Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bobkoure
I'm fairly mystified - and it's not the vocabulary.
Kobuchi - was your point that troops should not value their lives over civilians? Not trying to put words in your mouth. Just a simple yes or no will do.
|
No. I
observed that, in Fallujah, the overall approach is "rather harming civilians than see troops suffer the same harm." I did not make the
value judgement "troops should not value their lives over civilians", but I did raise the question. Superart engaged it in a spirit I appreciate:
"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."
And here's Lothar5150's reaction: "Kobuchi-You speak authoritatively about subjects of whom you have not credibility, understanding or experience... stick with political arguments and not comment on military matters, as you have no credibility by your own admission. "
You're mystified, I think, because you read people refuting "points" that don't appear in my posts, and loathing my position, whatever they think that is.
Well, if you'd like to haggle over "troops should not value their lives over civilians" I'll join. It could be interesting. Nationalities, ratios, urgency, and other factors deepen the issue. If you follow the news, you'll know it's a hot one.