When the terrorists continually break the laws of war, it is no surprise events like Haditha happen.
If the Marines at Haditha started indiscriminately killing civilians, they should pay for their crimes. I want that clear right now. The point of this piece is not to defend their actions. However, there are those who never pass up the chance to start throwing corpses at political opponents, and they are using this event to paint the military as a bunch of baby-killers or "prove" the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are. Unlike disgraced ex-Marine Murtha (he disgraced himself after his service), I'm willing to let the facts be heard and a fair trial be had before trying to score political points on the backs of others.…
Article comments
26 - Richard R
To the above posters on both sides -
If it were to occur in the current international environment, how should the US respond to a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv? One that no state takes responsibility for? And the same question for New York or Washington DC?
I think the most popular answers will be 1) Investigate, find out who is responsible, and kill them and 2) Destroy the government and military of Iran and North Korea. But I would like to know from you, either of those answers or one of your own. If everyone in the line of succession were killed and it came to you to press the button or not, what would you do?
27 - Harry Lime
The Republican guilt on not voluteering to fight in Iraq now shows itself in the defense of Haditha that is truly breathtaking.
If such wild and woolly comments were made by an American military officer at the Pentagon or in Iraq, it would be the end of his career.
Observe marine statements in the coming days. You will see no reflection of the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly axis of evil, their pop-gun alarms and grasping for relevance, but restrained common sense instead.
28 - pst314
"Who, exactly, is painting the military...as a bunch of baby-killers?"
The majority of the leftist and Democratic Party supporters that I know. I have been listening for years to exactly how they criticize, and it is clear that they are not concerned about alleged crimes by US troops in themselves, but rather as methods of attacking the Bush administration, the war against Islamic fascism, and so on. The term bad faith doesn't begin to describe them.
29 - Dr Ken
Great post from John B. Needs to be said.
Erelis,
We do need to loosen up the usual laws of armed conflict, inspired by civilized Europeans fighting other civilized Eurpopeans in a civilized way. We do not, however, need to bring back waves of bombers to level cities. Too many innocent will be killed, which is both wrong and counter-productive. We do need to dust off the legal concept of reprisals, in which we can hold civilians responsble for attacks conducted by their terrorist neighbors. Round up whole neighborhoods of Sunni Arabs and hold them in camps in Shia areas. Separate the teenage boys and men from the women and chuldren. Interrogations for all men and tenn boys. Then read them the Koran verses that denounce terrorism.
30 - Grayson
"(That of course assumes that Rummy & his band of merry murderers even bother to train soldiers in how to handle such impossible situations.)"
Huh? "How to handle such IMPOSSIBLE situations."
Just mull that over for a while. Yeesh.
Sorry, but that seems to demonstrate a "I love my country BUT..." kind of attitude. That is, the first part is merely a preface to what follows the BUT. It's smells more of alibi than sentiment. In this case, the order is just flipped.
I also would go further in pointing out that you are absolutely right, John. There are people who routinely suggest "we had it coming." From what? Supporting the Shah? In hindsight, dontcha think that direction probably would have led to a happier, more prosperous, more peaceful Iran than what we have now? For "supporting" Hussein. "It's too bad they both can't lose." RE: Iran/Iraq. Supporting the Saudis? Look at the Wahhabi alternative. Living in the fantasy world where you get to make pronouncements against your countrymen's inability to pull off utopias is gutless, pathetic and childish. It also happens to be the kind of thing we see much of.
Jiggs: "Nothing does ever justify the cold-blooded killing of children."
I think you need to add "deliberate" in there. (Then again, does that include children who are armed with weapons, as in Africa, Latin America and South Asia?) But then if you do add in "deliberate", it's hard to make the case that Islamists terrorists are always "provoked" and never "responsible" or that this was their mess to start, not ours.
That's the narrative that's so frustrating. "They blew up the police station because we were in Iraq." "They attacked the London train station because we were in Iraq." "They blew up the club in Bali because we were in Afghanistan."
It's the Chomsky lens where a country that represses its own people does so because it's involved with America. And if they aren't involved with America (Cuba), that's also why they oppress their people.
This has been going on for some time. "The Russians only slaughtered all their own people and closed their borders and swallowed eastern europe because we didn't let them have all of europe." "They only blow up Israeli schoolbuses full of little girls because the Israelis won't just roll over and die for them."
