This is the whole point of rules of engagement. Making war a lesser--or "more obscure", if that is your semantic preference--violation of humanity is the goal, the whole idea, the very point of these rules. We live in a time where we can easily afford not to have total war--not that it was ever a good idea in the first place.

You think as long as we're killing people, it's OK to carpet bomb schools? As long as you're doing bad, might as well not be selective about it? Might as well go for the big enchilada? Maximize body count, like a video game? You're an idiot of the first class. Not just because of the foolishness of the idea, nor because of the lazy faux-intellectual rationalization therefor, but because of how easily you justify the obliteration of lives and nations when such a thing is not even close to necessary. Thank God that America abandoned your mindset after Vietnam; too bad they didn't abandon it earlier.

It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting when you don't have to.

Vietnam was a horrible idea, not because we didn't have precision munitions and rules of engagement, but because we didn't belong there in the first place.

War used to be a big fucking deal. Now, George Bush gets on the television and says "don't worry, we won't hurt any kids, we're using JDAMs." And it's bullshit, we end up killing tons of civilians because people think that ROE and precision munitions will actually make war zones safe. News flash: they aren't, and they never will be. If people realized that, then we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, which is the right thing.

Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong.

And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me.

Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Have a nice life.

PS. You called me "an idiot of the first class." I have no idea what the first class is, and I'm sort of curious what an "idiot of the second class" might be, but that is irrelevant. You infer that my intelligence is lacking, and that that implies my argument is weak. That manner of argument is known as ad hominem. You should read your own Wikipedia article.

I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.

(This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)

Typically "good" in this context is equated with "moral", so I'm a little confused with your statement. Could you please elaborate?

It seems like you're unable to decide between utilitarianism and some notion of "fair"ness (reason perhaps?) as your central moral philosophy. Note that utilitarians generally define fair as "greatest good of the greatest number".

You're right though, my views are often very utilitarian. Although, while 'fair' on the large scale applies to 'greatest good for greatest number', I would very rarely condemn someone for acting out of self-preservation, even if it was not 'fair' on the large scale. Generally speaking I hold our own right to defend ourselves, and those we love, above 'fair'. Generally speaking.