In organized warfare, the goal has always been to maximize your enemy's casualties while minimizing your own. The same question could have been asked to the first caveman who picked up a rock or a tree limb to get the upper-hand over his enemy. The idea is not to fight fairly in warfare; the idea is to win. Cruis missiles are great at striking at an enemy yet offering that enemy nothing to fight back against. As was the case of the first missiles used in war; the Word War II, German V-1 and V-2 missiles. Whether you call it "assasination" or just war; the you never play by the rules of your enemy but always try to surprize that enemy with something he never expected. The cruise missile is just a modern day weapon designed to give its user an edge over any enemy which it does quite well.

An Enemy of the USA using the weapons they had available to them got in a good Sunday punch and we took it right on the chin. Rhetoric doesn't win wars not will it deter anyone who has chosen to be our enemy. Preventing and defending against such attacks must be done cooly and calmly to prevent mistakes resulting in failure and ultimate defeat. Whatever one thinks of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the people who did it and those backing them consider what they did to be right or else they wouldn't have done it. Just as we look on them as terrorists they too look upon us with hatred and contempt and for whatever twisted reason may even consider us to be "terrorist". That's how wars are started. Never assume that your enemy's will to fight and prevail is any less than your own. They have their way of fighting and we have ours. The cruise missile is an extremely effective weapon and when used correctly can devastate an enemy but weapons alone are not a substitute to clear planning and execution of any war. As for being "cowardly" that's simply more rhetoric. It is cowardly to use the best weapons you have at your dispostal to deal with your enemy? If that were the case armies would still be using spears and swords.

I get so tired of moral relativists. Our use of smart weapons to kill those who are trying to destroy our country is no better than running planes carrying innocent civilians into the World Trade Center. There is a huge difference between the two. The US military goes to a great deal of trouble to minimize civilian casualties. Our smart weapons have given the military the ability to more precisely target our nation's enemies and reduce civilian casualties. Our enemies glory in killing civilians. They consider ANYONE who does not believe as they do to be legitimate target. Look at what is going on in Iraq and open your eyes. In preparing for an assault on a town thought to be infested with terrorists, the military gives the civilians ample time to get out of the way before moving in. In the process they probably allow some of the terrorists to get out as well. On the other hand, the terrorists bomb markets, public transit systems, etc. without regard for who might get hurt. To try and say that we are morally equivalent is very lazy thinking and/or a willful blindness to what really is happening. ************** "Answers101: Well said, are you in the military?" The closest that I have ever gotten to military service is four years of junior ROTC back in high school. So, I won't claim to be an expert on the military. However, military history is a hobby of mine. So, I feel that I probably have a better understanding of the military than your average citizen who has never had any involvement in it at all. I would say that I definitely have a better understanding than those that are constantly degrading the military.

The US is not being cowardly. Our use of cruise missiles are proof that our government is doing it job in its military procedures: Protecting its citizens. If other governments made as much of an effort to value the lives of their individual citizens, then the world wouldn't be so full of poverty and human rights violations.