Your reply might have mollified somewhat your sense of outrage that a fellow American feels the attack on Pakistani villagers was wrong, but it will do little else, unfortunately.

But where is the outrage that innocents, in spite of our rationalizations and justifications, were killed? Wouldn't it have been better had the vehicle al-Zawahiri was riding in been targeted instead of a dwelling where non-combatants were also known to be? I think English Horn had an excellent suggestion.

That's the problem: If killing innocents falls within our parameters of acceptable losses, then it will continue.

Obviously and if we had that info the Predator could have done just that.

First we have no idea how many “innocents” were there and second even when traveling these men may bring women and children with them. There will never be a war that is safe for “innocents”. What we can say is that the US has by far the best record of avoiding the killing of non-combatants.



AGAIN – there is NO other way to use deadly weapons to kill an enemy and be sure no “innocents” will not be killed as well especially if the enemy surrounds himself with them. Yes it may continue until the terrorists are dead or give up. Using your criteria we would have had to leave Europe to the Germans and China to the Japanese. Would that have been “better” for “innocents”.

We cannot change the past. We can only work in the present.

If we continue on our present course, there will be continued warfare, with widows and orphans on our side and theirs. Many, many, many more lives, noble and worthy lives, will be fodder for the conflict. American flags will continue to fly more often at half staff than at full-staff. A fatigue will settle in as the wars continue, and a draft will be reinstated as Americans lose their taste for sending their best and brightest to some foreign land.

And just what will be learned? That we survived? Not all of us. Maybe the children of the wealthy, who don't have to take a job in the military in order to put food on the table.

But killing is what the human race has done for millenia, so it is what it does best. And each time we rationalize the deaths of those who aren't involved, we perpetuate the low regard we hold for life.

What if Dr. Martin Luther King had said "Kill Whitey" in response to the lynchings that were taking place in Missississippi and other southern states? Aren't we glad that he was a man of peace? And yet our society scorns people who want to take the cause of peace further to encompass countries and their relations with other countries.

If we never try other solutions they never will work.

I give up. Obviously you are a pacifist and that is fine. IMO we have the following choices:

1 give in to all AQ demands. That is leave the middle east and end all support for Israel. Convert to Islam? To do less would not satisfy AQ.

2 Defeat the terrorists while doing our best to win the hearts and minds (where possible) of the people in the area. This does NOT mean we can insure that in defeating AQ we will never kill an innocent or that we can satisfy every faction. Those that want to kill all “non-Muslims” and cannot be reasoned with must be dealt with. I vote to kill them before they kill us.


Since it is not possible that we could satisfy Bin Laden and most America’s do not want to just forgive him for murdering 3,000 Americans (and I agree with them) I guess the war goes on. What you can be sure of is that in this war the number of “innocents” killed will be lower than any war in history.

Lets agree to end it at that ok?
Thanks

I can understand and appreciate this viewpoint. We could get further into this discussion, but I think it another topic. Suffice it to say I think it boils to nationalist issues, which value ones citizens lives over another. Until that changes, then these issues will continue.




I have no problem with alternative solutions. However, in situations such as this, I can't envision any that will work. I'm open to suggestions, though.

The problem that I have with this is that it makes it look as if we had to find a reason to bomb the place if al-Zwahiri wasn't there. The fact terrorists were at the location was good reason enough for the strike. Having al-Zwahiri there was an added bonus. Do you really believe that we wouldn't have struck an area where known insurgent fighters were at?



Look, I'm not all that crazy about Iraq, never have been. With that being said, let it not be forgotten that we were not the ones who did dispicable actions first. They started this problem and now we're going to finish it. It's not our military that is the bad guys in the war against al-Qaeda. Name me one war where civilians weren't killed-doesn't mean that you should just lie down and let the unpersuadable roll over you.

Al Qaeda attacked the Trade Center to kill the maximum amount of civilians as possible. That is not even remotely close to drone airstrikes to take out a terrorist mastermind.

And that is exactly why we are better than them.

Excellent point, the difference lies on intent. They intend to kill with maximum effect near the person/object they are aiming for, we seek to do so to the minimal risk of others near the target. Major difference between us, which is why we shouldn't confuse our military with those who are the "bad guys." Not only that, but we will pay restitution and apologize through the appropriate channels-they never do, as a matter of fact, they gloat about it and broadcast beheadings whenever they get the chance.

