So I'm going to put this concept to rest...

[TheRealNorth]

83. So a few things....

I don't dispute that knowledge of history can help someone make a better informed decision.

HOWEVER

1. I think the real issue at hand is not only a question of history but of morality - and that question essentially boils down to, when is it just to accept civilian losses when pursuing an enemy target, and what are the limits as to when those civilian losses morally outweigh the benefits (if any) of taking military action at that time.

2. You don't know me, what I know, or my credentials. You only know what I write and try to communicate here. I try to be transparent in my intentions and with my rationale. I would also like to point out that much PCInterns' post referred to was World War 2. And I think my knowledge about World War 2 is quite extensive. I don't know what gives you the right to judge that my knowledge, or anyone else posting in this thread , is not as well informed as PCInterns. I mean, do you have any knowledge that PCIntern has a PhD in history with a thesis on the root causes or conduct of WW2? I am going to assume you do not, but please correct me if I am wrong.

3. Who makes the decision that me or anyone else has a sufficient base of knowledge to make an informed decision, in your mind? And what credentials, or what areas of historical knowledge? I would consider myself somewhat of an amateur military historian, so I know a lot about how wars have been fought throughout history, and that moral justifications and how what is generally considered "acceptable" in the terms of how military acts or conducts itself, has changed throughout history. But I am willing to admit I don't know it all. I know that what was considered "acceptable" military conduct in Aztec culture was very different from what was acceptable in Spanish culture, and vice versa, as an example. But I accept that there are holes in my knowledge when it comes to the breadth of how wars are fought across the millennia. What was considered acceptable military conduct in 1945 has also evolved - the Geneva Conventions and its accompanying protocols have attempted to codify that. I don't know if any one person could know everything about such a vast topic. And I am willing to say that there others here in DU that know more, or at least know more in certain areas.

4. I think your argument is based on the desire to call into question the opinions of those that do not reaffirm your pre-existing biases, and not on the basis of any sort of superior historical insight.