[SoulStorms]

If confirmed as a coalition attack, correspondents say it will be a blow to attempts by the US-led forces to minimise civilian casualties during their drive to unseat Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

I think that expectations have not been managed properly. If these casualties were caused by the coalition, it should have been understood by the media, the U.S. public, and the world, that some civilians would die.

This is, after all, a criminal regime. They rely on the fact that we are not willing to cause great civilian casualties to protect their forces. We have advised the Iraqi civilians to remain in their residences (though not loudly enough) partially for that reason.

We cannot be percieved as successful even in victory, if the standard of "success" is that we fight a war where no one dies.

[af_vet_rr]

I would add the amount of civilians we have killed is incredibly low. Anybody who thinks that it's a lot is forgetting just how far we have come when it comes to war.

If I heard this right, the Iraqis killed were at some kind of mall, outdoor or otherwise. If so, what in the heck were people doing shopping in the middle of a raid.

[RetiredArmy]

Two theories: (1) War is hell; (2) In war, people die.

Closing out theories: If they are using civilian buildings to protect their forces and we determine those forces are there, I.E. this hospital with the tank and weapons in it, so sad, so bad, you dead. I would vote to hit it.

If I am a grunt out on the line and the bad guys are shooting from behind a bunch of people, I am sorry, I am returning fire. Maybe the people will be smart enough to run. But, I be damned if I hang around and get blown away. I am returning fire. I will worry about the consequences later. At least I would be alive to worry about them if need be.