Do you also include civilians who are killed by someone else if we don't take action? While "we" can do better about killing civilians, whoever "we" is, there is a "someone else" who will kill civilians as well - maybe a different group of civilians, but they will themselves do some killing.
bluGill
joined 2 years ago
Try which? I've seen many ideas, we cannot try them all. Some of the ideas have been tried as well, but the proposers don't have enough history to know that or the results. Most of them will take decades to implement. This isn't an easy problem.
That is one hypothesis. While it sounds reasonable, we don't actually know if it would work. We also have no clue how to solve the underlying conflicts. (Other than simplistic things like turning the entire middle east to glass - killing many innocent people in the process).
Nobody knows how to stop terrorism. There are a lot of hypothesis. However they are either untested in the real world, or they have failed.
Strange how that reputation persists even when they tak, a car made by someone else and put their name on it.
Drones are cheap and thus everywhere in the battlefield. It costs more $$$ to show a drone down then the drone is worth (in general). Modern military is still trying to figure out how to handle all the cheap enemy drones overhead, there is - so far and to my knowledge - no good answer (of course if there was a good answer it would be classified at least until the enemy figures out what you are doing and so I wouldn't know).
Many believe that your so called help for the poor makes things worse for the poor in the long run. You don't have to agree with their position, but you need to accept that they are reasonable people looking at facts and coming up with a different interpretation.