From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"George Sherwood"  wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.30.14.23.14.381665{at}beernabeer.com...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:51:49 -0500, Rich Gauszka wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Payne" 
wrote in message
>> news:442bdbc4{at}w3....
>>>> The US will hold & possibly execute those it captures
on any grounds it
>>>> feels like & the Iraqi insurgents/taliban/AQ will do likewise.
>>>>
>>>> No real difference except that the US authorities have
more money etc.
>>>
>>> An American in Iraq is statistically likely to be with the military.  An
>>> Iraqi in Iraq is statistically likely to be a civilian.
>>>
>>> Yet the US military continues to emphasis how many it kills in return
>>> for
>>> its own losses.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  How quickly things change
>>
>>   "We don't do body counts on other people," Defense
Secretary Donald H.
>> Rumsfeld  November 2003 on  "Fox News Sunday"
>
> Rich, I would really like to see where body counts are emphasized.  I
> don't see it.  Just because Phil says it doesn't make it true.
>
> George

I agree that it's nowhere close to the Vietnam body count emphasis.  I also
realize that sometimes body counts are necessary for context  (scale of
operations etc ). I have read where field commanders now have the authority
to release death tolls for isolated engagements.  The  rationale is to
counter enemy propaganda. Again depending on the use not necessarily a bad
thing. The use of 'body counts' as a measure is escalating though.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5