I may have to rethink the idea that Musharraf and company have quietly given the U.S. the okay to launch missiles at Pakistan. Apparently this is the third recent attack without the “ally’s” permission.


What is going on? Why/when did cooperation between our intelligence agencies and Pakistan's break up? Are we wasting agents' time making them chase thousands of dead end leads? Is it the Religious Right’s high priority item, the War on Porn? Is it keeping track of that revolving door between eastern European and North African black site detention centers? Does Bush need a GWoT boost in the polls?

O.k., turns out that Condoleeza Rice had a chance to apologize on behalf of the government, she refused to do so. While I'm glad that four terrorists died, the deaths of children are something our government needs to be above board and honest about. It's very hard to support this administration's foreign policy(especially democrats like me who aren't McGovernites) when they do callous things like this and refuse to be honest about it. You won't hear it on A.D. a lot, so jot this down-I was wrong in stating that we would apologize. I hope that I'm not wrong in regards to compensating the families.

Thanks Nebraska, for that article. I've always liked Rice, but the absence of an apology, whether by her own volition or orders from the boss, was truly pathetic. As a free country supposedly engaged in a noble fight, we should have no absence of humility and compassion when we make mistakes and cause the loss of innocent life.

I disagree. US Foreign policy is no better than fundamentalist terrorism. Neither of these barbaric poles are an acceptable choice. Here is why:

Do I need to remind everyone here that it was the US Government who created, funded and armed todays "terrorists" against the "commies". (Especially during the Soviet Invasion of Afganistan) Now that communism is no more, the created turns against the creator.

US has armed and funded many dictators (Ex: Pinochet), terrorists (Ex: Osama during the Afgan War v1.0) and governments that violate human rights (Israel) in the past century and many innocents have died because of this. Let us discuss Saudi Arabia, Israel, Chile, Afganistan, Vietnam and then talk about "intent".

If with all of its experts and analysts, the US Government believes that they can destroy terrorism with more violence, than they are either too naive or watch too much of Hollywood. (The third and the most probable thing is that terrorism is just an excuse for war.) Terrorism is not something that appeared in just one night. It is a result of many factors including third world poverty, the "Cold War", effects of corporate industry on less developed countries... Unless you deal with the social, economical and cultural effects of "Globalisation", more violence will just add more recruits to the terrorist cause.

This attack we are discussing is brutal and barbaric. While the US and the "terrorists" try to get eachother, innocents die. Apologizing does not make anything better to the dead or the orphaned. This is not the first case of US killing civilians and saying "Oooops, we didn't mean to...", nor will it be the last if the facade called WoT continues. (Don't get me wrong, terrorism is a disease that must be cured. But violence is not the solution)

As Isaac Asimov said: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

OKay then... lets talk about intent.

What was the US intention behind all these interventions? Why did the USA arm various regional forces against the Soviet Union?

Have you forgotten just who and what the Soviet Union was? As a Turk, surely you are aware of the fact that the USA also armed your country against the threat of Soviet invasion...?

What was the US intention when it armed Turkey? or Denmark? or all of the rest of the non communist world?

I can readily agree that the USA is not innocent of projecting its agenda into places where it is not always wanted, but lets not lose perspective here. US Foreign policy is not a 'barbaric polar opposite' to fundamentalist terrorism.

To even suggest such a thing is to ignore the many benefits the USA has helped bring to the world whilst ignoring the pure evil of Islamic extremist ideology. I don't know how you can suggest that these two opposing forces are in any sort of moral equilibrium at all, especially given the history of your own country which only survived the threat of Soviet expansion because the USA armed and aided it.


All war is an exersize in will.

If the USA does not stand up to those forces that threaten it and meet them with an appropriate response then how long will the USA and its allies continue to enjoy the wealth and luxury of democracy?


I agree that the US forces are too quick to use over whelming force but on the other hand I have to admit that if I were in their shoes I would do the same thing.

The biggest problem the USA faces is not the military threat of the terrorists, but rather the lack of resolve on the part of the western populations who see the reality of war wrought upon the innocent.

If however we decide to not fight, to always resort to diplomacy then all we're doing is winding the clock back to 1939.

Freedom is worth fighting wars for and fighting wars means innocent people will die.

