Thanks, UN! We're saved!

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Elfie
How do you equate bombing a US Federal building resulting in 160 deaths to a war where strategic targets are hit?

Because they are both Federal Buildings?  Timothy McVeigh was just as "at war" with the U.S. Govt as we are with Iraq.

[Skydancer]

"I'm also concerned with the Right Wing's portrayal of anyone who doesn't agree with Bush as unpatriotic or pro-terrorist. Disagreeing with the Govt. is what America is all about. It's the most AMERICAN thing you can do. At least it SUPPOSED to be.
One thing to remember... this country is run by rich, old, white men. "

"Now.... I don't even know anyone who thought the War in Iraq was a good idea, or was properly researched, planned, or executed. But I'm just an old fat white guy. But I have little cash so no one in the current administration gives a rats oscar what I think. "

At last someone who doesn't just spout rightwing kneejerk crap! The real Voice of America? There is hope. Skywolf

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm not sure what the number of deaths have to do with it.  How many Iraqi federal employees died in the destruction of thier federal buildings?

I can compare them because they are both federal buildings.  And the US government believes that federal buildings are legitimate targets.

Timothy McVeigh was an extremist who was trying to make a statement. He belonged to a small group of like minded radicals. His act in no way compares to the US military striking legitimate military targets. In war, enemy governments are a legitimate target.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Munkii
Because they are both Federal Buildings?  Timothy McVeigh was just as "at war" with the U.S. Govt as we are with Iraq.

Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings.

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Elfie
Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings.

I totally agree.  Personally the OKC bombing was much worse than WTC.  It's just McVeigh thought he needed to bomb the place to make a statement, but he was "at war" with the government.  We are "at war" with Iraq.

[Thrawn]

Elfie, look up the word "compare" then look up the word "contrast".



"Only in his own mind. I think we both agree that there are far better ways to resolve issues with ones own gov't than resorting to bombing Federal buildings."

Or rebelling against the King?



PS: The US didn't declare war on Iraq.

[SkyWolf]

Originally posted by Elfie
His act in no way compares to the US military striking legitimate military targets. In war, enemy governments are a legitimate target.

Well..... assuming the War is legitimate to begin with then that may be true. I seem to remember hearing that there may have been some small uncertainty on the part of a few as to the legitimacy of the Iraq War. At least it seems like I may have seen that somewhere.  Anyway, whenever the US has gone to "war" since WWII they have followed rules of engagement that allow the enemy plenty of safehavens and places to aim from. Wars can only be won if they have very few rules. Anything else spares the lives of the "enemy" at the expense of our own soldiers lives. The ability to destroy an enemy force only works if you use that ability. I also seem to recall that war sucks and might even be a thing to be avoided.

Woof