But the breaks are put on HARD to the suggestion that years of playing by the rules - and watching their buddies die by them - while the other guy DELIBERATELY plays against the rules and gets the sympathy of Europe and the Liberal Left* would occasionally push some of those soldiers past the tipping point.
*FACT: they get sympathy in America. FACT: they ain't getting it from us supporters of Rummy and his band of merry murders. CONCLUSION: they're getting support from the left. It wasn't Sean Hannity who called the terrorists "minutemen." You can be a liberal and not agree with any sort of sympathy for the Islamists. But it's dishonest to pretend that support for them in America is not coming almost exclusively from that side of the aisle.
31 - Grayson
That's silly, Harry. First of all, the military skews Republican. Sorry. That's a fact, and it's why Al Gore tried to invalidate all those military votes in the 2000 election. Not getting around it. It's the truth and you're just going to have to deal with that.
Did it occur to you that no senior military officer would say such a thing BECAUSE he would lose his job? and not because he doesn't sympathize with those ideas? Are we actually defending the Marines in Haditha? Seems to me we're defending their right AS AMERICAN CITIZENS and our countrymen to have a fair hearing. Do you not want that for them? Because they aren't getting it. We're being pushed by the lefty media into assuming they are guilty. Are we sympathetic to them? I don't know about the rest but I am.
Here's the difference: Islamists (who the left sympathizes with - see post above) 1) kill civilians as a matter of policy, 2) like doing it, 3) celebrate it, 4) do it to create a society that oppresses its own people
These American soldiers (whom I sympathize with: 1) kill civilians either accidentally or in extraordinarily rare fits of rage and frustration, 2) are not proud of it, 3) do not celebrate it, 4) did it while risking their own lives to bring freedom and prosperity to people they would never have met, known or given two shits about had they stayed home and gotten nice, cushy jobs as software programmers.
I see a big difference. Do you?
32 - Harry Lime
On grounds of its convuluted logic and sprawling mise en scène, your appeal doesn't make the cut. Also you've said enough. Should others try to make your case?
33 - Dave Nalle
Very well put, Grayson. That Harry chooses not to see the obvious contrast you establish exposes his biases definitively.
Dave
34 - RZ
As some have alluded, the situation _is_ impossible, but it is the overall policy which creates this impossible situation.
The U.S. Military should be used to defend the lives and liberty of U.S. citizens, not to act as an adjunct to a foreign government which, on many levels, is opposed to our interests. In the present circumstances, this means that, once the Baath were overthrown (which was obviously our self-defensive right, independent of WMD, sanctions cheating and other such tangential issues), we should have immediately imposed complete Martial law, with _our_ government in charge of Iraq, with _our_ interests constantly paramount, until we were sure that we could hand over the reigns to an Iraqi regime which fully supported us and recognized that, should they begin to tread in any direction opposed to our interests we would be back to do it again in righteous fury. See: Germany and Japan post WWII. In other words, if we're going to do nation building, we should do it by ourselves, without depending on the good will of the defeated.
To expose our troops to situations where they have any doubts as to whether they are confronting enemies or not is to use them in ways for which they were not (and should not) be trained. They are trained as brave and devastating killers of the enemy and they should be used that way. To constantly deploy them in the current ambiguous situations is to use them as sacrificial cannon fodder, and we are currently sacrificing them to a regime which is, in no small part, beginning to side with the fundamentalist Shia who are supported, both morally and logistically, by the crazed Mullahs of Iran.
At this point, the best option would be to redeploy our fantastic and courageous troops in the _real_ war against Islamofascism: we should begin the invasion of Iran as soon as possible. Iraq will get the message. The world will hate us for this, but that should not matter; it is our lives and the lives of our children which are at stake.
35 - Cobra
This is ridiculous. Who is the "enemy?" "Insurgents" is simply a definition for Iraqis who don't want foreigners occupying their country and are willing to fight back by any means neccessary. They are employing guerilla tactics and terrorism because it's about the only strategies proven effective against a technically superior armed force.
What is so hard to understand about this? There is no "Iraqi insurgent air force", "Iraqi insurgent navy", or "Iraqi insurgent armored division" to fight a conventional war, so why are you surprised that many nationalistic Iraqis have adopted terror and guerilla tactics to fight our occupying forces?
If you're wondering, "why don't some of the Iraqis just roll over and surrender", ask yourself that same question if you were in the same position.
