The reason we lose Wars is because we limit civilian casualties
In other words you, Greta
10 comments
Reduced to creating a separate s(h)ite after being quarantined in Reddit?
With this kind of BS, no wonder.
we limit civilian casualties
Let me quote an old saying:
“Join the Air Force,
Collateral damage, how very sensitive of human life you are (paint-blistering sarcasm). And if you’re so hung up about a certain teenage Swedish girl, maybe this might help you:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIP2vukNOPc
What? So the side who loses the most lives wins?
Do you have any idea how much education and healthcare you could get with just the money it cost to BRING the US soldiers TO the war zones?
The way you limit civilian casualties is to have the war on someone else’s turf. Because, you haven’t had that many wars on YOUR OWN mainland lately, have you? Ergo; very few US civilian casualties.
Greta’s country hasn’t been to war for about two hundred years.
Other guy thought this, acted as such and still lost , as can show the following document:
It is desirable to base all military measures taken on existing international law; however, measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out even if they are not covered by existing international law. In principle, therefore, any means of war which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be supported by a legal conception, even if this entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare.
NeanderthalDNA, guess which sentence got the author of this memorendum seven years after it was issued?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
