Quote:
|
Originally Posted by El Diablo
Whilst such facilities may have civilian workers, they remain a military target - and quite rightly. How else can the military be expected to impact an offence on a country unless they take out a large proportion of the utilities that are in place to support the running of that country?
|
Excuse me? How does destroying water treatment and sewage disposal facilities impact on a country's ability to make war?? How did crippling power supplies to civilian (not military, nor industrial) areas have any effect on Saddam's forces in the first Gulf War?
Take a look at
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19.../s91lopez.html and note where it says
"There have been no precise estimates of civilian casualties during the war. The most intelligent guesses have been broad ranging: "5,000--15,000 Iraqi civilians died during the war, and 4,000-6,000 civilians died since the end of the war due to wounds, lack of medical care, or malnutrition," according to Greenpeace. The bitter reality is that the numbers of civilians who die in the war's broadening wake will soon dwarf the number of Iraqis, Kurds, and other refugees who died in the civil strife after March 1. And the United Nations estimated in July that 50-80 thousand infants are at risk of severe malnutrition because of the war."
And we're the "Good Guys"?
Quote:
|
Civillian casualties are never nice but if it's a better means of assisting the longevity of life amongst *our* troops, and thus increasing the means of effectiveness available to them, then surely it's not such a bad thing?
|
I'm sure that's a *wonderful* consolation to the families of the dead!