Rules of War?
Are rules of war good?
0
i would have to say mostly weak. if strength is something you don't have get a gun. thats how allot of people are in my area. sword and shields only the strong survive.:>..
0
also thruogh swords and shields or gloves thou one can show his or her skills and deliver damage more accurately tht in a sence show how gentlemen u are and alos easier to prove whise stronger. Savvy ?
0
I voted yes, rules of war are good, as long as it's only the other guy that's following them and I can get away with breaking them =). It's only cheating if you get caught, and if you win, you can rewrite the ole history books.
As for the whole swords and guns thing, well, I don't think it really has much to do with honor or whatnot. The goal is usually to win as quickly, decisively, and efficiently as possible yes?
Here's another way to consider it
-Guys with clubs lose to guys with swords and say Those guys are lame, they have to use swords.
-Guys with swords lose to guys with crossbows and say Those guys are lame they have to use crossbows.
-Guys with crossbows lose to guys with guns and say Those guys are lame, they have to use guns.
-Guys with guns lose to guys with giant mecha suits and say Those guys are lame they have to use giant mecha suits.
-Guys with giant mecha suits lose to genetically enhanced beings with superpowers and say Those guys are lame they have to use invulnerable supermen who shoot anti-matter beams from their belly buttons.
-etc.
It's no coincidence that they guys complaining about fairness and honor are the losers eh? War is war, and people will fight however they can and use whatever they can to win. I don't think it's fair to call people who use swords or guns or giant mecha suits cowardly without taking into consideration the time and situation they were/are/will be in. On a purely visceral level, I suppose that yes, killing a man face to face with your bare hands is more "honorable", for whatever that's worth. However, I gotta believe that it takes a shitload of balls and courage to step onto any battlefield, regardless of what weapons are being used.
In conclusion, I would like to say that most of these opinions (including mine) are probably worth crap because most of us have never be in a combat situation.
As for the whole swords and guns thing, well, I don't think it really has much to do with honor or whatnot. The goal is usually to win as quickly, decisively, and efficiently as possible yes?
Here's another way to consider it
-Guys with clubs lose to guys with swords and say Those guys are lame, they have to use swords.
-Guys with swords lose to guys with crossbows and say Those guys are lame they have to use crossbows.
-Guys with crossbows lose to guys with guns and say Those guys are lame, they have to use guns.
-Guys with guns lose to guys with giant mecha suits and say Those guys are lame they have to use giant mecha suits.
-Guys with giant mecha suits lose to genetically enhanced beings with superpowers and say Those guys are lame they have to use invulnerable supermen who shoot anti-matter beams from their belly buttons.
-etc.
It's no coincidence that they guys complaining about fairness and honor are the losers eh? War is war, and people will fight however they can and use whatever they can to win. I don't think it's fair to call people who use swords or guns or giant mecha suits cowardly without taking into consideration the time and situation they were/are/will be in. On a purely visceral level, I suppose that yes, killing a man face to face with your bare hands is more "honorable", for whatever that's worth. However, I gotta believe that it takes a shitload of balls and courage to step onto any battlefield, regardless of what weapons are being used.
In conclusion, I would like to say that most of these opinions (including mine) are probably worth crap because most of us have never be in a combat situation.
0
If thats the case then it only makes it it more clear tht we should resort back to our swrd weilding days to make war a less dangerous plc and also making it less capable of harming the innocents.Savvy ??
0
reverting the entire world to swordfighting would be incredibly difficult, especially since the technology for more advanced warfare already exists. there would be nothing more than peoples moral highness to prevent their use. Which has already been proven wouldn't work.
0
Rules of war are essential, it's what keeps American soldiers in Iraq from doing any sort My Lai style massacres. Every American soldier in combat follows Rules of Engagement, depending on the situation, they can be changed on the fly, as long as they stay within the ROE,they're not doing anything wrong. The media and the world may take issue, but as long as the follow ROE they're fine. Companies like Blackwater Security and Aegis may have all sorts of special ops trained guys, but the controversy in Iraq this past week shows they're severely lacking in discipline. Seeing as how they fired and killed 11 Iraqi civilians unprovoked, those responsible are going to get raped by the UCMJ, which they're now subject to.
