[Tublecane]

“the US didn’t TARGET innocent women and children”

That canard goes back before sophisticated aerial warfare (Sherman, for instance), only gained steam after it became easier to strike from a distance, and has always been thin as tissue paper. Firstly part of what makes targets “strategic” is the presence of civilians. We absolutely do kill innocents on purpose, to send a message. Also, when you say they just so happen to be next to strategically important targets you fall back into the Waco dilemma. Is it worth it? What makes My Mai a crime against humanity and Hiroshima a-okay? Nothing.

Which is to avoid entirely the phenomena of placing weapons inside churches, for example, or shielding your army behind innocent civilians, on my part. At some point it becomes the other side’s fault for putting its civilians in harm’s way. But there is a fundamental problem with modern warfare, with us dating from at least the Civil War. There was a time when militaries tried, at least, to restrict combat to combatants. There were obvious exceptions, for instance sieges of cities. But nothing like the wholesale slaughter of innocents we condemn to death and suffering almost without a thought.

[ExTxMarine]

That canard goes back before sophisticated aerial warfare (Sherman, for instance), only gained steam after it became easier to strike from a distance, and has always been thin as tissue paper.

I can tell you this, when going into combat in Panama and the 1st Gulf War, we were SPECIFICALLY instructed to not fire upon anyone or anything that didn't have a weapon - PERIOD! We had a Marine who accidentally hit a camel with his HUMVEE (camel ran in front of the vehicle), yet the Marine was put under house arrest for an investigation for destroying personal property. THAT IS US POLICY!

Look John Kerry, I am not saying that the US has NEVER considered collateral damage as expendable (to send a message or other - Hiroshima is a good example - a military and industrial center with enough population to send a message). What I am saying is that contrary to your BS, killing innocents is not the normal, everyday tactical strategy of the US Military (My Lai is a good example, as there was NO strategic or necessary advantage to MURDERING those 300+ innocents).

If we didn't care about collateral damage, we would just literally bomb every city into submission - but that hasn't happened! Not in Afghanistan and not in Iraq!

[jim-x]

“There was a time when militaries tried, at least, to restrict combat to combatants.”

When was that? Romans? Visigoths? Huns? The Crusades? Gengis Khan? The War of the Roses? The Reformation? French & Indian Wars? Revolution? Civil War? Indian Wars? WWI? WWII? Korea? The Congo? The various Arab/Israeli wars? Rhodesia?

Historically wars included rape, pillage, plunder, and murder, to the victor go the spoils, razed cities, slavery. The last couple of hundred years it is more genocide, strategic bombing, or collateral damage. However, I believe we (the USA) have made enormous progress in limiting civilian casualties through policy and technology in the last 30 years.