Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kobuchi
"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."
|
Kobuchi- It is comments like those above that elicit comments from me regarding your lack of qualification. First, we announced we were coming in and get out of the city if you want to ensure your safety and the safety of your family. In doing so we let some top tear terrorist, escape. Further, at some point, you have to assume that most of the remaining people are likely hostile. As I said before "good men" with families will get their families out, people who don’t want any part of the fight will get out.
Next, you obviously have little understanding regarding the dangers in urban combat. If you see Marines filling a house with metal, it is because someone shot at them from that building. Do you think it is practical to shoot up every house you clear? This isn't Halo where the ammo fairy shows up and your weapon is magically reloaded. Every, unit down to the individual warrior has to be concerned with the expenditure of ammo. If you use more ammo than your log-chain can re-supply then you end up losing your ability to fight pretty quickly.
From a less practical standpoint, you have never in our military and you have no idea to the extent we try to avoid civilian casualties. In fact, the protection of civilians is an American tradition. Further, we have lawyers look over our battle plans and ROE prior to any operation to insure we comply with the Geneva Conventions and the Law and traditions of Land Warfare.