[elbucko]

(I wrote) I don't think that completely obviates any responsibility to try to protect noncombatants, or to avoid objectively indiscriminate destruction.

You know, lady, in all my training, I was never encouraged, nay, but always discouraged to the point that it was almost my duty to sacrifice myself for the good of the civilians around me and now you have the nerve to imply that this is not done as a matter of course in the US military.

SHAME ON YOU!

You're ignorance renders you almost not worth a soldiers life.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You know, lady, in all my training, I was never encouraged, nay, but always discouraged to the point that it was almost my duty to sacrifice myself for the good of the civilians around me and now you have the nerve to imply that this is not done as a matter of course in the US military.

I have never implied that. NEVER. I was talking specifically about atom bombs, not the general policies and practice of the U.S. Military. In fact, I made a point of recognizing that the US troops were making a massive and conscientious effort to protect Iraqi noncombatants, despite the Islamo-thugs' unceasing attempts to hide themselves behind and among civilians.

If you will take up the time to search my previous posts, you will see that I emphasized that

• 1) attacks on civilians are specifically prohibited by the UCMJ, as well as other U.S. laws and statutes;
  
• 2) The noblest fighting men in our U.S. history fully and conscientiously insisted on shielding noncombatants to the greatest extent possible (I mentioned George Washington and Robert E. Lee);
  
• 3) Our U.S. military in Iraq for striving to protect civilians under very, very difficult circumstances;
  
• 4)President George Bush has a strong commitment to the principle of non-combatant immunity.

  If you're going to criticize me, have the courtesy to criticize me for something I said, not for something I didn't say.