war what is it good for

it's not if you win or lose,it's how you play the game.We should all be happy cause we killed the bad guy?What about the child we killed in the process?

 

absolutely nothing... uhh

 

Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs, so I question whether we should have bombed the rat out.

although, he had orchastrated the suicide bombings which left thousands of victims, including many children.

I'm not justifying the childs death, but many more children will be safe with zarqawi dead.

 

Bombs should not be used in areas where it is know there are civilians. When America does this they are as bad as the terrorists. Civilian casualties should be avoided as much as possible.

 

Yay for ANOTHER post about the war.
*yawn*

 

Hey you choose to read it

 

Ha ha! That was thinking it was some interesting tidbit or viewpoint that I haven't already seen/read. Oh well.

 

Casualties of war happen.... get over it, and let the bombs fall

 

So it would be ok if it were you or your family that caught a bomb? even if it was unnecessary?

Killing innocent people is ok as long as it's in the name of war?!? Hellll no.

 

If I was living in the middle of a war zone than the posiblities are pretty damn high that I'm going to get hit

 

So you'd be ok with that? and you wouldn't mind if we said oh well if he dies it's part of war, civilian casualties happen?

 

Well, becareful what you say. There is a strong possibility that the war will be brought to us. America has been "safe" a long time. Anything can happen, and if they want it bad enough, they will attack us. Perhaps not planes dropping bombs, but something.

 

Killing innocent people is what happens in war.

The alternative was to let Zarqawi continue to kill thousands or to send in infantry?

Sending in infantry might have been even worse. The kid would have been used in a hostage in that case.

Of course kid killing is wrong, but if we had known there was a kid in there, we wouldn't have done it. These people hide behind a smokescreen of civilians and very unfortunatly, these civilians become casualties too.

Theres a knot in my stomach about this whole thing, but I don't know what we could have done differently, and Zarqawis death will mean many more children will live.

 

"They" do want to attack 'us' and thats what they've been doing. Since the 70's at least. violent islamist militias have been trying to attack us since that time.

And they have on several occasions. They haven't been overwhelmingly successful, and it's not their lack of ambition that's keeping them from being so successful.

These people are inspired by 'god' and will not stop at anything to destroy the west. The stated goal of Al Qaeda is the destruction of secular governments. (non theocratic governments)

 

So there was no way to get him without bombing? I highly doubt that. Use bombs and save troopes, who cares who else gets killed. That is the way the US army works.

You mean like bombing Bagdad and other cities full of children? I don't think they care who was there as long as it wasn't one of theirs.

 

I don't have to worry cause where I live they will never be near here....
UNLESS they drop the big one, but then not many ppl will escape the doom

 

Well sniping wasn't an option because he wasn't in a visible area, and from the intellegence we had, he was in a meeting with other Al Qaeda in Iraq members.

We didn't know the meeting was in someones house with a kid. Bombing a building is usually a better option because it does save troops, but in this case, a child was killed, which was obviously very tragic.

And reducing casualites are the way all armies work. We're not fighting an army, we're fighting a coalition of terrorists who use children as shields.

That's absurd, every city has children. Should we allow them all to be overrun by militants who don't care for children at all?

An innocent child isn't really that much different from an innocent adult. The casualties are horrific and should be minimized.

But they'll happen, and letting these people have free reign in the middle east isn't an option because they are racist militants who will stop at nothing to bring down Iraq, including blowing themselves up to kill as many civilians (including children) as possible.

 

Terrorists probably don't have a nuke, and even if they did, they probably wouldn't have the means to drop it, so I wouldn't worry about that.

 

Your right Lodui... They try to reduce casualites, but there will always be innocent casualites during war

 

War's a giant fucking disorderly fuck up in order to make peace.

So it should be a last resort. But it is preferable to genocide.