Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Coalition forces launch attack in Libya watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What about the civilians killed by coalition bombs? are their deaths justified?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imjustanerd)
    Am I the only one who finds it downright pathetic that the government are spending money on BOMBING Libya and potentially creating yet another war, as if we NEED more countries to hate us, rather than using it WISELY and aiding the people in Japan?
    I understand the seriousness of the violence in Libya is catastrophic but this is just going to cause more havoc surely? Why is violence always the answer?
    Call me a naive 16 year old if you wish but I honestly think our countries money needs to be spent on things that'll actually HELP rather than this.
    i really really agree with this. there has to be another way, this is just going to create more death and destruction. we're having all these cuts imposed on us (most worryingly to defence) & yet it's ok to spend however much on all these missles?
    of course something has to be done, but this can't be the only way.

    i dont know, i don't know enough about this to have a fully informed opinion.. but i just don't think this is going to help anybody.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    What about the civilians killed by coalition bombs? are their deaths justified?
    Hello, welcome to 2100 with 100% efficient and direct war and specifically missiles, smart bombs used, the risk of collateral damage and civilian casualties has been reduced to 0 unless intended

    We're not there yet bro, even with modern high-tech and pinpoint accuracy smartbombs, missiles - There will still be collateral damage just a fact of war and a fact that more or less hasn't changed since Humans have had wars

    I'm sure it will change in the future and is changing right now though with better technology and precision weapons
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Hello, welcome to 2100 with 100% efficient and direct war and specifically missiles, smart bombs used, the risk of collateral damage and civilian casualties has been reduced to 0 unless intended

    We're not there yet bro, even with modern high-tech and pinpoint accuracy smartbombs, missiles - There will still be collateral damage just a fact of war and a fact that more or less hasn't changed since Humans have had wars

    I'm sure it will change in the future and is changing right now though with better technology and precision weapons
    So when civilians die from Gadaffis artillery aimed at the rebels we call it a massacre but when civilians die from our artillery we call it 'collateral damage'.

    Let's cut the crap, this is a war, we are killing civilians too. There are no winners in this war except companies like BP and lockheed martin.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    So when civilians die from Gadaffis artillery aimed at the rebels we call it a massacre but when civilians die from our artillery we call it 'collateral damage'.

    Let's cut the crap, this is a war, we are killing civilians too. There are no winners in this war except companies like BP and lockheed martin.
    Well it has generally seemed that Gaddafi - didn't really give a damn whether civilians were hurt in collateral so he used disproportionate force against the well less armed rebels and again, Gaddafi has appeared to kill more rebels and civilians combined in pretty ruthless, merciless attacks

    The 'ally' coalition has supposedly been bombing and having missile strikes against Anti air positions, attacking Gaddafis' tanks and any forward forces he had against Benghazi, I don't know or why buildings are being bombed and why civilians are even getting hurt in this tbh

    But I'm sure it's non-intentional, just to harm Gaddafis' capabilities and well again, that's just war. I'm thinking you're completely against war in any case or context, what ever it is - civilians die in war, just a fact
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lukejoshjedi)
    Well it has generally seemed that Gaddafi - didn't really give a damn whether civilians were hurt in collateral so he used disproportionate force against the well less armed rebels and again, Gaddafi has appeared to kill more rebels and civilians combined in pretty ruthless, merciless attacks

    The 'ally' coalition has supposedly been bombing and having missile strikes against Anti air positions, attacking Gaddafis' tanks and any forward forces he had against Benghazi, I don't know or why buildings are being bombed and why civilians are even getting hurt in this tbh

    But I'm sure it's non-intentional, just to harm Gaddafis' capabilities and well again, that's just war. I'm thinking you're completely against war in any case or context, what ever it is - civilians die in war, just a fact
    Gadaffi doesn't give a damn if civilians are killed and neither do the allies, not really. So in the end we are just at war with Libya because we don't like their leader.

    You're right I don't agree with war unless it's absolutely necessary, ie. to defend Britain's sovereign territory.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.