Replies

I agree that war should be a last resort. But once started it should be prosecuted to the fullest so that it ends quickly in victory. Using restraint only sends a signal of weakness to our enemies which they will use against us. Collateral damage should be avoided but not at all costs.

I wholeheartedly agree with prosecuting war to the fullest against enemy combatants.

A civilian populace that supports war (through active or passive means) against us should feel the pain of war in order to make them oppose warring against us in the future. Let them know that they are responsible for the leaders they have (whether elected or not). If the hardships of war are too much for the civil population to bear, then they need to change their leadership through whatever means necessary.

The moral duty of combatants to respect the immunity of noncombatants has been largely forgotten today by men, but not by God. It has been almost 150 years since the horrors of war were felt here in America, so our senses have been dulled to the suffering that war brings to noncombatants. Civilian populations already feel the pain of war, and there is no excuse for punishing unarmed civilians who are not actively fighting against us. In fact, if the civilians are not on our side, it might be a clue that we should not be fighting there in the first place. Not every fight around the world is our business.