Moneyrunner writes:
>>>"I believe the primary reason that the enemy is not called to adhere to the rules of war is racism. The Left, especially the Left, has long ago decided that "other people" (black, brown, Arab, etc.) are simply not capable of being held to "our" standards, so they are not."
Who is the "our" in "our" standards? I take it you're a white person. I'll ask you point blank--what are "WHITE STANDARDS?" You don't want to take a trip with me through American history and current society and discuss "white standards", because you don't have a conservative leg to stand on.
Exactly what "rules of war" has America followed? This administration rained down depleted uranium ordinance, the dust of which poisons both our own troops and Iraqi civilians. This administration used white phosphorous in Fallujah, which sears flesh down to the bone. This administration installed "shoot on sight" curfews in population centers. This administration's built secret prisons, torture centers, and crafted legislation that allows the President to suspend habeus corpus against any American citizen he sees fit with no judicial review. (remember the Patriot Act?)
But hey, Moneymaker...you've got the Karl Rove strategy down pat--blame it all on "brown people"
and liberals.
--Cobra
36 - MCH
"Very well put, Grayson. That Harry chooses not to see the obvious contrast you establish exposes his biases definitively."
- Dave Nalle
As Nalle again employs the old triangulation technique used by Gollum (Smeagol) in the "Lord Of The Rings"...
37 - Tim
Cobra, all the evidence to date suggests your description of the Iraqi insurgents is completely wrong. But I'm sure the insurgents appreciate any defense of their taking up arms against Americans, and will continue to count upon such support. Which, undoubtedly, too many Americans will continue to happily provide until the insurgents win.
Not that I'm questioning anyone's patriotism...I already know the answer.
38 - Cobra
Tim writes:
"Cobra, all the evidence to date suggests your description of the Iraqi insurgents is completely wrong."
Oh really?
"The US and Iraqi governments have vastly overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, and most of them don't come from Saudi Arabia, according to a new report from the Washington-based Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS). According to a piece in The Guardian, this means the US and Iraq "feed the myth" that foreign fighters are the backbone of the insurgency. While the foreign fighters may stoke the insurgency flames, they make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents."
An Iraqi Insurgency
"The Sunni Arab heart of the Iraqi insurgency seems likely to hold its strength the rest of the year, and some of its leaders are collaborating with Al Qaeda terrorists, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
In a report assessing the situation in Iraq, required quarterly by Congress, the Pentagon painted a mixed picture on a day when the U.S. military command in Baghdad said 1,500 more combat troops have arrived in Iraq. They are part of an intensified effort to wrest control of the provincial capital of Ramadi from insurgents.
The report to Congress offered a relatively dim picture of economic progress, with few gains in improving basic services such as electricity, and it provided no promises of U.S. troop reductions soon.
On the other hand, it said the Iraqi army is gaining strength and taking lead responsibility for security in more areas.
The U.S. government has struggled for three years to understand the shadowy insurgency in Iraq, which began in the Sunni Triangle west and north of Baghdad. In Tuesday's report, the Pentagon said the "rejectionists" who are a key element of the insurgency are holding their own.
"MNF-I expects that rejectionist strength will likely remain steady throughout 2006, but that their appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007," the report said. MNF-I refers to the Multinational Force-Iraq, the U.S. military command in Baghdad.
It also said for the first time that the Sunnis who reject the U.S.-based government are collaborating with Al Qaeda.
"Some hard-line Sunni rejectionists have joined Al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, increasing the terrorists' attack options," the report said."
What the Joint Chief Said about the Insurgency
So exactly where is this "evidence" that says I'm wrong about this insurgency? And what is this about American armed forces "winning" against this Insurgency?
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated in clear terms his belief that it is up to the Iraqi people themselves to defeat the insurgents in their country and that they are equal to the task.
"One thing I do believe very deeply ... I honestly believe that this
insurgency is going to be defeated by the Iraqi people and not by
coalition countries and not by the United States, and that our task is to give them, the Iraqi peoples an environment within which they can do that," Rumsfeld said.Donald Rumsfeld on the Insurgency
Now, I'd like to see YOUR sources on this issue, versus these.
Speaking of "patriotism", (which I believe your confusing with neo-con imperialism), if an invading army came to America, and surplanted the minority ethnic leadership (white males) with the historically oppressed (non-whites and women), would you fight back against that invading army, or appease it? Would you fight for the political, and socio-economic power in the new government, or capitulate, and bow to second-class citizenship?
