We don't target civilians? Really? Oh, wait ... we call it collateral damage. Shoot, I bet if those on the otherside had super hightech weapons, they'd be calling our civilian dead, "collateral damage," too. It's all about PR and plausible deniability.

Oh, didn't we target those folks in Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Dresden? The various hamlets in Viet Nam? The peasants in Cambodia? CIA directed death squads against priests and nuns and other enemies of the state in Central and South America? Libya?

__________________

You are correct on all counts.

You cannot define war in moralistic terms. They have committed atrocities against us, we commit atrocities against them. There is no justice in war, no right side or wrong side. Welcome to social darwinism, they are the weaker party and that makes them wrong. The most humane thing to do is end the conflict as quickly as possible and make that ending so brutal and final that there would never again be questions of further conflict.

I will always maintain that atomic weapons have saved more lives than they have ever taken. It is the mere fact that World War Two was so horrible that has kept World War Three at bay.

Had we entered Iraq with a half million troops and assumed the entire population was hostile, they would have a stable (not democratic) government and we wouldn't be there now.

So how would you propose this? Each action of war produces, in the target population, resentment and a willingness to resist (which is moral and legal). What you propose could very well entail murdering the entire population until resistance is futile; that is ... everyone is dead.

Aside from this being impossible, it would have ramifications for the United States among the other "civilized" nations in the world.

World War II didn't prevent further wars. In fact, we had our World War III. It was called the Cold War though it was very heated in various places throughout the world. Just because we Americans weren't particularly affected, doesn't change this reality.

This is a big assumption for anyone to make. How do you think the local population would react? What happens when we've imposed our will and leave? The Soviets went in with overwhelming force, look what that got them.

__________________

..look, the arabs looked to us to evacuate saddam from Kuwait.....who else would they think of asking? WE have the power AND we don't expect much except they keep the oil flowing...considering history in its totality etc. they are the clear winners...they get paid, we protect them from beings of our own and their making, and continue to proselytize along harsh and intolerant lines….they being the pan arab gov. who benefited by having saddam cut down to size....

As in nature, so it is in geo-politics, there is always a balance hence another side of the coin- that being they WILL flow the oil, they will like it or not and see a degradation of their culture ( thought they do their best to have it both ways, fund madrassahs, sip cognac and drive benzs) and put up with any annoyances regards meddling from outside…that being us, russia france etc…

they cut cards with the devil and they know the price…..Bin Laden is a guy who thinks the whole situation sux a mop…maybe he really does object to the wests’ meddling and the cultural pollution……but hes taking it up with the wrong end of the stick…..hes beating the ass when he should be beating the saddle….that being the nations that sell to us and allow the status quo to go on…..

bringing down 2 buildings was fantastic, well executed scheme, kudo’s….. but it didn’t help him a bit, in fact it boomeranged on his own head..he got more US/ western interference in the ME than ever before. If he had taken down one of the towers in Dubai, or the tallest building in Riyadh, he might have been better off…

In simple street terms…the Johns aren’t going to go away, you have to sweep the street of the whores…..he should be making his case to the Arabs on the street to revolt etc. and change their own governments…governments that would supposedly then end any collusion with the west.

__________________
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile....

1st: There was no resistance in Nazi Germany, their country was a burned out hulk, their civillian population was dejected and shattered, and their government was non existent. In fact, the majority of the German populace was absolutely begging to surrender to American troops. Mostly because the only other option was to surrender to the Russian Red Army who was murdering and raping their way across eastern Europe.

Japan, again their cities were reduced to rubble, Tokyo burned to the ground. Hell, we nuked them... No resistance...

Today these two countries are the 2nd and 5th largest economies in the world have progressive democratic governments and are firmly allied with the west.

2nd: You are arguing semantics the cold war was most certainly not "World War 3" It was "The Cold War" By World War 3 I mean total war between large powers across every continent (mabe not Antartica) Judging from the 20 odd million deaths attributed to the first World War ramped up to the 100+ million deaths caused by the 2nd, we would be talking about 1billion+ casualties and probably the collapse of human civilization as we know it. I may be wrong, but Im fairly certain that that didn't happen, though we came real close a few times.

Picture this, 1950, America is reeling from the still un pacified, invasion of Japan that has taken 5 years, 500 thousand casualties and has spurred an incredibly popular insurgency loyal to the still defiant emperor. The US cannot afford to put the Marshal Plan into effect there by leaving Western Europe weak and unstable. Stalin uses this opportunity to roll across the continent unchecked where he continues to purge Jews, Intellectuals, and Liberals. The Soviet empire now spans across Europe, and 2/3rds of Asia, and mankind starts on its second dark age.

Thank god we nuked the crap out of Japan and none on that happened.

3rd: Yes it is a big assumption, but what is the biggest complaint of every Iraqi? There is not enough security. Whats the point of having a democratic government if it falls apart the next day. Judging from the recent success of the troop surge it would seem that there is some sort of correlation between more troops and more security. Instead we went in half-assed, told a population that has NEVER had a democratic government to create one in 2 years, and then get frustrated when none of it works.

Perhaps he was thinking that any attempts to destabilize a state would have been met with quick American interference, especially if that state exported petroleum onto the world market. Break off that interference first, then mess with the states he wants to "reform." I think that plan of his for the US is still drawing out, the bleeding to bankruptcy thing and so forth - but perhaps he's changed gears now. Look at al Qaida's efforts in Pakistan and the resurgence in Afghanistan. Failed states are perfect breeding grounds for all those organizations that exist outside of - and generally in spite of - sovereign states. And in the instance of a large regional state collapsing, such as Afghanistan entirely or Pakistan, America is pretty busy in the Middle East now, Iraq particularly, largely thanks to the shift in domestic politics caused by OBL's massacre.

A lot of things can come in the next few decades, hopefully America plays its cards right.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

If the son of Bin Laden is looking for peace, then please someone give him a gun to shoot his father. Bin Laden has reached a status of one of the biggest mass murderers in history.

I think the original author was indicating that we do not "intentionally target" civilians. You can't say the same about Bin Laden.

And your plan to fight a war or defend this country would be?