The only real decision has to be where the fight takes place. In our lands or there's and only a fool would welcome a war in his own land.


Tell that to the victims.

War is a part of human culture. It always has been and likely always will be. There is no getting around it. Isaac Asmiov might have been a gifted writer of science fiction but he never had to defend any one's life.

When I am under attack, I will place my faith in the armed services and not in the moral ambiguity of writers of fiction. No matter how much I like their work.

As Sun Tzu wrote:

I disagree. US Foreign policy is no better than fundamentalist terrorism. Neither of these barbaric poles are an acceptable choice. Here is why:



During the cold war, the enemy of your enemy was your friend. And why is it that communism is no more? Was it due to the Dalai Lama and peace talks? The answer had to do with the fact that the people we supported through supplies, defeated those that the Soviets supported. Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA rebels in Africa, the Contras, not to mention propping up Greek forces after WWII was the major reason as to why communism didn't win this war. While I respect your pacifist tendencies, I fail to see how a powerful and suffocating force like communism could be defeated without engaging in proxy wars through funding. If you could explain how that could be brought about, I'd be more than interested in hearing how that would be possible.



But why did we fund Pinochet?, was Allende any better? If it weren't for him(i.e.-Pinochet) Chile would be some ramshackle, destitute nation right now, rather than one of the faster growing South American nations today. As a matter of fact, they are holding elections. Would Allende, if he had lived, done that? I would argue he wouldn't and that he'd still be ruling like the 79 year old despot in Cuba who supposedly rules in the name of "the people." Yes, we funded Afghanistan freedom fighters and Osama bin-Laden, but we did so to help them against communism. Arab people in the region cannot maintain that we never sought to help them out in times of duress. We supplied the arms in a noble effort, what they do afterwards is not our fault. Once again, how would doing nothing have helped them defeat the tide of communism? Israel is a whole other topic, I"ll leave it at the fact that they've been invaded twice and that in the region, they can hardly be asked to be passive. They tried that, and they got three nations pouncing on them in return. In regards to Vietnam, we pulled out, yet no one has mentioned anything about the North Vietnamese "re-education camps" that they put ARVN soldiers through.



You might be surprised to find that I disagree with this assertion. Are we to blame if their leaders steal the money and engage in senseless wars on others? Are we to blame if they create socialist states that suck the life out of their economy? Nations that liberalize their economies succeed, those that don't fail-just a fact of life with any and all other factors. Terrorism is also the result of charismatic leaders who provide a framework for the resulting poor and destitute in state-run economies to channel their frustrations, to provide an outlet so to speak, as to why it is that their lives are the way they are. We did not create the Wahibbi movement, nor is a crude Marxian interpretation valid in explaining it.




Apologizing won't bring back the dead, but it's a start on the road to honesty. I'm not happy that the government won't do that and they are totally shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so. Funny, I thought the values of the White House included something about "bringing honor and integrity" back to the white house.

Let's turn this around. What If the Pakistani government decided to bomb a location inside the United States because a known terrorist was reported to have been there. In the process, 18 US civilians are killed, but they also kill the terrorist. Hey, it's conflict. Deaths happen. Right?



How would Americans react if the Pakistani government killed 18 of our citizens? Would they support or oppose Pakistan? How would you react if the Pakistani government killed one of your family members in your own hometown? It'd take a better man than me not to want to take revenge.

Not a valid argument. First of all if a “known terrorist” was in the US, and suspected of having hurt an ally WE would bring them in. As I am sure you know this area of Partisan is not under complete Pakistani control AND there is every indication the intel developed for the air strike came from the Pakistani intel people knowing full well how we would use it )as we had done in the past – see my post above)

That would be tragic, as tragic as the loss of innocent life in pakistan. But regarding this specific case, and not a hypothetical, the obvious and glaring difference is that in the United States, our military and law enforcement has sovereignty in all areas of our country. the same cannot be said for Pakistan.

So the repercussions of the event lie in the original debate premise, was this attack justified? Was the loss or the risk of loss of innocent life worth the gain the either has or could have been made?

"We" would only bring a terrorist in if he met the US's definition of terrorist - one who goes against US interests. As long as you murder civilians the US hates, you're welcome here. Take Luis Posada Carriles, who murdered 73 people in an airline bombing, can stay inside the US without fear of retribution or extradition because he's anti-Castro. So if Castro decided he wanted to bomb this guy, and killed 18 Americans in the process, under US logic that would be perfectly acceptable.



