Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong.
And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me.
Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Have a nice life.
PS. You called me "an idiot of the first class." I have no idea what the first class is, and I'm sort of curious what an "idiot of the second class" might be, but that is irrelevant. You infer that my intelligence is lacking, and that that implies my argument is weak. That manner of argument is known as ad hominem. You should read your own Wikipedia article.
It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting when you don't have to.
Vietnam was a horrible idea, not because we didn't have precision munitions and rules of engagement, but because we didn't belong there in the first place.
War used to be a big fucking deal. Now, George Bush gets on the television and says "don't worry, we won't hurt any kids, we're using JDAMs." And it's bullshit, we end up killing tons of civilians because people think that ROE and precision munitions will actually make war zones safe. News flash: they aren't, and they never will be. If people realized that, then we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, which is the right thing.