I don't recall Iraq bombing Pearl Harbor or sweeping across Europe in blitzkrieg fashion. It's not that outrageous that many would find the unintentional killing of civilians somewhat more disturbing in a war that many think was wholly unnecessary in the first place.
On the topic of tactics; let's decry the innocent deaths in Iraq as the result of collateral acts of war committed in a war zone. But let's not forget the fact that a couple of years ago some of those "foreign fighters" deliberately, and with substantial planning, willfully attacked 50,000 innocent civilians who were thousands of miles away from any "war zone." The fact that ONLY 3,000 of those civilians died was a miracle. Let's just remember those dead as well. I for one, doubt that we would all be having this conversation if THAT act had not happened, whether there is a direct link to Iraq or not.
Ah, but it is a rule on BS and Fox News that we compare Iraq with WWII at every opportunity. Didn't you know?
Again, you're conflating "the enemy" into one entity. There's the indigenous insurgents, and the foreign insurgents. I'm only talking about the former. The latter are the most immoral fighters in Iraq.
don't know where you read your history....what makes you think the russians could have done what the germans couldn't ? remember Britain was fighting that war...mostly alone, for two years before the USA got involved. At the start of WWII the Royal Navy was the strongest in the world, the reason the germans couldn't invade England was because they couldn't get their troops over 25 miles of English Channel....the russians would have had the same problem...
Sort of. The reason they adopt guerrilla tactics is because we don't fight fair. We use night vision, air power, body armor, armored vehicles. Irregular warfare is a countertactic, not a tactic. It's a paradox...our unfair advantages, which at first glance only a moron would oppose (I mean, who the hell wants more dead Americans), create the very things that your side is complaining about.
Well, yeah, but on what basis do you think this is the mathematical equation we're working from??????
So tell me, from your ivory tower in Norway, do you truly believe the US would be in Iraq right now if 9/11 had not happened?!!!
Bush's propaganda team might not have been able to overcome the manifest stupidity of the Iraq adventure, you're right there. But that's not what he meant.
had saddam been left alone then sooner or later he would have aquired WMD that, given his history seems an obvious fact...who knows how many he would have killed then ? now he has been removed and I for one am very much in favor of that.
From my ivory cubicle here in South Louisiana: yes SuperDave, still waiting for some corroboration on the different methods employed by the al-Zarqawi vs. Sunni militants vs. Baathists vs. Shia militants.
Here we go again, poster located in Norway, must be Norwegian. Are you advocating that we should have been if sept. 11th hadn't of happened? Because it sure read like you were.
If you have read the Duelfer report, at least more than CBS released, you would see he made your point. Saddam was just waiting for things to settle down so he could get back into the game, including nukes.
The legitimacy of the Iraq invasion aside, how can you compare the two conflicts? We've been in 'control' of the country for most of this period. I'm willing to wager that nearly all of the civilian casualties in WWII happened BEFORE we obtained the surrender of the German and Japanese governments. And the technology was different--if you're comparing B-17's to modern smart bombs, you're either ignorant or playing dumb. Also, WWII was a prolonged, total war against militarily formidible enemies with highly industrialized war industries. For years, we were bombing factories and other centers of productions in urban areas by dumping bombs out of high flying airplanes. That's so different from the situation in Iraq that I fail to see how you could think you were making any sort of valid comparison.
Of course not. 9/11 changed everthing. I have no proof but I sincerely doubt Bush could haven't gained Congressional approval for Iraq without the background of the attempt to slaughter 50,000 innocent civilians on 9/11. I think we would have continued to let the UN embarass themselves being led around by the nose by Saddam from sand pile to camel dung heap.
And had Superman been born in Iraq, we'd need HMVs armored with kryptonite. Counterfactual rationalizations to justify war make baby Jesus puke.
READ. I do NOT think we would be in Iraq now had 9/11 not happened. But it did and we are. End of story.