Biological weapons are largely banned, even if they weren't they're incredibly unwieldy and are subject to Mother Nature, only an incredibly desperate nation would use them as a weapon, that being said, both the U.S. and Russia have sizable stocks of a bunch of nasty little microbes. As WWI and WWII showed, it's not common knowledge, but the Imperial Japanese Army used the gas on several Chinese villages from 1932-1940. They only stopped using them when the wind shifted and they lost 1500+ men to their own weapon. Although that didn't stop them from dropping malaria and smallpox infested mosquitoes on Chinese villages. Ooh, another intresting but vile tidbit, Japan was our enemy during the war, but in the race to scoop up valuble allies after the war, we took the head of the IJA's biological weapons program, made him a high ranking military official, and then took his research notes and did our own after that. With some exceptions, like VX Gas which the Brits developed during the war, all our biological weapon knowledge is from Japan.
As for nukes, they're still a viable weapon on the battlefield, but in 1991 and in 2003, Great Britain and the States warned Saddam they'd use nukes if he used his bioweapons. The only reason nukes aren't used is because of mutually assured destruction, with us and the Soviets packing arsenals of warheads numbering in the thousands, it'd be pretty damn stupid for either nation to use nukes. Just cause the Cold War is over doesn't mean the same tension isn't there, it is, my state is pockmarked, along with Montana and Wyoming with about 45-50 nuclear missile silos, some active, some shut down. I'd say most in my state are probably still aimed at the ex-Union, I would probably say that most of Russia's are probably targeting U.S. cities.
Now that nuclear weapons are becoming more common, the threats change, if Iran got the bomb and wanted to nuke Israel, they would probably in turn melt Iran into glass. They have the nuclear arsenal to do it, and they're hell-bent on making sure they're the only ones in the Middle East to do so.
Oh, and just to give you more food for thought: Unless the reactor in a nuclear sub started leaking, there wouldn't be much contamination to the environment. Considering all throughout the Cold War both sides blundered with nuclear weapons, there are active warheads in the Atlantic Ocean, active warheads in Russia, and even a few in the U.S. (hint: one's in a swamp somewheres in North Carolina). Those aren't what I'm scared of, what I'm scared of are the hundreds of unaccounted for warheads that Russia doesn't know what happened to...
Biological weapons are largely banned, even if they weren't they're incredibly unwieldy and are subject to Mother Nature, only an incredibly desperate nation would use them as a weapon, that being said, both the U.S. and Russia have sizable stocks of a bunch of nasty little microbes. As WWI and WWII showed, it's not common knowledge, but the Imperial Japanese Army used the gas on several Chinese villages from 1932-1940. They only stopped using them when the wind shifted and they lost 1500+ men to their own weapon. Although that didn't stop them from dropping malaria and smallpox infested mosquitoes on Chinese villages. Ooh, another intresting but vile tidbit, Japan was our enemy during the war, but in the race to scoop up valuble allies after the war, we took the head of the IJA's biological weapons program, made him a high ranking military official, and then took his research notes and did our own after that. With some exceptions, like VX Gas which the Brits developed during the war, all our biological weapon knowledge is from Japan.
As for nukes, they're still a viable weapon on the battlefield, but in 1991 and in 2003, Great Britain and the States warned Saddam they'd use nukes if he used his bioweapons. The only reason nukes aren't used is because of mutually assured destruction, with us and the Soviets packing arsenals of warheads numbering in the thousands, it'd be pretty damn stupid for either nation to use nukes. Just cause the Cold War is over doesn't mean the same tension isn't there, it is, my state is pockmarked, along with Montana and Wyoming with about 45-50 nuclear missile silos, some active, some shut down. I'd say most in my state are probably still aimed at the ex-Union, I would probably say that most of Russia's are probably targeting U.S. cities.
Now that nuclear weapons are becoming more common, the threats change, if Iran got the bomb and wanted to nuke Israel, they would probably in turn melt Iran into glass. They have the nuclear arsenal to do it, and they're hell-bent on making sure they're the only ones in the Middle East to do so.
Oh, and just to give you more food for thought: Unless the reactor in a nuclear sub started leaking, there wouldn't be much contamination to the environment. Considering all throughout the Cold War both sides blundered with nuclear weapons, there are active warheads in the Atlantic Ocean, active warheads in Russia, and even a few in the U.S. (hint: one's in a swamp somewheres in North Carolina). Those aren't what I'm scared of, what I'm scared of are the hundreds of unaccounted for warheads that Russia doesn't know what happened to...
