SILLY QUESTION: when "collateral damage" outnumbers intentional damage...

[TeddyKGB]

...isn't it time to reevaluate our military policy?

Hurting you to heal you, Iraq. :hi:

[htuttle]

1. Unlike Al Queda....

...our military says 'Oops!' when it kills thousands of civillians.

I guess that makes all the difference.

[MountainLaurel]

3. They're not even counting

How many civilians they kill, and they sure the hell aren't saying oops.

[freestyle]

2. Collateral damage is intentional

If the likely outcome of a military action is lots of dead and maimed civilians, major physical destruction and maybe a few "enemies" taken out, and you do the action anyway, the collateral damage is intentional. The planners, such as they are, know what is likely to happen and if the decision makers go ahead anyway, what happens is blood on their, and ultimately our, hands.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. Not time to re-evaluate. Time to switch column totals.

What were all those babies and old people doing staying in Fallujah anyway? No doubt they were insurgents and got what they deserved. Allawi even said there were no civilian casualties in Fallujah. Case closed.