So okay, if the US government was complicit in murdering it's own citizens in cooperation with Pakistan, I guess US citizens should just shut up and accept it. They should just applaud the US and Pakistani governments for their heroic slaughter.

Again if an ally is looking for a terrorist in the US we would pursue them and expect the “ally” to do that same for us which is exactly what happened here. The big difference is that Pakistan could not just go in and grab these people in this border area so they passed us the intel. Since Pakistan has asked us not to send troops into this area our choices were few. Fortunately we have small aircraft that can be used. Unfortunately killing these folks involved the death of people who may not have been terrorists or collaborators.

It seems clear that the murderers from Afghanistan have moved into this area in force and if we want to peruse them without invading Pakistan this is the way it may have to be done.

Do you advocate bombing a sovereign state to kill terrorists, and accept all the collateral damage such actions can incur for expediency’s sake, because the state doesn’t have the personnel or high tech equipment to deal with the threat fast enough for our liking even if that state is considered an ally?

If yes, where do you draw the line?

That would depend on two criteria. The value of the target and the strategic and tactical agreements between our nation and the sovereign nation in question. I have only read an overview of the agreements reached between the U.S. and Pakistan, I'm certainly not privy to the intricate detail, which in cases such as this, may not be made known to the public for various security reasons.
Pakistan has barred the entry of active ground forces except for case by case events, such as the recent earthquake. I see no stretch of the imagination in thinking that we have been given tacit approval to conduct precision air munition delivery when justified. Pakistan knows all too well the level of government influence and access in most of the border region, and while you and I may not know the fine print of any agreement, both governments know the time dependance value and shelf life of intelligence.

A line cannot be drawn, IMO. Each instance has to be weighed using legal, moral and strategic criteria. Cases can be made concerning executive precedent, such as the missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. There is no way to appease everyone in terms of foreign and military policy. The trick is and will probably always remain, to find the path acceptable to society as a whole. Letting terrorists go free is not an acceptable option, nor is carpet bombing villages.

Of course we did it, and some of us are proud that we did [which is not to say that such implies the absence of any regret and sadness].

Re the dead children and other "innocents," first, rule no. 1, don't invite terrorists over for dinner, and if you have the bad sense to do so, rule no. 2, please don't invite children and other innocents over as well. Which brings me to the matter of why is it that no outrage is being directed against those who invited children over for dinner with terrorists? Are they not also morally responsible?

And if the government of Pakistan exercises sovereignty over the area in question, the most generous word we can use to describe such exercise is "barely," as in, they barely exercise sovereignty over that area.

Lastly, please see:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_ qaida_attack

From that same, it would seem that we have some counter-protestors:

"On Wednesday, more than 5,000 people marched through the Afghan border town of Spinboldak, chanting "Death to Pakistan" and "Death to al-Qaida" to protest a suicide attack at a fair this week that killed 21 people.

Afghan officials claim the bomber — the latest in about 25 suicide attackers to strike in Afghanistan in the past four months — trained in Pakistan. Islamabad denies giving sanctuary to terrorists."

And, small farmer, you are mistaken about the man you mentioned. The reason why we don't extradite him is because we KNOW that he will, in turn, be handed over to Cuba, a nation that we do not have an extradition treaty with. So it isn't about accepting his acts, but instead about us not wanting to play Castro's stooge and otherwise violate our own law.

And, Fma, violence may not be the answer in the West, but it is something that those who wish us dead can understand. As a matter of fact, properly understood, in cultural context, violence isn't violence at all, but a means of negotiation, sending a message, etc. [if it helps, simply call to mind Black Hawk Down, with that scene concerning our captured helicopter pilot in mind, i.e., you have the power to kill but not negotiate, in Somalia, killing is negotiation...]. And re the "terrorists" you mentioned, could you please include the part that you omitted, to wit, the complete absence of any better/greater/more viable alternative. I hear it all the time on the Muslim forums, how come we support Mubarak, etc., etc., etc., but they can never answer the question, who instead of Mubarak? Lastly, those items you mentioned, i.e., poverty, corporate industry, etc., well, they don't suffice to explain Osama, since he ain't poor and his daddy did well by corporate industry. And Isaac was overrated. He otherwise has it in a rather complete reverse [as it were], since violence is the last refuge of the competent, or should I say, it is the incompetent who uses violence as the tool of first resort. Of course, when you believe in panspermia, I suppose that you'll say and write just about any inane and ridiculous thing without thinking the thing through.

