>I concur with the spirit your response, but Carl's question deserves more
>than a rhetorical question in reply. If you're going to advocate any course
>of action (including non-action), you shed the protective shell from
>skepticism agnosticism provides.
It's a "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question. As Miles pointed out, there's no course of action in which 0 civilian deaths are likely. Clearly I'd like it to be close to 0 as humanly possible.
Doug