War without soldiers

I think we are a bit crazy!

I don't like war at all, but actually most deaths caused by wars are innocent civilians.

Soldiers job seems to be war (even if they didn't start it)

So, are the great military bosses trying to don't use soldiers and just kill civilians?

Killing civillians is never the aim of the (US) military. Having said that, often enemy combatants, especially terrorists', the Taliban and Al Quidea (or however you spell it), not to mention the Hesbola routinely will place rocket launchers in a school, hospital or civillian appartment complex.

They surround themself with civillians knowing that the US military will have a much more difficult time attacking them BECAUSE the US military DOES NOT TARGET CIVILLIANS.

What is your opinion of the IED's used against the US military? In a sense they are drones. What do you think of homocide bombers who walk into a crowded market fillid with CIVILLIANS and detonate their bombs killing civillians? Last I looked the homocide bombers are NOT the US military.

The UCAV's or drones are spectacular. They are used for servailance and more recently have been fitted with armorments. There have been many instances when a drone will spot a threat to the troops and has been able to neutralize the threat before they can harm the troops.

The purpos of a military is to kill people and break things, but not to kill civillians and civillian property.

The US did not pick or even want this fight, but you can be assured that the US will end it.

Remember, the IED's and homocide bombers kill indescriminatly. The drones target enemy combatants with amazing accuracy.

Travis

Sorry if you think I was blaming the US or the US Army. Not my purpose.

I know very well what are the methods and results of terrorism (I've lived under their menace everyday from about 40 years ago)

But terrorist methods wouldn't allow any army/government to use the same (they will become at this very moment in terrorists too)

And if both fighting armies don't use soldiers, what would be the target?

That reminds me one episode of ancient Rome history, when after being fighting together for many years, Caius Julius Caesar tried to send his legions against those of Marcus Antonius and both armies sit down and say their bosses they will stay and see how they solve their problems by themselves.

Answering other post, yes, the military research has given many useful things to human kind and that doesn't justify war... But don't forget that this is because of almost unlimited funding they have. If funds granted to military research were given any other more "human" direction, many human kind problems should be solved. Or do you think that the brains of military researchers have something different to any other field researchers?

Unfortunately, some of the advances whether its medical or technological are derivatives from war.

Does that justify war...............no.

That's true - nobody would suggest that it is a good idea to start a war or engage in a war as a means to spur technological advances.

Wars have been faught for all of recorded history, most often over religeous differences. The war on terrorism we (the US) find ourselfs in is at it's heart a religeous conflict because the ideology of the Muslem extreamists have adopted terrorist tactics to achieve their religeous ends.

The original comment about the drones targeting civillians is way out in left field. Compare the impact on civillians of a lasar guided air to surface missel which can be targeted to within a few feet to that of a homocide bomber or roadside IED (often disguised as a concrete curb or parking barrier) which kills indiscrimenantly.

The advancements such as the drone no doubt PROTECT civillians. The only way one could argue otherwise would be to argue that the US military intentionally targets civillians - which is only true if you live in the world of Jack Mertha, Dick Durban or Harry Reid (who are 100% discredited in the statements made regarding the Hadifa incident).

Travis

The only way one could argue otherwise would be to argue that the US military intentionally targets civilians - which is only true if you live in the world of Jack Mertha, Dick Durban or Harry Reid.

I repeat: I'm not blaming against US or US army. There are a lot of wars just now in which US are not involved directly (just have a look at the Africa map). Do Tutsi or their enemies killed just soldiers? What about Croatia, Bosnia and next countries wars? Have you heard something about common graves with thousands of civilians (most of them children, women and old people)

Unfortunately wars (all, not just US wars) are killing much more civilian people than soldiers.

And if you are generally speaking and nor relative to nowadays (and even I approve or not that action). Who dropped a couple of nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Hittite empire? where just military targets?

Please, I think the US are fighting against terrorism and I fully agree with that, but don't forget history... You know: those who forget it are damned to repeat it.

Best regards

Sadly the history of war proves only one thing;

that the bankers who encourage war, and back both sides, come out richer than ever, with greater control over both the "winners" and "losers" of that war.

Remember to watch the money trail, where it goes.

Kind regards....