Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
I was responding to "this is really war. and in war there will be calateral damage. thats just life..." Callous, don't you think? I don't see how it can't offend 9/11 families. They took "collateral damage" in this war of terror (declared loud and clear by both sides well before 9/11), did they not? If we deny 9/11 caused collateral damage by insisting everyone rippled by a military action is a target, then our generals may as well just shut their eyes and stick pins in a spinning globe. Anyway, superart has explained himself, or not.
|
Refer to post 473
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
Let's pare it down then. Choose between sacrificing a few Americans in Iraq, vs. a few Iraqis (e.g. collateral damage). If you wish, you may imagine a crucial military objective is at stake, and one nationality or the other has to be sacrificed, civilians all. Don't deny this value. It looms over every strategic decision and a good many combat decisions too. Who is less expendable? The American or the Iraqi? If you answer just one of my questions, answer that one.
|
If it comes down to an Iraqi civilian or a US troop, I would chooses the troop. He volountered for the job, knowing the risk, and accepted the risk. A choice between an American civilian and an Iraqi civilian, I would choose the Iraqi civilian. Just like if you asked that same question to someone in Iraq, they would say they would prefer an American civilian gets killed over an Iraqi. That's human nature.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
"In what might mark the beginning of a major offensive to reclaim Fallujah, Iraqi special forces stormed the main hospital on the western edge of the city overnight, blindfolding some people and kicking down doors. No shots were fired."
...
"Several hundred Iraqi troops were dispatched into Fallujah's main hospital after U.S. forces sealed off the area. The troops held about 50 men of military age inside the hospital, but about half were later freed.
According to The AP, Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the injured but they refused.
"The American troops' attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance," he said by telephone. "But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance."
|
We secured the hospital w/o firing a shot. What's the problem? Why are you complaining?
How the hell do you know who this Dr. Salih al-Issawi character is? For all you know, he might just be blowing smoke up your ass. Just cus he's a doctor, doesnt mean he's a good guy. Dr. Mendalev was a medical doctor, for all you know, this guy may be no different.
They most likely had their own medical personel attending to the sick/wounded and did not want the locals to get in the way.
It is the policy of the US armed forces to provide medical care to both our own troops as well as any POWs we manage to capture.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
OK. And now the hospital's been taken. Combatants are defending the hospital. According to you, this sets conditions for "an old propaganda trick". I can just hear the suicide bomber's spokesman, after that hospital gets blown to bricks with a car bomb: "Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out."
|
once again, they are not defending the hospital. They are using it as a staging ground to launch a military offensive from. Once a hospital is used in this fashion, it is no longer just a hospital, but a military base. We do not use our hospitals in such a manner. Not even military hospitals. We have dedicated military bases that we use to launch our military offensives from.