• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which would you Choose?

What Is Your Choice?

  • Total voters
    19
Tsunami said:
I thought of it in terms of civilians vs. combatants. I know a person is a person, but if I am the leader I have to make two additional assumptions: First, I am not the aggressor in the stated war. Second, I am not drafting people who are not willing to fight. So I would trade 10 million willing combatants to save 1 million innocent civilians. I know that isn't specifically stated in the opening, but it seems the likely consequence of this scenario. But maybe I'm an idiot.
Click to expand...
That seems to devalue the lives of the soldiers just because they were brave enough to accept the risk. Without sacrificing the city, there will be an extra 9 million dead men and women with grieving families. A soldier has no more desire to die than any civilian.

Not everyone gets a choice in their sacrifice.
 
Apocalypse said:
Seeing the number of casualties in a non-nuclear involved war, it seems like Chuck Norris is already there.
Click to expand...
Not to hi jack this thread, but, My favorite all time hero, was "Roy Rogers". I admired the way he shot the gun out of the bad guys hand, but never killed anyone.---tha Man had Class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom