1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ben Carson: Bungling Surgeon

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Oct 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Unreal.


     
  2. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    Is this bumbling sonuvabitch REALLY running for president? Carson is a joke
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    When pollsters call me, I just tell them that I have a dog that I'm looking to sell for $1,400.
     
    dixiehack likes this.
  4. SnarkShark

    SnarkShark Well-Known Member

    Just so we're clear after this last debate. Trump, Cruz and Carson are all in favor of killing innocent civilians in the fight against ISIS. It's fucking unbelievable.
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Is it possible to fight a war and not kill innocent civilians?

    Also, this week, it was made clear that we are all in agreement that interning Japanese-Americans was an abhorrent Democratic policy.

    Was it also wrong for us to drop the bomb(s) on Japan, knowingly killing civilians? Do we regret that now?
     
  6. Mr. Sunshine

    Mr. Sunshine Well-Known Member

    oop laughs at the level of delusion it takes to assume a war can be waged without any collateral damage.
     
  7. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    No. And no.
     
  8. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So, killing innocent civilians is sometimes acceptable in war, just not in this war?

    Explain the policy to me. How do we decide when killing innocent civilians is ok?
     
  9. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    No on eliminating civilian deaths. With 70 years of hindsight, Americans regret dropping the bomb and the civilian deaths they caused. However, I don't think Americans still would have the stomach for what an invasion of the Home Islands would have entailed. You'd have to be a sociopath to not have any regrets.
     
    X-Hack and BDC99 like this.
  10. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    It's a given in ALL war. Killing terrorist suspects' families or carpet bombing? No. But if we have a valid target you can't hold back to avoid civilian casualties.
     
  11. BDC99

    BDC99 Well-Known Member

    And Christie did VERY well tonight. Right in his wheelhouse
     
  12. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    It is a moral calculus.

    If we do this one thing, it will kill 100,000 of their people but none of ours. But if we do this land invasion, it will kill at least that many civilians, maybe 10 times that but it will also kill many of our people.

    It was an awful choice but the first bomb drop was the correct choice.

    The second bomb drop is more debated in nerdy historian circles but my War in the Pacific class was a couple of decades ago and I don't remember the ins and outs of the arguments. Also of note, the fire bombings of German cities are also quite highly debated.

    I think the greater concern is that the ISIL people, per my readings, have a very sophisticated social media operation. Doesn't saying things like let's kill all the civilians something that would be something they could use? Is that not the classic bulletin board material coaches hate so much?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page