Yes I agree the Soviets were a manace but does it justify horrible acts done in the name of "democracy"? I know very well from my own country that during the Cold War, we spent more on "defense" than our entire health, education and transport budgets combined. What has that achieved? Nothing.

The "defense of democracy" facade in the Cold War has created the "MAD". Thanks to the United States and the Soviet Union, the would came very close to total anhilliation.

I call it a "facade" simply because it was hypocritical. To defend "democracy" US saw fit to create dictators like Pinochet. To ensure peace, US created todays terrorists. US resurrected the opium production in Afganistan to create funds for Osama and his band of murderers.

Today, Osama and his band of murderers are the people who pull the trigger but I cannot and will not forget that it was the "US of the Cold War" era who gave them the gun.

Yes, democracy is worth fighting for. But I doubt that the "Cold War" and the "WoT" are really about "democracy" and "opression". I believe that it is about global hegemony. Same purpose with different methods.



I do not say that terrorism should be ignored.

Terrorism is a disease that has to be cured. But bombing and killing will not cure it. It has been several years since this facade started but what has it accomplished?

Killing will just give terrorists more ammunition. As more and more innocents die in this facade, Osama will be able to get more and more recruits who are fed up with US hegemony.

If we really want to cure this disease, third world poverty must be eliminated as a start. As long as there is third world poverty, terrorists will be able to get recruits to their cause. Is it just coincidence that most of the terrorists today are among the poor?



How is the US defending anyones lives but bombing civilians in Iraq? How does installing people like Pinochet make the world a safer place? How did the world become a safer place after 18 innocents were killed in Pakistan?



It is a valid arguament.

The US today is in a state of self-righteousness. Many Americans believe that they are pillars of moral purity. I find this view very silly. I find it funny and ironic that US, who spend more than any other country for instruments of destruction, who has the greatest nuclear arsenal, who launched the only nuclear attacks in the history of our planet, who supported terrorists when they agreed to their agenda to come up say that "America is here to defend democracy and liberty!".

If US was so concerned about "terrorism" than why did they arm Osama in the first place? I find your post very hypocritical.

Nothing?

Well, I'd say that you achieved freedom from being annexed by the Soviet Union.

Second, Turkey's internal defence spending has nothing what so ever to do with US policy. Like Denmark, Turkey is responsible for its own military budget and any problems stemming from that are the sole responsibility of the Turks and no one else. Perhaps the problems arising from Turkeys defence spending lie in a whole other direction? I seem to recall hearing of many tensions within Turkey between various political and religious factions with the military. I'm not an expert on Turkish politics, but is it not the case that the Turkish military has often maintained a grip on the nations governments in order to counter the threat of Islamic influences?


It may be a 'facade' to you, as unsatisfied as you appear to be with your nations democratic freedom, but I can tell you that few people in Northern Europe are so blasé about threats to their democracy.


Where is the hypocrisy?

Democracy does not dictate its own spread. It is not a religion. Sometimes in order to defend yourself you have to ally yourself with tyrants and murderers, regardless of how you view them.

And why focus on such a small fish as Pinochet? Why not ask the question about Stalin? After all, he was the greatest murderer of them all but we allied ourselves to him during the war in order to deal with the Third Reich. Was that 'hypocrisy' or was it just dealing with one threat at a time?

In 1939 Germany was a major threat to world peace and so was Japan. The Soviet Union was not. It did not have the ability to threaten the rest of the world then. The allied powers used the Soviet Union to get rid of the greatest threats of the time, then they turned their attentions to the Soviet Union and considering the possible outcome of the confrontation between the east and west, then the cold war was a brilliant success. It led to very few actual confrontations between the two most deadly military forces and if one compares the Vietnam, Korean and various smaller wars to the total anhiliation of which you speak, then the support of men like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein and the wars these led to were a very small price to pay.

It sucks for those people who were caught up in the hot spots of the cold war and its a shame on the west to turn its back on children still being maimed in Vietnam by the after effects of that war but we should never lose sight of why those wars were fought.

