[Mr Angry]

Supposed consideration for the lives of innocent civilians in the current war in Iraq where bombs, missiles and artillery are concerned, is a nonsensical argument and one which is clearly debunked by conflict history.

Furthermore it is a notion which is theatre / demographic dependant.

For example, there have been several mentions of the IRA in this thread - up until the current "war on terror" the biggest solitary threat to british security and, some may say, strategic global interests.

Never, in it's entire history, did the British army carpet bomb or use missiles or tanks againt the IRA in West Belfast or South Armagh (two of their strongholds from which the bulk of their operations were either planned or carried out). No one sanctioned the bombing of Leeds or Bradford in the wake of the 7/7 bombings.

These two instances alone show that the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq are far less valued than the lives of innocent civilians in Britain. That is not to say that British soldiers wantonly target civilians with their munitions. However, you don't need to be Einsten to determine the potential for collateral damage and, as such, rationales such as some proffered here are deeply flawed. The aforementioned munitions are designed to inflict maximum damage, be that collateral or structural.

The face and practicalities of war have changed dramatically in the last 20 years to one of "distance conflict" whereby the ordinary soldier / pilot is as far removed from the conflict in which he / she is engaged as is practically possible whilst his / her usefulness / specialism is still of value to the core conflict.

The days of minimum civilian casualties resulting from military / paramilitary conflict are long over - that is a given.

It's also why democracy through war is a lot more palatable when it's being exercised several thousand miles away and not on our own doorsteps (the internet and 24hr tv broadcasts notwithstanding).