RM> But if you're GOING to go to war against a gov't (?)
RM> that hides military installations inside of schools and
RM> hospitals and in residential areas how do you fight that
RM> other than by putting a million soldiers on the ground
RM> and expecting to lose most of them ?

GP>Maybe by choosing NOT to go to war against a government who used to be
  >your friend? and by choosing NOT to attack & kill thousands of
  >civilians, then whine, bitch, & moan when those civilians start fighting
  >back?

Yes, but that doesn't help if you ARE going to war against them.
Plus, if it works as any type of deterrent then enemies come to
the conclusion that, "The Americans are afraid to kill civilians
so line a bunch up in front of your troops for protection."...

Besides, the idea of not attacking civilians is a pretty new
and unworkable concept. It's always been done when the soldiers
couldn't sort the people out one by one, and even then a lot
of them ended up getting shot in the back by those peaceful
civilians afterwards. Armies have always blanket-bombed cities
and left the casualties for God to sort out.

I'm not sure why this was such a big surprise to the world.
Germany blanket-bombed England, everyone bombed German cities,
America nuked 2 Japanese cities, etc...  Modern (high explosives)
War has always been fought this way. It just seems excessive in
this case because the public perception was that they were only
going after one crazed dictator..
Now that he's gone the war is all over, right ?
Sure.. Just like WW2 never would have happened if someone had
strangled Hitler in his crib..

To be clear I'll repeat I Never saw the Iraq war as necessary
or even right, but they are hip deep in the stuff now so it's
rather a moot point..

---
 * SLMR Rob  * Any country with "Democratic" in it's title, isn't *
 * PDQWK 2.52 #17


--- GTMail 1.26