What's the difference?

[jenmito]

Bush says the terrorists value death over life, that they blow themselves up for their cause, yet in the same breath he praises those U.S. troops who give their lives for HIS cause, saying they gave the ultimate sacrifice and their families should be proud. What's the difference between Bush and the terrorists who are proud of THEIR kids who die?

[MichiganVote]

1. Americans don't threaten to kill people's kids unless they

become suicide bombers. As far as I know we haven't beheaded anybody yet and we don't plant bombs in the street that any military or civilian vehicle can hit.

Regardless of the reason the "insurgents" act as they do, their acts are abominable.

[firefox]

2. You must be kidding

The US killed a million kids in Iraq that were not suicide bombers and bombed them heavily for 10 months before the military occupation began. What do you call landmines that the rest of the world wants to abolish, yet the US will not give up.

[MichiganVote]

3. I am not suggesting that the US is innocent. I am suggesting that

some of the differences between the so called terrorists, or insurgents, and the American military personnel who are actually fighting this "war on terror" include my previous comments. If the intent of your query was just to receive validation for your point of view, you're on the wrong board. Everyone has a point of view here.

Arguing what the differences or similarities are between american troops and terrorists, point by point, is a waste of my time. I cannot support the idea that a blanket comparison is sufficient. I don't know where you get your figures from re: the dead children in Iraq but I'd like to review the site, if you have it.

Arguing the similarities or differences is a waste of my time. We're all pretty sick of the wars and other conflicts american leaders begin and seldom seem to end. Violence is a bad thing for humans and why we continue to try to use it to force positive change is beyond me.

Good luck with your quest.