Remember, the American Insurgency (Revolution) was a minority movement fought initially over taxation. What are you willing to fight and die for, Tim?
--Cobra
39 - Erelis
Dr. Ken,
"We do need to dust off the legal concept of reprisals, in which we can hold civilians responsble for attacks conducted by their terrorist neighbors."
That is an interesting point, and I confess I had to research briefly on reprisals. The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions prohibits any and all reprisals against civillians. The US, however, doesn't recognize this article as customary international law. The Brits specifically made a reservation to the article, making their adherence to it conditional on the enemy doing the same. They reserve the right to take proportional measures that to the extent that it compels the other side to cease its own violations. Perhaps we should take up the same legal position.
On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence that the insurgent groups will ever cease its violations. They seem quite at ease with bombing the civilians and justifying it as God's Will. They also know that heavy handed reprisals will simply feed their movement. While rounding up civilians for interrogation could be an effective strategy, the camps would immediately be denounced as gulags and added to the current list of US "sins" such as Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
40 - Moneyrunner
Who is the "our" in "our" standards? I take it you're a white person. I'll ask you point blank--what are "WHITE STANDARDS?" You don't want to take a trip with me through American history and current society and discuss "white standards", because you don't have a conservative leg to stand on.
“Our” Standards, my deluded friend are the standards that the MSM (and people like you?) presumably want to hold our troops to. If you don’t have any standards, don’t bitch about their actions. And yes, I’m white. I have standards. They don’t include killing my daughter for having an affair; but that’s probably just me.
Exactly what "rules of war" has America followed? This administration rained down depleted uranium ordinance, the dust of which poisons both our own troops and Iraqi civilians.
A lie.
This administration used white phosphorous in Fallujah, which sears flesh down to the bone.
A lie. (You got the message wrong, WP (according to the moonbats) is supposed to dissolve flesh but leave clothing intact.) If you’re going to lie, try to keep up.
This administration installed "shoot on sight" curfews in population centers.
A lie.
This administration's built secret prisons, torture centers, and crafted legislation that allows the President to suspend habeus corpus against any American citizen he sees fit with no judicial review. ,
A lie.
41 - JP
Moneyrunner, it goes without saying that using children to perpetrate terror and certain other techniques are barbaric and simply wrong. That said, most of us on the Left aren't suggesting "retreat and defeat", as one of you mentioned, but rather that this "War" should have been approached from a differetn angle altogether.
Specifically, Afghanistan rather than Iraq. We've introduced more terrorists into Iraq by our removal of Saddam without a plan to quickly establish a strong replacement.
42 - John Bambenek
An "insurgency" that consists of mostly foreign fighters using mostly foreign weapons and receiving mostly foreign money isn't quite an insurgency.
Is it really the US that's creating these terrorists or is it the local groups vying for power?
43 - troll
John - in April '06 the estimated number of insurgents was more than 20,000...the estimated number of foreign 'fighters' was 800 - 2,000
Iraq Index June 1, '06 pg 18
further - most insurgencies would use money and weapons from where ever I imagine
troll
44 - IgnatiusReilly
Moneyrunner, your comparison is apples and oranges. Cunningham was a national story because he sold out our nation's defense for money, gifts and prostitutes. Ballance funneled state money to his personal benefit, including his church. Which story do you think is sexier and sells more papers?
Grayson's lack of understanding history is would be funny if it wasn't so sad. We didn't just support the Shah. We were involved in a coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader to install the Shah, who did not treat his people as well as he treated the interests of Britian and US, so there was a little resentment after 20 years. But please continue to scratch your head and wonder why some in the Middle East might not trust out claims of installing democracy.
"it's why Al Gore tried to invalidate all those military votes in the 2000 election."
The military votes were postmarked incorrectly. Bush tried to invalidate votes that were improper and against the rules as well he should have. If the rules are bad, then change them afterwards, but you don't get to arbitrarily break them because it benefits you.
45 - John Bambenek
I'll review the Iraq Index, it contradicts other things I've read.
However, there is a difference between using resources from outside the country and that being your **primary** means of support. It's no secret that Iran and Syria are being "very helpful" in those who wish to create unrest.
46 - Tim
Cobra, yes, you are so very wrong.
