Don't conclude anything just because I used some highly emotionally charged language. I did that for the sake of later argument.

Is a certain level of US civilian casualties in our homeland acceptable to you?

If your answer is "yes", then, is not a logical consequence going to be the kind of graphic scene that I portray? If yes, then, is it logical to say that this graphic consequence is acceptable to you?

If you don't care to answer this line of questioning, that's OK.

You may have the right idea here. I have an open mind. Many smart military leaders have said that we cannot "kill them all."

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Scruffy

Kansas City

Member since Jul 2011

72422 posts

Posted on 7/30/14 at 9:28 am to Champagne

quote:
Is a certain level of US civilian casualties in our homeland acceptable to you?

That is like asking if we can ever reach absolute zero.

There is no such thing. Actually having zero deaths is an impossibility. There will always be casualties.

quote:
If your answer is "yes", then, is not a logical consequence going to be the kind of graphic scene that I portray? If yes, then, is it logical to say that this graphic consequence is acceptable to you?

To say that your goal is to have no casualties is an unrealistic position.

If there are going to be casualties, I'd prefer they be as low as possible.

You can't kill all of them, no matter how much some people in this thread want to. That is an impossibility at the other end of the spectrum.

And if we can't kill them all and we still want to decrease casualties, why don't we decrease the number of reasons they may have for attacking us?

This post was edited on 7/30/14 at 9:29 am

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board