To prevent the Mutual Assured Destruction.

Which Never Happened!


So what?

Turkey, also armed by the US has often used its arms to oppress the Kurdish people, does that make the US responsible for Turkeys actions as well?

No it does not. Arming some one for a cause does not make you responsible for everything they do for the rest of their lives. The USA is not responsible for Osama Bin Laden even if they did once support him against the Soviets.


Well, I can agree with you that the US has brought about a global hegemony. Of that there is no doubt.

Where I disagree with you is that this is such a bad thing. What would be your alternative? To have let the Soviet Union annex those nations it desired to?

Why not take your argument to its logical conclusion and blame the USA for arming the Soviet Union during the second world war? Why not blame the USA for getting involved at all!?

Perhaps the world would be a better and safer place if the USA had stayed out of Europe and let Hitler and Stalin do as they wished?

Do you suppose Turkey or Denmark would still be here as free country's today?


Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And do you suppose these terrorists would not exist if the USA hadn't overthrown Saddam Hussein? Perhaps you've forgotten who destroyed the World Trade Center? Was that a 'facade'?

Osama Bin Laden is an ungrateful hypocrite who turned against the USA because his religious convictions dictated it and his wounded pride demanded it, not because he was poor or oppressed. He was neither and if the USA pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, do you suppose he would cease his terrorism?

I do not. If the USA were to withdraw, then al qaeda would simply carry on the fight. If not the USA, then Israel, then Europe, then any and every one else who did not bow down to their interpretation of the Koran.


Yes, I agree. Third world poverty is the key to the problem.

But how do you solve third world poverty?

You can't just give people money. They have to help themselves and the problem with the third world is they mostly don't. Build a school in Africa and it will fall into neglect when a civil war recruits the children to fight. Set up a fund to educate farmers and the money is stolen by a corrupt president.

There is only so much that can be achieved by helping people. They have to help themselves and its no good running away to Europe or America to earn money. Running away doesn't solve the problems. You have to stand, and fight and not just with guns, but in every way.

Western money would be invested if the banks and money people believed their assets would be safe, but no one but weapons dealers is going to invest in an African civil war or an Asian dictatorship, no matter how cheap the labour is.


In these examples, it didn't. The world does not become a safer or more dangerous place because of such individual incidents. Where it does become more safe is if the US plan works and a democratic Iraq arises from the ashes of the war just as Japan and Germany arose from the ashes of the second world war.

I know that the analogy is a shaky one, but if intentions count for anything then lets give credit where its due. Osama Bin Laden is not going to offer freedom or democracy or the right to choose one's own destiny to the people of the middle east.
Neither is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muqtada al Sadr, Bashar al Asad, Abdallah al Saud, Muammar Khaddafi, Pervez Musharraf or who ever replaces Ariel Sharon.

The USA, what ever its faults, is the only power on Earth today, capable and willing to stand up to and even defeat the creeping force of religious intolerance that has arisen to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I wish it were not so. I wish Europe was stronger and more determined, but we are not.

2. Was this a justified action in the war on terror?

It appears so, at least according to the washington post. I hadn't seen these comments posted, so I'm quoting below.


I was suspicious about the protestations of innocence from the get-go. Obviously, we'll have to verify these claims, and the death of innocents is always tragic, but when terrorists gather with their families or even neighbors, they knowingly put those non-combatants at risk.

Not to mention the irony of these townspeople being horrified at the killing of innocent women and children, then showing their anger by chanting "Long live Osama bin Laden!'' . Given that killing innocents is OBL's modus operandi and all.

I don’t see the US as a pillar of anything but we did learn in two costly World Wars that we needed to protect ourselves. That is why we spend money on defense including the nuclear arsenal – without which we would have been annihilated by the Soviet Union by 1962. And lets remember our Billions spent on defense defended our allies (like Turkey) as well as ourselves. Communism killed 80 MILLION people since 1917. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html. Yes we dropped bombs on Japan but in the end it saved lives – ours and theirs. Do you have any idea how many hundreds of thousands of civilians were butchered by the Japanese Army? How about Stalin? Without the US (and our “instruments of destruction”) he could have rolled over the Middle East in weeks.

Are we perfect – NO. But consider some of the alternatives.

So trying to compare the US to any totalitarian government is like trying to compare Little Red Riding hood to the Wolf.