0
Generally? Kill them before they kill you. Otherwise it varies between wars and generations. There are universally approved (mostly) rules like truces to clean up the battlefield and attend to wounded, as well as others. But then again, it's war. We've reached the point where rules are thrown out the window and we simply push a button, hoping that they don't push theirs too before they're blown to smithereens. Personally I'd love for the world to aspire to the old bushido methods, and if two world leaders have a problem with the other, throw down. Two men step in the ring, one steps out, problem resolved without involving hundreds of thousands of other people, and one nation gets a new leader, end of story. Sadly, not going to happen.
Be afraid. But go about your lives.
Be afraid. But go about your lives.
0
Though unspoken agreements to not attack on holidays can be used for strategic advantage case in point: the Tet Offensive. All the soliders were celebrating when the attacks happened.
-Reokue
-Reokue
0
I believe some rules are better than others. I won't vote in either direction over rules. I see upsides and downsides for having rules.
0
I would love to vote that war rules are good but...
Rarely does country like America, Israel, Iraq, Afghan, (or any other country currently at war) etc follow it...
More often than not, they always break tha rules...
So rules are kinda useless... Geneva convention? Pfeh! Nobody follows it!
Rarely does country like America, Israel, Iraq, Afghan, (or any other country currently at war) etc follow it...
More often than not, they always break tha rules...
So rules are kinda useless... Geneva convention? Pfeh! Nobody follows it!
0
in the perfect world where noone shoots the guy with the red cross on his helmet and everyone treats POWs like proper human beings the ROE are fine as they are if a bit....open to interpretation. however since the last war we had that was a real "war" was WWII i dont think its very easy to apply them anymore(btw im defining war here as two armys that mutually agree that they will each pick one side of the field and try to take the other). ever since then its pretty much been America VS. generic guerrilla outfit(ie. NVA, al qaeda, and so on). and since most of them dont usually follow the ROE very often(keeping kids in the back seat of car bombs anyone?) it makes it kind of hard to fight these countries if we cant bend the rules.
0
Lets not forget about secret prisons, torture prisons, cluster bombings toward civilians, children recruitment and militia, refugee camps slaughter, "Berlin" wall variant, (suicide) bombing toward civilians, kidnapping then beheading, and so forth...
All more often in today's warfare...
We're just getting more savage by the minute...
All more often in today's warfare...
We're just getting more savage by the minute...
0
The "rules" that govern war are basically an agreement between civilized nations. Don't attack religious structures, hospitals or civilians. Civilized nations would respect these and would also not use said buildings to hide from enemy fire just so they can fire back without risk.
The majority of the world's nations are just savages. Lets take the militant fighters that are crossing into Iraq from Iran. These animals (yes, I call the animals since they act like animals we should treat them as such) would strap a nuke to their bodies and blow up a market place.
My stance is this
If you fight and are not wearing a military uniform. You don't fall under the rules of war and thus ANY and I mean ANY action can be taken against you. If your village or whatever is supporting a faction that isn't a member of a standing army, lets say any terrorist organization. The enemy you are fighting should be able to napalm/gas/nuke your village and execute the survivors. If a standing uniformed army captures a non uniformed fighter. We shouldn't even bother to take you prisoner. We should just execute you. If you want to fight like a uncivilized beast then we'll kill you like we kill any other beast.
If they are wearing a military uniform they should be treated with the rules of war properly. If they are captured then they should be given what is required for P.O.W.'s
I see no problem with my stance. Only standing armies should receive the benefits of the Geneva convention and other agreements.
The majority of the world's nations are just savages. Lets take the militant fighters that are crossing into Iraq from Iran. These animals (yes, I call the animals since they act like animals we should treat them as such) would strap a nuke to their bodies and blow up a market place.
My stance is this
If you fight and are not wearing a military uniform. You don't fall under the rules of war and thus ANY and I mean ANY action can be taken against you. If your village or whatever is supporting a faction that isn't a member of a standing army, lets say any terrorist organization. The enemy you are fighting should be able to napalm/gas/nuke your village and execute the survivors. If a standing uniformed army captures a non uniformed fighter. We shouldn't even bother to take you prisoner. We should just execute you. If you want to fight like a uncivilized beast then we'll kill you like we kill any other beast.
