Quote:
|
That's a false dichotomy - of course no one would want that, and there's no reason to say that less civilian deaths would immediatly translate to higher US bodycounts. THat's a rather stupid statement.
|
The civilians shot by US soldiers seem to be getting shot because the US soldiers construed their actions as being threatening, they construed them as being threatening because their actions qualify them as a potential threat, if they don't immediately remove themselves from that catagory somehow, since the area is still rather hostile, they shall be responded to as a threat. Therefore, if the civilians that were shot by US soldiers had been properly identified, the soldiers would have needed to change the way they do things in such a way that had they been a real threat they would have most likely been successful, therefore any attack made will be far more successful and yield more US casualties as the soldiers will not respond as quickly and effeciently and not be able to keep their fatalies lower than they otherwise would be.
It isn't stupid, it just isn't verifiable in all aspects, do you have any statistics about enemies killed in circumstances the soldiers percieved the cerimonious gun fire to be? I don't, I'm not sure if they exist, I've provided the reasoning for my statement, "there's no reason to say that less civilian deaths would immediatly translate to higher US bodycounts THat's a rather stupid statement." Have something else to back it?