Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/us-bombs-millions-isis-currency-supply/index.html Well, this is a first. My only concern is potential civilian casualties, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 The civilian casualties are unfortunate, but if this plan is effective at dismantling their state-level operations, it may be worth considering whether more lives were saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 For the greater good, there is no sacrifice too great Those civilians should be mourned, but if it were to occur again, their lives pale in comparison to the damage Daesh can wreck with those funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 I'm actually really interested in this as a long-term strategy. Think of the French Revolution when Louis couldn't feed the proles, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Take them down from the top down. You kill leaders, knock off their funds, and stop their resources, and they'll be strangled to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Getting rid of the money is a good thing, though civilian casualties is a big thing to consider even without the moral issue. Cause you kill civilians and suddenly ISIS has a ledge to stand on as far as getting recruits and sympathy.It's baffling and illogical but it's true people tend to just see "civilian's killed" and automatically jump on the government hate train. Humans are strange animals that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Getting rid of the money is a good thing, though civilian casualties is a big thing to consider even without the moral issue. Cause you kill civilians and suddenly ISIS has a ledge to stand on as far as getting recruits and sympathy.It's baffling and illogical but it's true people tend to just see "civilian's killed" and automatically jump on the government hate train. Humans are strange animals that way."Acceptable civilian casualties" has never not existed in military vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 "Acceptable civilian casualties" has never not existed in military vocabulary.That doesn't really change the point of what I said, despite the truth in the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 That doesn't really change the point of what I said, despite the truth in the statement.You're making a slippery slope argument when history has trended toward fewer casualties over time rather than more. The evidence is against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 All I know is that if I were one of the civilians in question I'd be like no funking thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 You're making a slippery slope argument when history has trended toward fewer casualties over time rather than more. The evidence is against you.I don't understand. What argument do you think I'm making? I'm saying that it's important to consider the public's perceptions when making these decisions.Wouldn't "who knows how many would have died otherwise" be a similarly slippery slope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wahrheit Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I don't understand. What argument do you think I'm making? I'm saying that it's important to consider the public's perceptions when making these decisions.Wouldn't "who knows how many would have died otherwise" be a similarly slippery slope?Insofar as we can point to the daily casualties inflicted by the group correlated with the resources they have access to, not really. If it's a simple utilitarian calculus, 5 to 7 casualties for a major crippling strike against their own abilities to kill innocent people is an easy choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.