

....

You're only upset that we accidentally killed 300 people, but have no sympathy or concern for the as many as 470,000 that have been killed thus far?

Did I read that correctly?

You're picking and choosing what concerns you so that it fits your agenda. The rest of us have the sense to recognize and consider ALL the facts instead of cherry picking incidents.