self aggrandizing are we??

What I'm getting is that since somebody else didn't help another person (this person ended up dead), then what happens to the former person doesn't matter. Thus, if they are killed in combat, so be it...

I'm not boasting, but my own morals would not allow me to sit there and let it happen (as I said though, only if I felt I could help).

A couple things.

First off while I'm a little fuzzy on the exact laws you can be punished for doing nothing as an innocent bystander. Specifically in regards to not telling what you know and in regards to not getting the victim aid if they are dying.

As for the subject at hand I think it's important to differentiate between groups of civilians. For example we have millions of Muslims in the States who aren't engaging in any terrorist activities and our supporting our government through taxes and the like.

In Iraq much of the citizenry are getting out and voting and hundreds of thousands have signed up for the police and military in the process of taking over the policing of Iraq from the Allies. Plus however many militias are letting us buy them off.

However in any situation collateral damage happens and the more it is a proper state vs state war the wider the range of what consititutes a militarily target becomes.

As far as I know, it's not illegal for a civilian bystander to not do anything. It's covered under the "Good Samaritan" law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan

what about sympathetic civilians offering themselves as human shields?

what about non-state actors, "terrorists", using civilians as "human camouflage"?

what about captive civilians used to protect an actor that uses them as sandbags while they send rockets into civilian populations of an enemy?

Give them a Darwin award?

Depends on the situation. If it resembles as hostage situation treat it as such. If it's a covert cell operating "under the radar" and nobody knows what they are or where they are treat the situation as such.

Beyond that I think the degree of civilian complacency would have a lot to do with how much they are at risk.

If a bunch of obvious terrorists were operating out of somewhere in midwest America they'll have lots of space awful quick.

However if you live next door to a terrorist you may well get taken out along with them.

Hint. Do not carpool with people in Hamas if you live in Palestine.

Again depends on the situation and the civilians. If you send in ground forces and the civilians let you know who was responsible or it's immediatly obvious(like they're pointing rifles at the civilians.) Strongly avoid civilian casualties.

If when you get there nobody knows anything you'll be forced to act "faster" which will probably incolve snapping off return rocket fire which will probably take out some civilians.

Again I don't know where precisely to look for the regular laws. But that deals with actually providing the aid yourself. You aren't required to do that, particularily if there is danger. I believe the laws have to do with getting them aid. For example if you see someone get shot and you just walk off and leave them gasping on the ground and don't bother to call an ambulance or anything I believe you get charged with something.

A war can indeed be fought for moral reasons, if it is purely defensive. But pre-emptive wars are not defensive.

If someone will not fight and risk death to save their own life, why do you perceive that it is someone else's responsibility to fight and sacrifice their life for them?

I am arguing against initiating force against those who have not directly initiated force against us.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

A recent poll stated that "only" 7% of Muslims deemed themselves fundamentally radical.

"Only" 7% of 1.3 BILLION that is.

If you do the math (91 million) ,thats alot of folks who would find violent jihad against percieved enemies of Islam acceptable.So many people that the 'moderates' ,who in reality are far more scarce than were led to beleive, do become more or less irrelevant in the overall scheme of things.