What were the mass arial attacks of cities then? Acts of war upon civilians or acts of terror?
Not sure which ones you are talking about here.
It has been interesting to me to watch how for instance in WWII Germany bombed cities - and yet we call it war. With the advent of the Geneva convention we learned to draw clearer distinctions between the two - Wars are fought between soldiers and anything else is taboo. I don't personally see it as black and white because I am not as "civil" (I am just a lowly beast so gimme a break). It seems that if wars are to be fought between nations then nations are battling not just the military forces from each. It's a huge oxymoron to fight a civilzed war, isn't it?
Now take a nation under Sadam. If Sadam could have taken out a million Amaerican civilians I think he would not have hesitated to do so. But when the US takes the war to Iraq, we have had to fight a "civilized" war. The "civilized" war (CW) cost us much more than a plain ugly old fashioned war because we used smart bombs that were intent on hitting only military targets. (true there were civilians hit but one might easily make the case that this is one of the most "civil" wars ever fought). I am not justifying the cause of the war or if the US should have been there etc I am just looking at the manner in which the war was fought.
So some would argue that it is ironic that we spend all these dollars on a CW using smart bombs when our enemy would likely never have done the same to the US if they could have gotten the upper hand. In speaking with some fellow Americans they would advocate that we use the cheapest dirtiest, biggest bombs possible. For instance, why not nuke your enemy rather than fight a smart bomb war? It is cheaper and no soldiers from your side need set foot on the battle field. Afterall the life of our kids is worth more than the life of some silly Iraqi isn't it? (note intended sarcasm before you beat poor ole Donkey again).