Maybe we should only fight when we have something worth defending. If it’s our murderous prick vs their murderous prick, we should give up because who cares, what difference does it make? But if one side is actually helping people in material ways and the other is a murderous prick, then there’s actually something worth fighting for.
It is so normal nobody even mentioned the innocent lives being lost as colleteral damage at the hearing
Unfortunately it’s always been the case for as long as humans have had war that the civilian casualty ratio is around 50% to 90%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
Edit: Apparently the 90% figure is a myth. According to the wiki it’s much more likely to be 50% to 60%.
Maybe we could try not doing that
That sounds like loser talk
/s
How? Armed conflicts sometimes happen, and I’ve yet to see a working plan which doesn’t endanger any civilians.
Good point. Let’s just not do war altogether
Well what are you going to do when some murderous prick like Putin or indeed Trump comes knocking? Give up?
Maybe we should only fight when we have something worth defending. If it’s our murderous prick vs their murderous prick, we should give up because who cares, what difference does it make? But if one side is actually helping people in material ways and the other is a murderous prick, then there’s actually something worth fighting for.
Or to put it another way, “No war but class war.”
We should use assassination markets to pay their own men to kill them.