That it needs to be stated that any strategy that one knows will result in innocent civilian fatalities is wrong - absolutely wrong - and should not be pursued, is more than a little disconcerting.
So the preliminary bombings that the Allied forces did to soften up Nazi defenses prior to D-day shouldn't have happened because some French civilians were killed in the process?! I've never even heard the French complain. This is new.
Because every war the United States has ever fought (and particularly the ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia) are exactly like World War II in every way, shape, and form. 
Personally, I dislike the use of drones due to the amount of collateral damage they've caused, but to call Obama a war criminal is a bit much. It's not like he masturbates to the sound of civilians getting blown apart with missiles or anything....
I'm pretty sure blowing civilians apart with missiles is the war crime. Masturbating to the sound of it would be a sadistic sexual fetish, not a war crime.
Well it's not his intention to kill civilians, which is what I meant. If it was, there would be justification for calling him a war criminal, but it isn't. Calling someone a war criminal is not a term that should be thrown around lightly (like calling anyone who's ever waged a war as a war criminal would be an incorrect statement). That terminology is more historically used for commanders who have evil intentions. I really don't see how Obama is evil. Incompetent or ignorant on this issue, perhaps, but not actually a bad person.