If they are wearing a military uniform they should be treated with the rules of war properly. If they are captured then they should be given what is required for P.O.W.'s
I see no problem with my stance. Only standing armies should receive the benefits of the Geneva convention and other agreements.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The "rules" that govern war are basically an agreement between civilized nations. Don't attack religious structures, hospitals or civilians. Civilized nations would respect these and would also not use said buildings to hide from enemy fire just so they can fire back without risk.The majority of the world's nations are just savages. Lets take the militant fighters that are crossing into Iraq from Iran. These animals (yes, I call the animals since they act like animals we should treat them as such) would strap a nuke to their bodies and blow up a market place.
My stance is this
If you fight and are not wearing a military uniform. You don't fall under the rules of war and thus ANY and I mean ANY action can be taken against you. If your village or whatever is supporting a faction that isn't a member of a standing army, lets say any terrorist organization. The enemy you are fighting should be able to napalm/gas/nuke your village and execute the survivors. If a standing uniformed army captures a non uniformed fighter. We shouldn't even bother to take you prisoner. We should just execute you. If you want to fight like a uncivilized beast then we'll kill you like we kill any other beast.
If they are wearing a military uniform they should be treated with the rules of war properly. If they are captured then they should be given what is required for P.O.W.'s
I see no problem with my stance. Only standing armies should receive the benefits of the Geneva convention and other agreements.
Personally I don't like to lob the word 'animals' toward others...
What makes you think the allied forces (tha standing army if you prefer) are better than those suicidal fuckers?
A bus full of women and children refugees barraged with machine gun because they failed to heed the code to stop...
What d'you expect? They're friggin clueless civilians...
What happened with high tech equipment the allied forces so proud of?
Can't even scan a rickety bus...
You wanna know what the allied forces said about thousands of civilians death? They called it 'Collateral Damage'...
Harassment after harassment...
Torture after torture...
Torture prison, Secret torture prison...
Ghost detainees...
Abducted by mistake or without reasons (happens A LOT OF TIME)...
Tell you what, no animal have the ability of such overcruelty, what the allied did are worse...
Although that doesn't mean I approve to what the militants did, I hate it..., but is pale in comparison to what the allied forces did...
Fascism can do that...
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
0
Net_Spectator wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The "rules" that govern war are basically an agreement between civilized nations. Don't attack religious structures, hospitals or civilians. Civilized nations would respect these and would also not use said buildings to hide from enemy fire just so they can fire back without risk.The majority of the world's nations are just savages. Lets take the militant fighters that are crossing into Iraq from Iran. These animals (yes, I call the animals since they act like animals we should treat them as such) would strap a nuke to their bodies and blow up a market place.
My stance is this
If you fight and are not wearing a military uniform. You don't fall under the rules of war and thus ANY and I mean ANY action can be taken against you. If your village or whatever is supporting a faction that isn't a member of a standing army, lets say any terrorist organization. The enemy you are fighting should be able to napalm/gas/nuke your village and execute the survivors. If a standing uniformed army captures a non uniformed fighter. We shouldn't even bother to take you prisoner. We should just execute you. If you want to fight like a uncivilized beast then we'll kill you like we kill any other beast.
If they are wearing a military uniform they should be treated with the rules of war properly. If they are captured then they should be given what is required for P.O.W.'s
I see no problem with my stance. Only standing armies should receive the benefits of the Geneva convention and other agreements.
Personally I don't like to lob the word 'animals' toward others...
What makes you think the allied forces (tha standing army if you prefer) are better than those suicidal fuckers?
A bus full of women and children refugees barraged with machine gun because they failed to heed the code to stop...
What d'you expect? They're friggin clueless civilians...
What happened with high tech equipment the allied forces so proud of?
Can't even scan a rickety bus...
You wanna know what the allied forces said about thousands of civilians death? They called it 'Collateral Damage'...
Harassment after harassment...
Torture after torture...
Torture prison, Secret torture prison...
Ghost detainees...
Abducted by mistake or without reasons (happens A LOT OF TIME)...
