Poll Question: Do you believe Collateral Damage should be accepted as a condition of war?

Debate Questions:
1. If so, do you believe civilians who have lost their loved ones via military operation should accept and understand the concept of collateral damage, and not pick up their weapons (regardless of personal emotion and/or vengeful intent)?

2. Do you believe those same civilians should be labeled/considered Terrorists or Insurgents by our government?

3. If the same were to take place on our soil, (from an opposing country) would you watch your loved one die and accept their death simply as collateral damage?

__________________
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
-Henry Fosdick

Collateral damage is just a reality of war. However efforts should be made to minimize it.

Though sometimes the fault doesn't entirely rest with the aggressor. For example Baghdad bobs ongoing statements about what was going on with the war were believed by many Iraqis. The result? Going out for an afternoon drive right into the crossfire from a tank battle or over a bridge as it gets blown.

If someone does take up arms the would be labeled as a something. Insurgent or militia or something. I'm guessing many members here would be proud to be part of a militia or insurgency in such a case.

You only get labeled as a terrorist if you become one though. I.e. if they decide to blow some civilians up somewhere instead of fighting the enemy military forces.

There are two types of damage: additional damage and collateral damage.

Additional damage: We dropped a bomb on Terrorist-A, but instead of just getting Terrorist-A we got -B and -C. That I support.

Collateral damage: We dropped a bomb on Terrorist-A, but in the midst of it all an innocent civilian is hurt. That I don't support.

The problem though is that collateral damage cannot be stopped. Whether faulty communication, intelligence, or just fog of war, it will happen.

__________________
There shall ye find Light

Be thou faithful unto Death
And I will give thee a crown of Life

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Oh cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

You cant stop colateral damage. You can only try to minimise it. Not an easy task when you have an enemy that fires at you from mosques, schools, hospitals, and peoples houses not of their own. Our military does an outstanding job of minimising colateral damage. The problem is when IED's blow up in crowded marketplaces who gets blamed for the casualties by the U.S. media? Our troops do!

Most Iraqis know better. They know that we only fire in retaliation of being fired upon! Thats why iraq has overwhelmingly taken sides with the U.S. as opposed to Al-Quieda and the Muj. If they want to get stupid about it and pick up arms against an ally that did not target or mean to kill them then so be it. but like I said. Most Iraqis know that the fault lies with the Insurgents initiating contact. Not the Troops retaliating against an enemy! I suppose that liberals would not have us fire back at all. that makes no since! But it does if you want more troop deaths for a political gain!

Absolutly! Anyone who hides behind civilians, mosques, hospitals, and schools while wearing civilian attire in an effort to blend in with the civilians deserves to be labled a terrorist/insurgent. Anyone who blows up IED's in a crowded marketplace or drives a car bomb in to a neighborhood occupyed by American/Iraqi Forces deserves to be called a terrorist/insurgent. Anyone who decapitates the wives and children of Iraqi policemen, polititions, and soldiers, simply because they dont agree with the Iraqi democracy and they want to force people to think otherwise should be labled a terrorist! Anyone who holds a congressmans family hostage for political blackmail are infact terrorists. Anyone who destroyes the innocent to force people to follow an extreamist idealology are terrorists!

SUCH AN IRRELEVENT AN MISSLEADING QUESTION! IF SADDAM HUSSEIN WERE MY PRESIDENT I WOULD WELCOME ANY OCCUPYING FORCE THAT WANTS TO OVERTHROW SADDAM AND BRING ME A FREE DEMOCRATIC GOVERMETNT! IF I KNEW THERE WERE TERRORISTS IN MY BACK YARD WHO WANTED TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. I WOULD RAT THEIR ASS OUT! HELL YES! IF THE SITUATION WAS REVERSED I WOULD WELCOME THE INVADERS!

No question is irrelevant if it's based around theory. I agree with you, but keep in mind that not everyone in Iraq wanted Saddam gone... and to an opposing country, your view may or may not reflect theirs. After all, the purpose of an American Invasion that includes foreign troops on our soil would be to replace the authority. So, if you were to lose a loved one during war-time on our soil... would you consider it collateral damage, or would you pick up a gun and fight back?

__________________
The tragedy of war is that it uses man's best to do man's worst.
-Henry Fosdick

I would allready be fighting against the insurgents that want Saddam to remain in power! If my family were killed as a result of friendly coalition fire I would know better than to blame them for blaintly trying to murder my family. If the insurgents fire at coalition forces while wearing no uniform to distinguish themselves from the average civilian would I blame the occupying force for retaliating and accedently killing a family member of mine? Hell no I wouldent! I know, just like the Iraqis do, that the fault lies with the insurgents for hiding behind my family. Not the forces that tried to retaliate and defend themselves! thats a no brainer!

To answer the question about collateral damage, I would refer people to the difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If they don't know the difference, it's about time they did.

Guerilla war as a response to military actions might be justified in specific instances. Terrorism never is.

__________________
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening......... but this wasn't it. -- Marx

I voted no, but I do think collateral damage is an inevitable part of War. Why then, no? Because it takes at least 2 armies to make a War. I voted no specifically because the thread is dealing with the current "war", and because the "war on terror" isn't really so much a War as it is a police action. And police shouldn't kill the innocent just so they can kill the guilty. If your neighborhood had a street gang problem, would you accept the police killing your neighbors and family by blowing up the whole block?

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

Have you ever fought against these guys? You ever been in an 7 hour to 5 day firefight ran by a few hundred mujahadien equiped with RPK's, AK47's, RPG's, Mortars, Draganovs, and 155mm arty IED's? You ever seen an enemy try to overrun your firm base by the hundreds? If colateral damage can be avoided in that situation please let me know! Because according to you we must have done it wrong!

I cant help but notice that E_Pluribus_Venom has'nt answered his own questions or given his own opinion of this thread. Why?