|
I can't really make the point because I can't show you the footage of the scenes from the 'active combat' stage of the siege. The footage was *gruesome* to the extreme - if you had seen it, it would have affected you no less than those mutilation scenes in the same town. The same knot in the stomach, the same shock and horror. And those soldiers will almost certainly have seen that footage, broadcast live from 3 different arab news channels in Falluja.
And johnny, I was in the British army in Northern Ireland, and I assure you that we NEVER used airstrikes and artillery against rioters. And we would NEVER use rockets or any heavy munitions in a built up area even if we were under mortar attack and heavy machine gun fire. There *IS* a difference.
There are rules of engagement - and they're even more strict when dealing with your OWN populace.
I don't think that many soldiers in the British army would obey an order to use such force on their own countrymen either.
I guess that I'm just going to have remain in disagreement with you guys over this. I think that the new Iraq army is a success and that the US army has done a good job vetting and training them. Short of the insurgents turning their guns on the citizens of Falluja and the Iraqi army still refusing to engage, not much is going to change my mind.
Anyways, it's NICE to praise the US for a success in Iraq for a change [img]smile.gif[/img] - you're not going to spoil it for me.
|