Tell you what, no animal have the ability of such overcruelty, what the allied did are worse...
Although that doesn't mean I approve to what the militants did, I hate it..., but is pale in comparison to what the allied forces did...
Fascism can do that...
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
People claim the Americans are kicking in the doors of "innocent" people and killing every person in the house. We're bombing mosques and schools, even hospitals. Does that make it true? No.
Our enemy is literally hiding in the masses of innocent people and attacking us. Nobody even criticizes that? Well, if you aren't out there protesting the enemies tactics and calling them murderers while they blow themselves up in public places because these people just want to live their lives rather than strap a bomb to themselves and help their cause by blowing up even more innocent people. Then FUCK YOU because you are too god damned stupid to even be allowed to breed. Have you ever been in a fire fight? I doubt it. I myself have never been in a gun fight either but, I hear from people who are constantly in harms way. I would absolutely love to see you be able to keep calm when at any moment any person who is around you could either pull out a weapon and start firing at you and your comrades or just detonate themselves with a bomb vest.
Our enemies have used retarded people and even women and children to blow themselves up to attack us. Yet, you dare criticize us because we accidentally kill a few bystanders. Think of the conditions these people are in as they fight everyday. Yet, they can keep blowing up markets and innocent people just trying to go about there day.
Yeah, American troops are the evil ones here. Go fuck yourself if you think that.
P.S. I also hate Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter so don't bother trying to lump me in as one of those radical right wing religious zealots. I'm also against larger gov't so that removes me from being a fascist. I emphasize freedom and the individual over all other things.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Net_Spectator wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
The "rules" that govern war are basically an agreement between civilized nations. Don't attack religious structures, hospitals or civilians. Civilized nations would respect these and would also not use said buildings to hide from enemy fire just so they can fire back without risk.The majority of the world's nations are just savages. Lets take the militant fighters that are crossing into Iraq from Iran. These animals (yes, I call the animals since they act like animals we should treat them as such) would strap a nuke to their bodies and blow up a market place.
My stance is this
If you fight and are not wearing a military uniform. You don't fall under the rules of war and thus ANY and I mean ANY action can be taken against you. If your village or whatever is supporting a faction that isn't a member of a standing army, lets say any terrorist organization. The enemy you are fighting should be able to napalm/gas/nuke your village and execute the survivors. If a standing uniformed army captures a non uniformed fighter. We shouldn't even bother to take you prisoner. We should just execute you. If you want to fight like a uncivilized beast then we'll kill you like we kill any other beast.
If they are wearing a military uniform they should be treated with the rules of war properly. If they are captured then they should be given what is required for P.O.W.'s
I see no problem with my stance. Only standing armies should receive the benefits of the Geneva convention and other agreements.
Personally I don't like to lob the word 'animals' toward others...
What makes you think the allied forces (tha standing army if you prefer) are better than those suicidal fuckers?
A bus full of women and children refugees barraged with machine gun because they failed to heed the code to stop...
What d'you expect? They're friggin clueless civilians...
What happened with high tech equipment the allied forces so proud of?
Can't even scan a rickety bus...
You wanna know what the allied forces said about thousands of civilians death? They called it 'Collateral Damage'...
Harassment after harassment...
Torture after torture...
Torture prison, Secret torture prison...
Ghost detainees...
Abducted by mistake or without reasons (happens A LOT OF TIME)...
Tell you what, no animal have the ability of such overcruelty, what the allied did are worse...
Although that doesn't mean I approve to what the militants did, I hate it..., but is pale in comparison to what the allied forces did...
Fascism can do that...
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
People claim the Americans are kicking in the doors of "innocent" people and killing every person in the house. We're bombing mosques and schools, even hospitals. Does that make it true? No.
Our enemy is literally hiding in the masses of innocent people and attacking us. Nobody even criticizes that? Well, if you aren't out there protesting the enemies tactics and calling them murderers while they blow themselves up in public places because these people just want to live their lives rather than strap a bomb to themselves and help their cause by blowing up even more innocent people. Then FUCK YOU because you are too god damned stupid to even be allowed to breed. Have you ever been in a fire fight? I doubt it. I myself have never been in a gun fight either but, I hear from people who are constantly in harms way. I would absolutely love to see you be able to keep calm when at any moment any person who is around you could either pull out a weapon and start firing at you and your comrades or just detonate themselves with a bomb vest.
