Atheist Heroes?

[Reforged]

You do realize that the vast majority of civilian casualties in that war are attributed to prolonged occupation by ground forces and insurgency, not the bombers you think "shock and awe" refers to?  The bombs dropping were largely for the cameras.  You, and everyone else ate that shit up, apparently, so I guess that part of the plan worked, but it was ineffective on it's own.  I support rapid dominance, because it seeks to end wars quickly by crippling the enemies will to fight.  Not by killing civilians, but by destroying an enemies military and infrastructure all at once, everywhere.  There's nothing in there about saving our troops at the expense of brown lives, asshole.  Rapid dominance requires an overwhelming show of military force, and that means that even the boots on the ground put themselves out there, at risk..but you didn't get to see that, because having a live cam broadcasting to the world in an infantry company during an assault is a bad idea.  

Again, friendlies -include- foreign non-combatants.  Do you have a problem with minimizing the number of dead non-combatants, or did you just not realize that they were included in that group?  The idea, is that a quick war kills fewer people, understand? OFC we try to minimize the number of american soldiers that die, we also try to minimize the number of civilians who die.  Who the fuck do you think we are, and where is it that you get your information from?  What's a person supposed to say, when asked a question ala "what about the cost in dead civilians", really, what is a person supposed to say?  There's nothing -to- say.  The hope is that the number of dead civilians is minimal, but we don't have any direct control over that..

........wish in one hand, shit in another.

I'm really not sure what you're expecting, people die in wars.  If you think that people who advocate for war are advocating for the killing of civilians, then you would be wrong.  If you think that shock and awe has something to do with killing civilians to save soldiers, you would be wrong.  Refusing to engage pointless, headline baiting questions and comments is, I guess, sidestepping, but perhaps I should have done what Hitchens did and ignored your baiting.  All it's done is piss me off, and I know you can't give a fuck about whether or not any of it is true, or you'd have taken the 5 seconds to google it before you opened your mouth.  Now you're onto some conspiracy bullshit, with nameless guys in a room making political calculations regarding brown people?  I bet that makes for good TV...but that's not actually how those decisions are made.  Just remember that these are my friends, and me, you're talking about.  Good people, professionals, with a difficult job.  

We're not the bond villains you seem to think we are, not even the guys all the way at the top.  They're geriatrics, about as threatening and sinister as your grandfather.

So they dropped bombs for the cameras. Sounds like a great PR team they had.
I've "googled" it for a while now, the statistics of civilian casualties were extensive. Unless you're telling me those were made up I think its best we end this conversation because its clear this is a waste of my time. "Rapid dominance" or whatever you want to call it had the result of an astounding number of civilians dying by our hand and a small number of our troops dying. Our first priority was our troops. Thats the reality, thats always the reality. Its a reality Hitchens never once addressed, thats what I object to. Its actually ridiculous I have to drive that home.
If you can't argue from a place that isn't personal then fine. Don't expect me to humor it, I have better things to do than help you turn this into something its not.