Rob Rogers: what would you do?

07/27/2014 5:07 PM

07/30/2014 5:49 AM

Re Rob Rogers cartoon, (Forum, July 27): If cartoonist Rob Rogers is suggesting it's morally reprehensible to destroy military targets because of human shields or the proximity of a civilian populations, what would he suggest as an alternative?

No nation ever survived a war or military confrontation by turning the other cheek. Some say it wasn't necessary to firebomb Dresden and Tokyo, or use the A-bomb. Perhaps it isn't important that our enemies would have certainly done it to us if they could have. While hard to justify non-combatant casualties under any circumstance, collateral damage is unavoidable in war.

One side in this conflict, lobbing missiles indiscriminately and targeting civilians in guerrilla raids, aren't concerned over collateral damage. Those who place non-combatants in harm's way are as culpable the civilian carnage as the bombers. Even our World War II enemies never resorted to that.

-- Malcolm Stock, Lincoln

Editor's Choice Videos

 

Join the Discussion

The Sacramento Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service