"How come it is called "legimate war" when civilians in Iraq get killed by americans, but US homefront is warned of possible "terrorist acts" if Iraq retaliates?
Because of the uniforms?
...just wondering."
You cannot possibly be serious...or are you?
A "legitimate war" as you call it, will not target civilians, it will target the enemy military. In other words, "my military against your military". Simply, my armed troops against your armed troops. Is it possible for civilians to get killed in a so called "legitimate war"? Yes, but the US military strives to keep civilian deaths to a minimum.......ZERO civilian deaths is what they shoot for.
"Terrorist acts" are in a completely different category. These are chickenshits who lack the courage to take on someone who is armed or trained to deal with the threat. Waging "war" or "jihad" by strapping a bunch of TNT or C4 to yourself and boarding a bus to detonate it and kill folks who are no threat to you is a terrorist act. Hijacking an airliner and flying it and the passengers into a building is a terrorist act. Both are examples of taking the lives of innocents, or noncombatants, just to prove a point. Don't know about you, but the only point they prove to me is that they, or their religion they are "fighting" for, care very little about human life.
When was the last time you heard of a US military action that involved hijacking an airliner full of passengers and crashing it into an area full of other noncombatants?
Sometimes I wonder what the rest of the "civilized" world would think if we leveled the playing field and used the terrorists rules against them? Answer: We would be termed barbarians, and rightly so. If we located and wiped out the desert training camps used by various terrorist organizations, killing everyone in each camp, the world outcry would be enormous........all the "innocent people" who had died, just for associating with an organization that blatantly plotted murder just to make themselves feel important.
IMO, Hussein should have been dealt with years ago, like 10 or more years ago. But the UN, in it's infinite wisdom, chose to sit on it's hands and make resolutions that are not worth the paper they are written on. Someone has to step up and make the hard decisions, buck the system, and take the guy out. UN sanctions did not kill Iraqis, Sadam Hussein did. Does he look unhealthy? If people are starving there because of the UN sanctions, how can he afford to keep his military up and build himself palaces?
I am not totally comfortable with what we are doing in Iraq, but I trust GWB to make the right decisions based on the intelligence he gets from our sources, be they American or from another country.
I do know this much: As long as Bush is in office, we in America finally have a leader who is going to take a hard line on the killing of Americans "just because they are Americans". Call it idealism, call it blind loyalty, but growing up I remember my sister being told not to travel overseas because Americans were being targeted by terrorists just for the simple fact that she was Americans The individual person did not have to have done anything wrong, just being an American made you a target.
That likely won't stop now, but we have a leader in office now who will do everything in his power to make it a risk to do that now.
Maybe I misread you question, but if not, you have my reply.
