>>>Like this hasn't happened in all wars. I think even back to the crusades, entire cities were destroyed and burned. It is just about cobblestones. And archaeological material for sandbags. And for whatever else is needed to do what needs to be done. It's war, not a friggin tea social.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, it's a war. Collateral damage is understood. But the ignorant or reckless destruction of artifacts that have survived thousands of years, including many wars, is truly sad. What purpose can be served by that.
>
>See, in that, I do not disagree. Did anyone think though, that this was going to be the one war where nothing was damaged? Why this one? It is unreasonable to believe that this one would be different. Now, if the discussion was about all wars causing damage, I have nothing to add to that, but it wasn't. It was about Americans destroying paving stones in this war. Like suddenly collateral damage is a surprise...

I think the original point was that soldiers were either purposefully or ignorantly destroying these "paving stones". Secondly, to call them paving stones is to seriously undervalue the historical and archaeological significance of the artifacts in question.