I edited shortly after posting because I realized that part was irrelevant, and I needed to make a better point, and it was easy to do so. So fair enough for yo

I edited shortly after posting because I realized that part was irrelevant, and I needed to make a better point, and it was easy to do so. So fair enough for you to respond to it when you saw it. I'm not editing for any other purpose than to make a slightly better point -- there's nothing dodgy about that. (Edit: I just saw you yourself edit to add a point about "light" artillery, and there's nothing wrong with making such an edit.) I can't see the flagged post you were responding to anymore, but for your post quoted below, the argument doesn't apply to Mosul (not that you were claiming it did, you were making a specific point not a general argument). > The US was operating a counter-insurgency, so they didn't use major artillery bombardment, and used precision strike if anything but mostly used mechanised infantry and armour on the ground. It was still extremely destructive. Russia are conducting basically conventional warfare, so they're absolutely piling artillery rounds into these cities. The US and Iraqi forces used conventional warfare and were piling artillery rounds into Mosul, in a similar way to how Russia is using it in Ukraine.