I fail to see how launching two wars, for which 9/11 was the initial explanation, makes the United States any safer from terrorism.

Perhaps its the fundamental retardation of intelligence that occurs in the human brain whenever money and power are involved but it seems that none of the powers that be realise that wars are the direct producers of terrorists. Especially foreign occupations in which civilian casualties are the daily norm.

I submit to you that 9/11 by no means has made the United States "safer" from terrorists but in fact has produced a domino framework where all it will take is one bump and all hell will break loose. Not to mention the subsequent actions taken by the US Government have supplied the terrorists with the best recruiting propaganda they could ever dream of.

However; if by safer I am meant to read: "a loss of civil liberties and more bogus restrictions on citizens" then bravo. Well done.

Thanks for the link I didn't know that.

There did not seem to be any immediate threat, RPG or not, this was a helicopter gunship cruising high in the sky, not some low altitude attack helicopter. In that situation they should have done more recon and at least verified that the targets were indeed hostile combatants, not reporters or civilians. I thought target recognition was part of basic army training? Though I guess a high stress job and the always preset threat of death would alter anyones judgmental faculties.

As for the van, even I (with no combat experience or military training) could tell by the behavior of the men moving the wounded that these were not insurgents or hostiles, but two guys scared to death just trying to help a man who was mowed down by a 30mm cannon. I read somewhere that the van was taking the children to a special school and just happened to be in the area, its not like the guys took their kids with them on a rescue mission.

I could follow the actions of the gunship operators up to a certain point YOU knew they had cameras, they did not. However, the targets in question did not seem hostile nor did the threat of an RPG seem very real. The firing on the van though, without question, was a mistake. They were clearly evacuating a wounded man, something I thought was pretty much a universal no-no for engagement.

This is what happens in war, this is what happens when you put kids in situations where there lives are in danger and you've taught them to kill. Rather than this specific instance (which has happened in every war ever on every side) I think the real story should be about the cover-up, and the actual purpose of the war itself.

Your history is a little off. 100 years ago we DID need quotas and we DID enforce them. Certain groups wanted cheap labor from Eastern Europe and China to stop flowing into the US. These immigrants managed to build the US infrastructure and ridiculously low wages however, after the work dried up then the problem started. As per your assertion that one low skill job a century ago could support a family, the comparison is unfair to make. These unskilled jobs at the turn of the 20th century were mostly manufacturing jobs where the manufacturer basically owned the workers. They lived in company housing and were paid with company currency where they bought everything they needed at the company store.

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company sto' "

The family supported itself by hiring out their children and their spouses. It's a myth the an unskilled laborer could "support" their family with the quality of life that you might expect in this recent decade. This has nothing to do with business friendly politicians, the 19th and 20th centuries were far more business friendly than the environment they currently operate in, although the role of businesses have changed quite extensively.