Your citations are nearly a year old, stale, and have since been OBE. Most recent reports indicate your Ba’athist/Sunni/al Qaida insurgency average estimates of less than 20,000, with one early 2005 (vintage of the typical Cobra citation) report by the AFP indicating 200,000 insurgents and sympathizers. Just to give your facile argument a thin reed to prop itself up, even if the highest number was off by a factor of 5, your one million terrorists are still vastly outnumbered by Iraq’s other 25.8 million citizens. And, leaving aside the first election in which Iraqi’s defied your terrorists, of the 14 million eligible to vote out of the total population of 26.8 million, nearly 80% of them voted in the last election, including Sunnis generally regarded as sympathetic to your terrorists. Countless news reports since then indicate more and more Sunnis are actively participating in Iraq’s new government. Thus your implicit characterization of the “insurgency” as somehow “patriotic” is laughable on the evidence (and morally obscene, but the condition of your soul is your concern, not mine).
Additionally, while I said nothing about “American armed forces "winning" against this Insurgency,” I am confident the United States Army and Marine Corps, allied with Iraqi patriots, will defeat your terrorists by killing most of them. Lastly, I am not in the habit of answering America’s enemies as to my patriotism, but for the record you and your allies should know I’ve yet to renounce my oath to the Constitution, and cannot possibly imagine a scenario in which I would.
47 - Joe
Belmont club has an interesting post on theory of winning in the modern battlefield. All those in support of the iraqi insurgents, should read it. Here's a portion:
"The other interesting thing is how well the Wendt model works going the other way. An insurgency can little hope to defeat American "outputs". The Armed Forces as such can't be defeated in action. Instead an insurgency attacks the faucet, not the water. How? "Indirectly, through, by and with the local internal supporters[media] and population[Cobra, for example], using the correct carrots and sticks". Just hypothetically."
So which side do you want to win?
And yes I am questioning your patriotism...
48 - mschannon
What's truly pathetic about most of the right-wing comments here are their anti-intellectual, stereotypical, characterizations of what it means to be "left" or "liberal." There's more stupidity being splayed by the neocons on this thread than I've seen in ages.
It's not even worth going into in detail, but justifying the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo as a military tactic. There's not a military historian with an ounce of brain or integrity would suppport that position. They're two of the low points of American history.
And Bush and his cronies taking the "soft" option? The military experts who aren't afraid to talk are pissed because Bush had no option after beating an army that even the Boy scouts coulod have taken on. All the suggestions on winning the peace were rejected by Bush/Cheney/Rummy. The stupidity, incompetence, and downright negligence isn't liberal or conservative, left or right...it's strategic idiocy and should be seen as such.
The fact that the right can't ever admit that their beloved idiot-in-chief could be wrong is simply astounding.
In Decaf Veritas
49 - John Bambenek
At what point did people justify Dresden? Why is that coming up? To prove that sometimes the laws of war are violated by the US? Fine.
That's wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.
We're prosecuring our war criminals... that's the difference between us and the terrorists.
50 - Cobra
Moneymaker writes:""Our" Standards, my deluded friend are the standards that the MSM (and people like you?) presumably want to hold our troops to. If you don't have any standards, don't bitch about their actions."
First of all, the MSM is controlled by and large by white people. I would assume they're more like YOU, than me.
Moneymaker writes:"And yes, I'm white. I have standards. They don't include killing my daughter for having an affair; but that's probably just me."
Do you ONLY have a problem with unarmed Muslim women being shot by their fathers for having affairs, or do you find equal justification for American soldiers allegedly shooting them with no prior knowlege of sexual indiscretion?
Moneymaker, you claim I'm a "liar" about depleted uranium use in Iraq. Well - "When a DU round or bomb strikes a hard target, most of its kinetic energy is converted to heat" sufficient heat to ignite the DU. From 40% to 70% of the DU is converted to extremely fine dust particles of ceramic uranium oxide (primarily dioxide, though other formulations also occur). Over 60% of these particles are smaller than 5 microns in diameter, about the same size as the cigarette ash particles in cigarette smoke and therefore respirable.
Because conditions are so chaotic in Iraq, the medical infrastructure has been greatly compromised. In terms of both cancer and birth defects due to DU, only a small fraction of the cases are being reported.
