4 ms·

How soft and spoiled are the commentators who think war should involve no sacrifice It's horrible to waste soldiers for nothing, which is what's been going on

• vacri 15y ago
  Sad that so many people get so worked up over the loss of 5k soldiers, and not the unnecessary destruction of a state, involving hundreds of thousands of deaths of foreigners. If it really is 'waste' that people are worried about, why not that?
  • javert 15y ago
    destruction of a state You mean Saddam Hussein (Iraq) and the Taliban (Afghanistan)? But yeah, I definitely think we should have acted much more forcefully to end the wars much more quickly and with far fewer casualties on both sides. I think we probably could do this without resorting to nukes, but applying the same "kind" of intense pressure. Hiroshima/Nagasaki were huge successes compared to a minimum decade-long ground invasion and occupation of Japan resulting in possibly millions of deaths.
• philwelch 15y ago
  At last check, the Taliban doesn't control Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein doesn't rule Iraq. It might not have been worth it, but it's not nothing.
  • angersock 15y ago
    Somewhat cynically, it's actually been worth a great deal to several contractors and logistics companies. :)
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    If you want to be sufficiently pedantic, then nothing is for nothing. Equal and opposite reaction and all...