So you hate Football, Why are you going to be watching the SUPERBOWL this year' I'll tell ya why!

damn!! can't wait to see the JP3 footage. oh! and LOTR of course. ;)

judging by what he said about this year's 2 teams, it sounds like these movie trailers might be the only fun thing to watch! Hey, wasn't there a rumor about "The Lord Of The Rings" being shown as well?

There is nothing better than the Superbowl. Sitting down with a 2-litre of grape faygo and a package of Pedan sandies, watching the meeting of two teams of gladiators, drooling over the awsome commercials, the bonding between friends. Jeesh, I touch myself just thinking about it. Omar

Comeon,' dude, how can you go wrong?! Vince McMahon and football go together like. . .Gravy and jello! Ketsup and ice cream! Truth and politics! N'Sync and music! *Snicker* Imagine what *their* version of the Superbowl will be like. I wonder if they'll torch the stadium at the end. Anyway, for those of you who want to see the commercials but aren't in the US, there's always adcritic.com. They've got just about every commercial ever made available for download.

...I mean, come on--all of you have to admit the Super Bowl is gonna suck ass this year. This is without a doubt the shittiest championship matchup in years. The Giants and the Ravens...Christ, it's depressing.

I happen to be a sports fan and football is my favorite. the sheer violence of watching the best teams in the whole league duke it outon the playing feild. especially this year!!!It's the GIANTS VS.THE RAVENS!!!.....waitaminute who the hell are the RAVENS??!?!?!?! where did these schlubs come from?? aww man screw-it!!! I'm gonna join that guy with the pecan sandies. It'll be beter than watching some poor unheard of team getting mopped up by the GIANTS. and geek basher get a life will ya.

Hell, That spot has ben running on the networks for 2 weeks already

will probably try to turn it to real-world reuinion marathon or some other such nonsense during the commercials, but I will fight them. BTW I have watched at least six hours of NFL each week and more often nine, and I have to confess that I am less interested in this Super Bowl than in any since probably Packers-Patriots.. boring ass BS. 'Course that's probably because I'm a bitter raider fan, but I digress. I hope they give us different LOTR footage, not because I thought the teaser was bad but because by that time I will have seen the teaser approximately 800 times online and will be hungry for something new.

American Pie 2 can lick the pie after someone new fucks it in this one,how fucking unorigional is that,was there ever a fast times at ridgemont high part 2...NO.Was there ever a 16 candles 2...NO.So why the fuck are they making AP2. Oh yeah i forgot they dont make origional films anymore.Movies arent made for expression and the artform of making something,there made for profit and i guess thats why JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACKS GONNA BE 100000 TIMES BETTER!!,cause it gonna be origional,funny and worth everyones $7.00.Fuck AP2.

It doesn't really matter who plays. People no longer watches the Superbowl because of the teams involved (let's face it, there's only TWO CITIES that will really care about the teams playing, and that's the two cities whose teams are in the game). The Superbowl is an INSTITUTION. And as with all institutions (re: the New Year ball drop, what a waste of fuckin' time that thing is), people will always tune in. There's really no rhyme or reason. Why does people still vote for Republicans or Democrats despite the fact that they both could give less than 2 cents of a damn about the working poor? Because they're institutions. People are just used to it. Of course, with the Superbowl, it helps that there's a very VERY good reason for you to skip out on your significant other to get stinkin' drunk for 6 hours straight (post, game, and pre, natch). Now THAT'S something you gotta be for, rather you're a techgeek who never touched a football in his life or a sports nut.

I hate football but my wife likes the big superbowl commercials (go figure) At least this year it sounds like they'll be more interesting than last year's lamer dot com deluge.

well i can say that this is an improvement. watching some movie trailers is much better than enduring some really stupid commercials of coca cola & ford pick up trucks! whoever thought of this idea of putting movie trailers in superbowl half time deserves a pat in the back!

