Someone who puts themselves intentionally in to danger is brave, imo. They may be "bad", but if they have little regard for danger, they are brave. And as I said before, being foolhardy (waiting for someone to kill you), has little to do with bravery. It would be foolhardy for Saddam not to hide from us, since we are a much superior force.
I guess the US were cowards for blowing up so many civilians in WWII. You kind of dodged that one. You can answer it if you want to. I don't happen to think the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities made us "cowards". I think it was pretty evil, but not cowardly.
I don't think a small force, that attacks a mighty one, even if their choice of target is civilian, is "cowardly". I think it's horrible, and against all the "rules" of warfare, but then "rules" don't work for a guy who is outgunned, which is why insurgents and terrorists use the tactics they do.
If Saddam blew up babies and hadn't put himself at risk, in other words if no one knew who he was, THEN I think that would be cowardly. Serial killers, for example, who hunt by stealth, and never expose themselves, are cowardly. Saddam is not like that, imo. Clearly it bothers you that he might be brave. It's not way out there though. I know a lot of people who think the same way I do, and who think your opinion is way out there. |
