[river rat]

I would suppose it is just as possible there are "innocent civilians" in Iraq --- as it is possible there are "moderate Muslims"...

Should one ask some other mother's son to risk his life on those presumptions or slim possibilities in the midst of responding to an attack which killed a member of their patrol?

Would you ask your own?

In future -- perhaps America should refuse to send other mother's sons into the ENEMY's HOMELAND before key areas have been reduced to rubble too small to hide within or behind........which by the way -- also kills ALL the former residents, including women, children, infants, grandparents and lunatics.....

Would that approach -- the Dresden or Hiroshima approach -- make killing the "innocent" any less horrible than having them killed by adrenalin charged and enraged or frighten 19 year old warriors, responding to an attack that killed one of their own?

If so -- please explain...

In ALL "modern" wars -- far more "innocent civilians" were killed than armed combatants. Iraq is proving to be no different....
Wars, once initiated by the insane -- must be fought to win -- and preferably with the enemy doing most if not all of the dying.... Wars involve a lot of folks dying -- it is NOT a Hollywood script with a guaranteed happy ending..

Semper Fi

[GeronL]

we still don't know what happened. No, I don't think we should carpet bomb cities unless we have no intention of sending in ground troops afterwards. Of course they're already in the country.