Doctors in southern Iraq are making comparisons to the birth defects that followed the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII. They have numerous photos of infants born without brains, with their internal organs outside their bodies, without sexual organs, without spines, and the list of deformities goes on an on. Such birth defects were extremely rare in Iraq prior to the large scale use of DU. Weapons. Now they are commonplace. In hospitals across Iraq, the mothers are no longer asking, "Doctor, is it a boy or girl?" but rather, "Doctor, is it normal?" Breathing in Hell
If you don't believe them about DU, what say you about The National Gulf War Research Center's guidelines when encountering a zone where DU was deployed?
"Since there is so little known about DU it is hard to say for sure how to completely protect yourself without the proper gear, but to start with stay away from any vehicle, equipment, or structure which you believe may have been hit by DU rounds or Tomahawk cruise missiles. Do not pick up or collect DU rounds found lying on the ground. Inform NATO forces and/or relief workers (in writing, if possible) you suspect DU contamination of an area, and mark the area as potentially contaminated. If you are in a potentially contaminated area (such as near destroyed tanks), wear respiratory protection and gloves at a minimum, and adhere to good personal hygiene (wash frequently). Visually examine clothing and skin for deposition of black DU dust and decontaminate as needed. If you suspect you were exposed to DU dust or fragments, contact a physician or relief worker and arrange for a 24-hour urine test to be analyzed for U-238, U-235, U-234, and creatinine."
Fighting in Hell
--Cobra
51 - Cobra
Oh and Moneymaker...my "lie" on White Phosphorous?
"Unlike napalm, which in Vietnam left villagers and enemies alike with massive burns all over their bodies, white phosphorus burns down to the bone. Le The Thrung, a Vietnamese doctor studying white phosphorus burns in 1969, describes its effects on the skin: "[b]urning phosphorus produces 800-1,000 degrees centigrade heat. Scattered phosphorus particles go on consuming themselves and deepen burn wounds." Next, chemical compounds "create a chemical burn, like an acid, drawing water from the cells. This process generates great pain in the nervous system." Finally, white phosphorus compounds oxygenate and penetrate "the blood stream and white blood cells in the dermis, subdermis, and deeper skin layers." This creates what he calls an "organic toxicity [that] blocks off all blood circulation with the burn area." Burned in Hell
"US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said. "It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination. BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US."
Willy Pete in Fallujah
Shoot on sight curfews a "lie?" C'mon...Money. Do you sense a trend happening here?
"But reports from central Sunni cities say not all polling stations opened, and many voters stayed away out of fear of attack or opposition to the election itself.
Authorities had imposed an unprecedented series of security measures - including shoot-on-sight curfews, closed foreign borders, a ban on cars and travel restrictions within Iraq.
Despite the measures, the capital was hit by nine suicide bombings and a number of mortar attacks."
Shoot first no questions
Tim writes:"I am confident the United States Army and Marine Corps, allied with Iraqi patriots, will defeat your terrorists by killing most of them. Lastly, I am not in the habit of answering America's enemies as to my patriotism, but for the record you and your allies should know I've yet to renounce my oath to the Constitution, and cannot possibly imagine a scenario in which I would."
There you go again. The "terrorists", (which are seperate from insurgents) are not mine. You consider me an "enemy of America" because I question the foolish waste of blood and money this neo-con inspired Iraq quagmire is? Are you even READING what our own Militay leaders are saying? Donald Rumsfeld? The Joint Chiefs? You honestly think that our invasion and occupation of an Arab country in the Middle East has REDUCED terrorism? Not by the CIA estimates. Knee-jerk jingoism is not an impressive debate tactic, Tim.
--Cobra
52 - handyguy
I understand there may be self-styled intellectuals, particularly in Europe, who actually cheer on the Sunni insurgency (whose primary victims are other Iraqis). If so, then they are morally (and intellectually) reprehensible.
Of course mass slaughter is horrifying " whether caused by American action, Saddam's thugs, or insurgent guerrillas. But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that one or more of the categories of slaughter is less awful or is irrelevant. They are all awful, they are all relevant.
53 - Nicky
I do not think we should have dropped the bombs! We should have just fought in a regular war and ended it. The bombs were too much and we will always remember the ones who died that day, that year! May God bless all of the ones who survived this horrific tragedy!
54 - Nicky Mo!
It seems like the US army were too scared to fight the others so they just dropped those bombs! Although I live in the United States, I feel really sorry for the ones who did that. So for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I'm really sorry that happened! Just know that the ones who dropped them, they will never forget it and will always regret it! Take Care-all of you! With Love and Care, ME!