Poll: Which is worse - having 3000 civilians killed or 5000 soldiers?

[achiral]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: jsbush
A human life is a human life regardless. The less dead the better.

I agree, however if civilians are killed it will only mean that more people will die beyond that because it doesn't advance the military objectives. That is unless you inhumanely throw down some nukes on enough civilians like in ww2 to cause a surrender.

remember hiroshima? thousands of civilians killed, and it pretty much ended the war

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: achiral

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: jsbush
A human life is a human life regardless. The less dead the better.

I agree, however if civilians are killed it will only mean that more people will die beyond that because it doesn't advance the military objectives. That is unless you inhumanely throw down some nukes on enough civilians like in ww2 to cause a surrender.

remember hiroshima? thousands of civilians killed, and it pretty much ended the war

...and likely caused far less loss of life than a full-scale invasion of Japan would have caused.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: achiral

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: jsbush
A human life is a human life regardless. The less dead the better.

I agree, however if civilians are killed it will only mean that more people will die beyond that because it doesn't advance the military objectives. That is unless you inhumanely throw down some nukes on enough civilians like in ww2 to cause a surrender.

remember hiroshima? thousands of civilians killed, and it pretty much ended the war

...and likely caused far less loss of life than a full-scale invasion of Japan would have caused.

Japan wasn't far off from surrendering, regardless. There were good reasons on both sides of the debate.

 

[isasir]

Eh, one bump for my stupid poll before I go sleep.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: glenn1

"civilians" is worse. they don't want war. a soldier's job is to fight or to die. let them do their job.

Ummm, no. You're wrong. A soldier's job is not to fight and die. A soldier's job is to fight and win.

well said. Like a military man would say...

 

[OulOat]

I wonder what people will vote if RishiS added a 10,000 lawyers option in the poll?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: achiral

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: jsbush
A human life is a human life regardless. The less dead the better.

I agree, however if civilians are killed it will only mean that more people will die beyond that because it doesn't advance the military objectives. That is unless you inhumanely throw down some nukes on enough civilians like in ww2 to cause a surrender.

remember hiroshima? thousands of civilians killed, and it pretty much ended the war

...and likely caused far less loss of life than a full-scale invasion of Japan would have caused.

5-8 million if I recall the estimates correctly...

And back to the topic, here's how I see it...if 3,000 American civilians were to die, it would probably be at the hands of a terrorist attack...If 5,000 American soldiers were to die, it would probably be going up against a big, ugly war machine capable of doing that...and that enemy would eventually make its way to the populace at large anyway...

So to make a long story short, I voted for civilians.

 

[isasir]

Originally posted by: OulOat
I wonder what people will vote if RishiS added a 10,000 lawyers option in the poll?

Now now, I wanted to make sure every option got at least one vote... 😉

 

[FoBoT]

i am sorta surprised by the results, but i suppose most of the people that voted "5000 soldiers" are anti-war people


hmmmm....

 

[CraigRT]

WTF? I'd say the higher number either way. a life is a life... what does it matter what their status is?

 

[911paramedic]

We lost 3,000 civilians a couple years ago, if I remember correctly. That was pretty bad.

 

[guyver01]

Civilian loss is always worse.... soldiers go into battle with the understanding that they might not return, and they go in with the skills to PREVENT their loss. A civilian does not have a choice in the matter. They are usually in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now if you ask some, civilian loss is always to be expected... collateral damage... but i doubt anyone would call 3000 civilians lost collateral damage.

 

[Nitemare]

A soldier signs up for a job that he knows he can die doing.

A civilian does not.

Either way a loss of human life is tragic enough.