FuzzyTummyRumblings

So I've decided that even "smart" bombs can't hit their target. Bombs almost never do. With no exception of which I'm aware, bombs do not hit their targets. When we attack a military outpost, we not only destroy tanks, planes, guns, soldiers, and production capabilities but we kill fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, jobs, non-military production. That's assuming we actually target a legit military facility AND hit our target. Which is not all that common. Our goal in Iraq is to fight terrorism but you can't use a chainsaw to do surgery. The army is not a surgical tool but a large blunt weapon. It is a broadsword, a chainsaw, a sledge hammer. It's not for picking off a few insurgents here and there mixed into a mass of civilians. That's not what the military is for. Never has been.
Then there is terrorist retalliation. The recent attacks in London are insipid, poorly planned, not thought out, and otherwise barbaric. If the terrorists have a defined goal, I can't find it. If it is retaliation, it failed. If it is "war" then the attackers don't get to complain about civillian casualties in Iraq. At least the U.S. Army isn't deliberately targeting civillians. The London bombers didn't even attempt to strike military positions. The London bombs only strengthened Bush and Blair's positions that there is an imminent threat that JUSTIFIES their actions in many eyes. It still doesn't justify it in mine, but I am far from being in the majority. While I firmly believe that there is evil in the middle east that must be crushed, I don't see it as our job and I don't see it as a job that can be done by military presence.
Jihad, War on Terrorism... bullshit. Find somebody you don't like. Kill them. Justify it. That's what it boils down to.