Ciao!

I'm sure the last 3 months had been utterly miserable for these scavengers. Especially the last minutes of their life.

Finally cowboys killed the bad guys... let see this cowboy movie is going to be end happily... word is finally get rid off two evil but what we got surprisingly new two evils bush and blair.. What is difference between those... those cowboys killed these criminals, which are supported by us for a long time, with 14 years child so they show us american civilization. And God bless America, this America show us those dead buddies and they proud of it. Those four bodies represent American power all over the world. Do you think success can come after this kind of action? NO. It is not gana be. Napoleon, Hitler or others they all lost. Against to four people they use 200 soldiers, and apace so, why they are not live. Now in Iraq, how we are gana show difference of democracy, Iraqis people’s view what is the difference between saddam and bush now...

Alienation, Marks used that isn’t it? you should think about it..

Have you read Marx? Marx's theory of alienation has nothing to do w/ what you're talking about. Rather, Marx's theory had to do w/ the relations of production (that's why it's called the "theory of alienation of labor").

I appreciate your right to rant. But I'm having a really difficult time following your logic.

1. Did cowboys kill the "bad guys", yes, they often did. But that's not the only thing about cowboys. If the only thing that matters when describing someone as a "cowboy" is whether or not they support the use of force -- well, then Hussein was also a cowboy, so is Chirac (he sure isn't opposed to French use of military force in Africa). What are you really trying to say here?

2. Who do you consider as "us" when you argue that "those criminals" (I assume here you meant Uday and Qusay) were supported "by us". If you mean many Arabs, well, then I'm not sure of the relevancy. Or are you trying to suggest that Bush and Blair supported Uday and Qusay? Because I remember a 1991 war against Iraq and 12 years of political sanctions against them. I'd hardly say the US "supported" Uday and Qusay during all that time.

3. Is it sad that a 14-year-old died in the attack? Of course it is. But remember that the American troops offered Uday and Qusay the chance to surrender. And it was Hussein's sons (and their men) who fired first. In that situation American troops have the right to self-defense.

4. I don't see why it's relevant that American troops outnumbered the Uday and Qusay and their party. I think that's actually a good thing. American troops went in w/ superior force (a standard military doctrine) and had enough troops there to contain and isolate the battleground. I don't see any reason why "fairness" requires that only four US soldiers attack a position.

5. What is the difference between Saddam Hussein and Bush? If you can't see the difference, then I don't know how to point it out to you. Because that would require objective reason and logic, rather than doltish slogans.