Replies

Having a few civilians killed as collateral damage is one thing, and there is no way to control that one way or the other anyway.

Creating a massive "Massacre of Fallujah" with tens of thousands of civilian dead is quite another matter. Not only would it be unwise politically, it would be *wrong*.

We are the good guys, remember? Just because our enemy would do it doesn't mean we are cleared to do it. If we are just as bad as them then we would have been all wrong about changing their government. That's not who we are. We fight for better values than that.

Look... I cry over our dead and maimed. I hate that such evil happens to such great men and women. But they are over there fighting for something important. We are making the argument that our way of life and our values are superior to those of our enemy. You can cut it up any way you like, but that's why we're there.

everything you say is true. but we can't cut it so fine that we are afraid to use a helicopter or a tank, or enter a mosque, while taking KIA ourselves. from a media perspective, they will be harping on the civilian casualties no matter what (CBS radio is already talking about "women and children"). Its the same old formula from the left.

"Not only would it be unwise politically, it would be *wrong*."

That was the thought of the civilian advisors in the Pentagon before the Rolling Thunder campaign got under way.
We never did bomb the dam above the Mekong Delta because of the civilian casualties it would cause.

We were the good guys in VietNam, too.
We lost that war.