I see enough bad on both sides that I don't see justification in putting our people at risk taking sides in that conflict.

Security operations at non combatant locations where welcome on prearranged agreements. Room, board, fuel and supply (including ammunition) expenses to be covered by the locals. If they cant come up with food, gas and ammo to have their homes and businesses protected from looting, thuggery and "accidental" fires caused by tear gas cannisters and pyrotechnics, then its not worth the blood of our men.

I am not buying that junk ethic that it is only "giving" if we do every relief effort at our own expense after leaving our own homes, sources of income and support networks to go on the rescue for someone elses problem.

A dirty cop played dirty with a dirty thug and a bunch of other thugs started tearing shit up so a bunch of the thugs with badges brought their buddies in to play really tough.

What's next? We need to take sides from among the crips and bloods? Hells Angels and Gypsy Jokers?

This is one of those stop punching the tar baby issues and we need to be careful not to advocate our kinds of people expending themselves into these things.

I am pretty sympathetic to the journalists and could see adding armed escorts to the crews, but then they are all adults, they know how the game plays, there are plenty of out of work steely eyed killers who would sort out during the job interviews with questions like "if a cop is beating a journalist, would you shoot the cop?"

You are helping to set up cameras and lighting, you notice incoming gunfire from what appears to be a government vehicle. Would you return fire?

Those are questions for media security people. In Iraq, they had varying rules of engagement since it was often not entirely clear which side a particular group of men dressed as Iraqi police might be on.