irateplatypus

but do you really think that is true? do you not think that the US could have saved a few more of its soldiers by having a more liberal definition of what are valid military targets?

certainly it is a question of degrees, but to equate the tactic of hiding ammunition in schools with the strategic bombing of schools to destroy said munitions (admittedly, with a chance of hurting civilians) is something i will not do. in many cases, it seems that the hand has been forced. the US military will almost always take care of their own (within boundaries of course) as it relates to collateral damage. but, in the cases where collateral damage is knowingly inflicted... i do not think it is necessary at all times to place the blame on the military for the damage.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill