Acceptable Civilian Casualties - The Poll

[amadeus]

I wanted to get the thoughts from some of you on just how many civilians are "acceptable" as far as achieving military victory is concerned.

These will range from the extreme pacifist (10,000 militants for every 1 civilian) to the extreme hawk (100 civilians for every one militant) and points between.

Please post your answer and why you answered the way you did.

 

[Stevenpfo]

None are acceptable. But that also doesn't mean we should stop fighting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

none are acceptable.

but, it happens.

 

[LucyDuke]

Acceptable? Zero.

Tolerable? Urgh. I think I can tolerate one civilian casualty for every thousand or so enemy casualties. That's how I'm gonna vote.

 

[Stewbert 08]

I don't know about the rest of you lily-livers but I am ready to fight to the last Iraqi!

 

[amadeus]

I don't know about the rest of you lily-livers but I am ready to fight to the last Iraqi!

On which side, however, remains yet to be known...

 

[bigdog5994]

Acceptable? Zero.

Tolerable? Urgh. I think I can tolerate one civilian casualty for every thousand or so enemy casualties. That's how I'm gonna vote.

same

i voted 100 militants for every 1 civilian though

 

[Stewbert 08]

On which side, however, remains yet to be known...

Did you see that guys? he just accused me of being a traitor! On the internets!

Holy crap I am getting schooled tonight by this dude!

 

[JohnRM]

None are acceptable. But that also doesn't mean we should stop fighting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My thoughts, exactly.

 

[amadeus]

Did you see that guys? he just accused me of being a traitor! On the internets!

At least you admit that would be treasonous, which is a step up from what I thought of you a few minutes ago.

 

[The Lombard]

100 ducks for every human.

 

[Perfection]

I'd say it's highly context dependant. I'm much less tolerant of high civilian casualities in foriegn regime change versus a fight to protect us or our allies.

 

[JohnRM]

Acceptable? Zero.

Tolerable? Urgh. I think I can tolerate one civilian casualty for every thousand or so enemy casualties. That's how I'm gonna vote.

Tolerable? Well, I suppose that one hundred militants per single civilian would be my limit. Voted as such.

 

[MobBoss]

I wanted to get the thoughts from some of you on just how many civilians are "acceptable" as far as achieving military victory is concerned.

These will range from the extreme pacifist (10,000 militants for every 1 civilian) to the extreme hawk (100 civilians for every one militant) and points between.

Please post your answer and why you answered the way you did.

Depends on the militant. If it were a major leader having a meeting with some of his top brass in a house with civilians in it, the house would be going down. If the target it not a high profile target, then most likely not.

Also, it depends if the militants are firing from a position or not with civilians in it. If a group of 20 militants takes over a house and are shooting our soldiers from that house, the house will be going down regardless of the civilians inside. Regretable yes, but you cant allow militants to fire at you unhindered simply because you are afraid of causing civilian casualties.

 

[George2816]

I don't know about the rest of you lily-livers but I am ready to fight to the last Iraqi!

Maybe you should move to iraq?? I'm sure someone can buy you a one-way plane ticket!

 

[The Lombard]

Did you see that guys? he just accused me of being a traitor! On the internets!

Yeah, that was wrong of him.

He should have called you an idiot.

Moderator Action: No, he shouldn't have. Warned for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Godwynn]

Depends on the country where the terrorists are located.

 

[The Yankee]

None are acceptable. But that also doesn't mean we should stop fighting. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Acceptable? Zero.

Tolerable? Urgh. I think I can tolerate one civilian casualty for every thousand or so enemy casualties. That's how I'm gonna vote.

I'd say it's highly context dependant. I'm much less tolerant of high civilian casualities in foriegn regime change versus a fight to protect us or our allies.

Tolerable? Well, I suppose that one hundred militants per single civilian would be my limit. Voted as such.

These all express my sentiments...I suppose it would depend on who we're getting, whether it's a run of the mill terrorist/militant grunt or some bigger fish...so I'll split the difference in the poll and say 10 per civilian, with going after the most dangerous terrorists probably skewing the result closer to more civilian casualties (especially if they use them as shields).

And I just notice that is exactly the center option. Why does that keep happening to me!?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i take back what i said

the darker the civilian's skin is, the less militants are required for it to be ok.

 

[George2816]

i take back what i said

the darker the civilian's skin is, the less militants are required for it to be ok.

Dear dictator:

What country are you from?? (If you say the USA no need to explain yourself anymore. Or if you say South africa born before 1960!)