Our enemies have used retarded people and even women and children to blow themselves up to attack us. Yet, you dare criticize us because we accidentally kill a few bystanders. Think of the conditions these people are in as they fight everyday. Yet, they can keep blowing up markets and innocent people just trying to go about there day.
Yeah, American troops are the evil ones here. Go fuck yourself if you think that.
P.S. I also hate Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter so don't bother trying to lump me in as one of those radical right wing religious zealots. I'm also against larger gov't so that removes me from being a fascist. I emphasize freedom and the individual over all other things.
I don't think the word enemy should be used so readily. There was no need for the US to invade Iraq when we did. Iraq wasn't attacking us and the allegations of possessing WMDs proved to be false. Hussein was a tyrant, but according to constant "reassurances" given by Bush and Blair, his regime had nothing to do with the motivations for the invasion. American troops aren't evil, because the government is forcing an issue that was of minimal importance before we exacerbated the situation.
Although we, US citizens, would like to think that getting out there and protesting military action would make a difference, clearly it won't. People have been trying since the War on Terrorism started and that's not going to change until we have people in office that don't spend 20 hours a day with their heads up their asses and the other 4 trying to figure out what they should do to fuck everyone over. The invasion of Iraq was what destabilized the country and our presence there is, at best, preventing matters from improving. People can try to debate the subject, but its something that should have been resolved years ago. The only reason so many other countries hate the US so much is because, as a country, we're the biggest dick in the world.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
People claim the Americans are kicking in the doors of "innocent" people and killing every person in the house. We're bombing mosques and schools, even hospitals. Does that make it true? No.
Our enemy is literally hiding in the masses of innocent people and attacking us. Nobody even criticizes that? Well, if you aren't out there protesting the enemies tactics and calling them murderers while they blow themselves up in public places because these people just want to live their lives rather than strap a bomb to themselves and help their cause by blowing up even more innocent people. Then FUCK YOU because you are too god damned stupid to even be allowed to breed. Have you ever been in a fire fight? I doubt it. I myself have never been in a gun fight either but, I hear from people who are constantly in harms way. I would absolutely love to see you be able to keep calm when at any moment any person who is around you could either pull out a weapon and start firing at you and your comrades or just detonate themselves with a bomb vest.
Our enemies have used retarded people and even women and children to blow themselves up to attack us. Yet, you dare criticize us because we accidentally kill a few bystanders. Think of the conditions these people are in as they fight everyday. Yet, they can keep blowing up markets and innocent people just trying to go about there day.
Yeah, American troops are the evil ones here. Go fuck yourself if you think that.
P.S. I also hate Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter so don't bother trying to lump me in as one of those radical right wing religious zealots. I'm also against larger gov't so that removes me from being a fascist. I emphasize freedom and the individual over all other things.
Okay, so you're not a fascist, that's very good...
But accidentally killing few bystanders?
FEW BYSTANDERS???
Its collateral damage all over again...
Oh come on, who is the frequent users of cluster bombs?
The expert creator of bio weapon?
The frequent user of bio weapon? Like mustard bombs which effects still exist in younger generation of Vietnamese?
Who systematically abduct people from all around the Globe (Notably from Europe, etc) and then sent them to secret prisons and eventually Guantanamo?
Lots of the detainees are found innocent but tortured all the same...
Who is keep lying about the reasons of war?
The middle eastern civilian victims practically far faaaar exceed 9/11 victims...
IT IS NOT A FEW...
Phew, still many more, but I'm out of breath...
And don't get me wrong! Don't get me wrong! I despise those Iraqi/Afghani millitias method on recruiting women and children, bombing without discrimination, abducting and beheading people in front of the camera and so forth...
Its just that if they're animals, then what makes the allied forces? Noble gentlemen?
Okay, I admitted it was a mistake to lob fascism just like that...
Many among them are actually strive to right the wrong...
I really hope your new government will be more sane in taking actions...
And yeah, I hate Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter too...
With this, I hope you would stop underestimating victims of war by saying
few bystanders anymore...
And although I never pull a gun before, I have experienced a freakin bloody riot first hand, so blood and death is not an unfamiliar thing to me...
