Do you agree that we're up against cowards in Iraq?

Question

I visited Gettysburg for memorial day weekend and it's crazy to compare war then and war now. Back then soldier fought soldier. If they couldn't compete in terms of numbers or firepower, they retreated; rather then going after civilians of the other side. In that battle, at Gettysburg only ONE civilian died, and it was from a stray bullet through a door. Even the Japanese in WWII attacked a military target rather than a civilian one. Does it bother anyone that now in todays modern war against terrorism, we're fighting cowards who hide behind and kill civilians rather than fight face to face with our soldiers?

No offense but I have little respect for anyone who says "strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up dozens of innocent people" is brave.

And to the person who says we target civilians.. wow so disillusioned. Civilians die in war yes, but it's a matter of specifically targetting them. Killing civilians does nothing in terms of furthering a cause. Even when the terrorists killed thousands of people on 9/11, it didn't further their cause; it made it harder.

Big difference between targetting civilians specifically and civilians dying via military targetting.

Answer 1

Yes i do agree, Bin Laden seems to tell everyone it's a great thing to die for the cause, but he's hiding in a cave somewhere (real brave). The insurgents are the same way, blend in with the rest of the population. Stand up and be a man about it, you want to fight then fight like a man.

Answer 2

It appears someone here has a rosy picture of what the Japanese did to the Chinese (and other Asian countries), beginning from 1931 and lasting until 1945. Yes, the Japanese air force bombed cities, and yes in those cities there were more civilians than there were military targets. As they expanded their empire, so did the aerial bombing of capital cities (Chong Qing, Singapore, and Manila to name a few). These actions were even condemned by America at the time (late 1930s), but then adopted by the very same Americans to defeat the Germans and the Japanese.

The method that the insurgents in Iraq choose, or that the Viet Cong chose in Vietnam do not bother me - I think the concepts of "bravery" and "cowardice" disappeared some where in the trenches of World War I. Since none of the air force dropping bombs overhead will ever fight "face to face, your idea of a "fair fight" no longer exists. What truly bothers me is when people make false claims such as "Even the Japanese in WWII attacked a military target rather than a civilian one."

Answer 3

You conclude from one battle that no previous war targeted civilians?

Uh, you need to read up on your history a bit more.

Targeting civilians has only fairly recently in history become a war crime -- which doesn't mean it still isn't done.

Bush has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

Dropping cluster bombs on residential areas, for instance, murdered 6 month old babies and 98 year old grandmothers -- he didn't care about what he calls "collateral damage" (murdering civilians); he did it anyway.

My point is that this idea of yours that only Iraqi insurgents target civilians is simply factually false.

So, you think that if a country 1,000 more powerful than yours invades, and you fight back, that would make you a coward?

We illegally and immorally invaded a country that was no threat to us.

We rounded up tens of thousands of civilians, and tortured and raped them for months before releasing them because they were not terrorists nor had any knowledge of terrorists.

We've destroyed the infrastructure of the country (leading to deaths among the youngest citizens, due to things like lack of water, lack of medical care).

Why is it brave when we slaughter 2-year olds from planes, and cowardly when they do it upfront?

(Lest you be misled, I oppose all targeting of civilians, whoever commits it, unlike you, apparently.)

You could type +Dresden +"fire-bombing" into your favorite search engine for a historical example of the U.S. being utterly careless of mass murder of civilians.

But it's not just us who have done it; murdering civilians in time of war has a long history.

The difference is that now it's considered a crime against humanity under international law.

No matter who does it.

No, I don't agree.

We are up against the enraged and deluded, not cowards.

But then we're the war ciminals in this war, too -- and we're the ones who started it.

Answer 4

"Even the Japanese in WWII attacked a military target rather than a civilian one."

"the war is a direct result of 911 which i belive was a inside job."

"there is no comparison s between soldiers and these stinking retarded cowards who like to hide and take pot shot's and then run away"

The ignorance is palpable.

Answer 5

You may want to expand your research. PLENTY of civilians died during the Civil War and the Japanese Rape of Nanking is considered one of the wars worst atrocities towards civilians of WWII. War is and always has been hell. I'm not sure if coward is the word I'd use for those we fight in Iraq. They think they can win by playing by different rules, like the Viet Cong and French Resistance before them. We can't negotiate with them, so we have little choice but to destroy them before they do unto us.

Answer 6

The Muslims are greatly out numbered by a technologically superior enemy. Anyone with a brain would agree that fighting a guerrilla war is the best tactic to use. Our own history shows us that guerrilla tactics are often very successful
when fighting a less mobile larger enemy. How is that cowardly? Keep in mind that the Muslim factions consider the US army to be invaders who seem bent on destroying their religion as well as their country.

Answer 7

To be quite honest, i find it cowardly for a country to attack another country. Come on...america INVADED iraq. And why is it cowardly to hide behind civilians? The fact that one country started the war in iraq gives everyone there the right to hide from the nonsense beliefs of certain presidents. There is only ONE coward...and that's bush. I'm sorry, i'm catholic, live in holland, love the usa, i aprreciate what that country has done for the world...but it's being led by the biggest and most cowardly terrorist around...and i find that a shame:(

EDIT: i see someone saying bin laden is a coward by hiding. The same can be said about bush. He leads young men into war, and into death, separating them from their families, while he resides in his big white house. Why doesnt he go into war and show how great a man he is??

Answer 8

the respond is definite.. They did commence some thing they could no longer end. data of what you spot immediately. the clarification they called all human beings against the conflict traitors is via manipulation the anger of the human beings after 9/11 they have been waiting to get us right into a conflict decrease than fake pre tenses and robust records. via calling all opposed Traitors they stored maximum individuals from examine their fake memories..

Answer 9

You have to realize that Allah is telling them to kill, and it really doesn't matter to them who they kill. Radical Muslims have a history of flat out murder from behind. Look at the original assasins, the Old Man of the Mountain. They killed by stabbing in the back, or while the killed was asleep. It's religions, so there is no fair or brave, and they really don't care how many of their own they kill as long as they get at least one of us. Again, it's religious cowardice and there is no answer to that. During the Crusades, there were times when the Arabs stood and fought bravely, but there were other times when they stole into the knights' camp and murdered them in their sleep, and both were equally right in the eyes of Allah to them

Answer 10

Far from a Coward, Lunatics yes strapping explosives to yourself & blowing yourself up is is not a coward actually thats pretty brave action