Show of HandsShow of Hands

Praetorianus December 18th, 2015 11:39pm

Scenario:a city in Iraq is controlled by ISIS. Military intelligence indicates several key figures have a meeting in a compound inside the city but unlike in the link, there definitely will be collateral damage. Civilians WILL die. Call in airstrike?

10 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

12/21/15 10:35 pm


EricMichael Casket Raider
12/20/15 8:57 pm

Collateral damage? You mean murder?

bartman71 USW
12/20/15 4:40 am

I say if we did this, we would create more enemies, and not just ISIS. We'll have gone against treaties we signed. There could be sanctions against us, it could even spawn a retaliatory strike if certain countries were sympathetic enough.

AmericanWolf For the Benefit of All
12/19/15 4:55 pm

If ISIS is there, the civilians are in danger anyway. If we're talking heavy causalities, I would call it off, but if Al-Baghdadi and his inner circle are all there together, we should certainly consider going forward with it while we have the chance. I hate to say it, but it would save more lives in the long run.

bowtieguy wishin I was fishin
12/19/15 2:00 pm

Depends how many civilians and how many Isis members

GenericProfile Custom Tags Are Gay
12/19/15 9:41 am

I'd say no simply because ISIS really isn't that powerful and their days are numbered; if say they were extremely powerful, it would be better to destroy some civilians than allow ISIS to destroy drastically more of them.

12/19/15 5:04 am

This is the question so many seem to struggle with and there is no easy answer. Winning a war, even with today's technology will involve civilian casualties on both sides. If we can't accept that as a country, we won't win and this "war" will continue for a very long time.

leilu SoCal
12/19/15 12:00 am

If we have enough intelligence to know they're meeting then we have enough to eliminate them later and reduce civilian casualties.

Ebola1 Florida
12/18/15 8:00 pm

Carpet bomb em.

biker4life Arizona
12/18/15 7:38 pm

War sucks. You do what has to be done to defeat the enemy.

AKCowboysFan Anchorage m8
12/18/15 7:00 pm

Almost certainly, Many more would be killed by the strength those leaders provide than by the airstrike. Necessary evil.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/18/15 6:16 pm

I would never kill innocent civilians.

GlockMan1 Alabama
12/18/15 8:54 pm

Over one million people died in the Civil War. Do you think all those deaths were soldiers? When William Sherman burned Atlanta, he did it to bring the horrors of war to the civilian population in an effort to break their spirit. It worked.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/19/15 12:32 am

My answer remains the same. Taking an innocent life is never justifiable. I understand that winning a war comes with casualties, but it should be avoided as much as possible. Sherman didn't have to burn down a whole city. The confederates had no chance of winning anyway.

12/19/15 12:49 pm

Brandon you are so miss informed , the south could have won except for a few mistakes. The reason Lincoln freed the slaves was to prevent European countries from siding with the south. Lincoln was a racist himself.

GlockMan1 Alabama
12/19/15 9:12 pm

Plus...the North needed more soldiers and all those freed slaves made for new recruits.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/19/15 9:26 pm

I don't care if Lincoln was a racist, he did a good thing when he freed millions of slaves in the South. The Union was on the right side of history.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/19/15 10:14 pm

In certain wars, there are right sides. The Union was on the right side of the civil war. The Allies were on the right side of WW2.

Brandon1995 San Francisco
12/19/15 10:35 pm

People like you are on the wrong side of history too.

badgerben Las Vegas
12/18/15 6:15 pm

Choices like these, not in the abstract sense but in the reality of actually executing an order, are the biggest reason I would never want to be president.

rons Thanks America
12/18/15 5:29 pm

Sound good to me. Better yet have the Russians do it! They are better at bombing.

Xemanis Lawful Good
12/18/15 5:12 pm

They bomb us, we take them out. they might try to use civilians as shields, but enough is enough. we MUST strike.

GlockMan1 Alabama
12/18/15 4:55 pm

You can NEVER win a war if you are concerned about collateral damage. Look at Germany and Japan in 1945. Our Generals did not care about collateral damage and we won.

Praetorianus Fair enough.
12/18/15 4:44 pm

It's a sad decision but I would say a surgical airstrike, even with civilians in the compound, might save more future lives otherwise taken by the terrorists than the number of civilians present in or around the compound.