If we bring murder charges against people in the army for every innocent civilian they kill will this reduce the number of civilians "caught in the crossfire?"
2006-08-19 07:50:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
love should prevail...
2006-08-19 07:55:24 · answer #1 · answered by Arcie 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I am so glad there are people like you in the world. How about you just say thank you to me and my fellow soldiers in iraq for providing you the freedom to ask such ridiculous questions. Why is it that people back home think that the people who are attacking us actually wear uniforms? We do our best to get the real threats down here, and if by chance a civilian is killed in the crossfire, it is a shame, but a result of war. Iraqis are blowing up their own civilians by the tens and twenties everyday, read the newspapers.
2006-08-19 08:00:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'd say no. similar volume of casualties, even with the undeniable fact that the probabilities on paper would seem as if a lot less. 60 useless GIs out of 100 is 60 %, while those similar 60 GIs out of one thousand is like 6 %. it might look like a lot less deaths. Haha, that math is prolly off. i'm a jet engine mechanic, yet you get the image. There is surely not a lot less pictures fired because we've extra of a presence, and the persons who we are combating are not the type to be scared because they're extremely out numbered/have plenty a lot less funding/plenty a lot less help. they're already combating less than those circumstances now and have not sponsored down yet. Edit: see even with the undeniable fact that, the type of enemy casualties isn't plagued through the quantity of troops we've, as we do have an sufficient wide type. In an excellent type of situations, it really is searching the enemy this is the region. You gotta imagine, we are not combating an prepared authorities stress with bases and stations, yet human beings hiding out in mountains and imprecise cities.
2016-11-30 20:07:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it would increase the amount of men we lost, and decrease morale because of pressure from the top. When a war is fought from Washington instead of Baghdad is the day which it is lost.
2006-08-19 07:56:44 · answer #4 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They all look alike, they all dress alike, they all speak the same language, and they all carry guns!!! How do you tell the difference between an Iraqi terrorist and a Iraqi civilian??? Is there a difference???
2006-08-19 07:58:08 · answer #5 · answered by Sean T 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The geneva conventions as supposed to prevent soldiers from killing civilians.
2006-08-19 07:57:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
take the military out, drop a bomb, bring in a rake and rake the landscape into the ocean , then start from scratch.....
2006-08-19 08:09:35 · answer #7 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have the belligerents fight in a no man's land... which is virtually impossible.
2006-08-19 08:04:36 · answer #8 · answered by Bummerang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NUKE Iran and Syria and warn other terrorist loving countries that they will be next.
2006-08-19 07:57:10 · answer #9 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
...and increase the number of Dead American Soldiers....brilliant deduction.
War is ugly, its hell, and its also necessary. NO American soldier should have to worry about his life or his liberty for fighting our battles.
2006-08-19 07:55:27 · answer #10 · answered by netjr 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
of course it will, since that will mean putting almost the entire US military in jail!!!
2006-08-19 11:38:57 · answer #11 · answered by nuclearemperor 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