Ok to kill Thousands but not millions

Dear Con Your counter argument, beginning with "Why do we kill?" is a perfect starting point because it sets a common baseline for both our arguments. I also fully concur with your opening paragraph, noting the "positives" of war, e.g technology advancement, job creation et al, all contributing to a healthy economy of the warmongering nation, or nation defending itself. Man kills for political reasons and religious reasons. I'm specifically excluding murder - we are discussing war. Reading ancient scriptures; it becomes evident for this to be true Quotes: "Religion Causes War - quoted by Tom Price" and "Should Religion and Politics be kept Separate - paper by Rhia Sharma." In fact, we can add one more; The human race is the only one that kills for pleasure or recreation. Quote: "Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself." James Anthony Froude (British historian, 1818-1894) Having established the killing motive, or mitigation thereof, we can now agree that it is ok for humans to kill. We now get to part two of the argument, viz. is killing a few thousand acceptable but killing a million or more is unacceptable. Let's look at the philosophy of reporting news in the world today. First and foremost news agencies base their reporting on shock value. This applies to every facet of our lives. Now days, the most sensational reporting concerns news and events covering wars across the globe. We have become numb and insensitive to most of the killings, especially of civilians caught in the cross fire. I have yet to hear, see or read that a fight was called off because of the probable collateral damage envisaged or the current impact or loss of live to civilians. News reports confirming a death toll in small numbers go unnoticed. As the numbers increase, so does the sensation and political noise. The question I now pose, relating to the killing dial, is where does green finish, amber finish and red start? Drawing on history, taking from my mention in Round 1: The British concentration camps established in 1900 (45 of them) , killed over 4 000 women, over 22 00 children under the age of 16, and 1 6 76 men. If you add the numbers and compare that to the whole Boer population in the ZAR at the time - it is genocide. I challenge you to produce one account of where the British had to answer or were taken to task for this war crime!! How many civilians did the Americans kill during the whole of the Vietnam Campaign........? Carpet bombing, napalm bombing, village destruction, villagers killed ect etc. Thousands I tell you. Have you ever seen a programme on the History Channel or National Geographic, highlighting the plight of the Vietnamese people (not Viet Cong)? No! The numbers , although very high varies between sources from 587 000 - 800 000. So, even a number of nearly a million does not get coverage or is sensationised by The History Channel or National Geographic. Thus far it would appear that deaths numbering below 500 000 is in the green. Approaching a million, the death meter moves to amber. What about red? The alleged WW2 death counts, laid at the door of the Russians and the Germans each, are in the millions. The world does not have a stomach for this number. It is turned over and over and over at every change. Dramatasised at every opportunity. My interpretation is that the death meter turns red when you hit about 2 000 000 deaths. So Mr. President and Mr. Politician you must use this meter to manage your post war propaganda. To summarise, I wish to use an analogy. In the Western world, ask a lady if she believes in free sex. She will reply in a shocked voice no!. You then ask "Well how much do you charge then?" The analogy being that the lady believes in sex. The question is just for how much money? We believe in killing - the question is how many is too much!