I'm from Canada, I listened to the SuperBowl last year and I have seen some good trailers. I remember Gladiator and U-571. The trailers are not really ads for products so we can see them. So we can dream of those great trailers you talked about!

...that a cartoon character makes when he shakes his head after seeing or hearing something so off-the -wall that he can't believe it? Kinda like "wackawackawackahuh?"... that's the sound I made after reading decadentdave's posting. News flash, Einstein- you see these commercials on television when you watch the game, not at the game itself!

I was actually making that sound as I read it. I hope to hell that guy was trying to be funny. The all caps and the "message in the subject line" make me think not. Decadentdave - Harry's got an extra ticket for you! Meet him at the south gate, section 101A a hour before game time! Also, please - no procreation.

I'll check em out on the net later but thanks for the heads up that they're on the way soon, Harry :) JESUS CHRIST I will never understand how america is so wrapped up in this goddamn modernized tribalism they call football.

Decadentdave is a bit slow, folks.

and anyone who watches the superbowl just for the ads needs to have their head examined

AdCritic.com should have all the Superbowl commercials after the game. I'll bet they have the movie trailers as well. And while you're there, watch the John West Bear Fight commercial. I guarantee you'll laugh you a$$ off.

I noticed during the Giants game last week that I actually growl when that spot starts up. Sounds like a decent lineup of trailers this year, though I'd really like to see an A.I. teaser. Then again, if I don't score a ticket to the big game, I'll be shit out of luck, right decadentdave?

"A handful of expensive special effects connected by NOTHING". That's Jerry's profit formula. Harry, were you not TOTALLY FUCKING GYPPED ON ARMAGEDDON? (Indisputably the worst movie ever). But here you are rallying for Pearl Harbor. Also, Harry do you realize you used the phrase: "that guy is probably the demographic push they'll want to burn into sports crazed minds"? Nobody talks like that, man.

I didn't realize there were so many nerds in here, oh wait yeah I did. Football is the best sport going. I'd like to see a single rugby player even hold his own, no, not get killed in a football game. You cannot tell this from the TV but those guys average about 250-300 lbs and can run the 100 meters in 10.5-11 seconds, ON AVERAGE. That much mass moving at that velocity=carnage...Football, rugby for girls bwahahahahaha.

Oh wait, they don't do that anymore. Pity.

I like football. Wrestling is retarded, although fun in an MST3K kind of way. On that note, having The Rock in "The Mummy Returns" does nothing for me, nor for many of my friends. Not all sport fans like all sports equally. Besides, Professional Wrestling isn't a sport, it's a soap opera for 12 year olds.

If you don't want to bother watching the game (or can't watch it), you can see them online at "superbowl.adcritic.com". They're promising to have them all posted within 30 minutes of when they air.

I have been boycotting Snatch trailers since I saw the first one and decided I wanted to see it...I am sooo much happier. I have no real idea what the movie is about, I have memorized no jokes whatsoever, I will be going in blind, and I am excited to see it...I will read no reviews, nothing. Much better way to do this. Boycott trailers with me, people!

I hate American Football, but I do want to see some of these commercials, so I'm stuck between watching a game of 300 pound fat guys sweat and grab each others asses while wearing body armour because they're so scared of getting hurt while also seeing some cool movie trailers. Or I could just hold off, not see the trailers and remain faithfull to Football as the world knows it. Decisions, Decisions....

What kind of commie nonsense is THAT?

remember when hanson got booed mercilessly when they sung? Nsync is shitting bricks since NY won. Imagine all those hardcore New Yorkers and Nsync singing at halftime. Warm reception at Half time? I think not

Nothing against the NFL, but I don't think you should dismiss Rugby or Australian rules Football players. (which I think are a similar in toughness) Take away the NFL players pads/armour and put them on the same field and I think you would have a fair game. Ever see that ex-australian rules footballer turned NFL punter lay the smack down? It was a big highlight a couple seasons ago. The punt returner has one man to beat and a full head of steam and he hits the punter, who isn't used to pads so he isn't crouched down diving at the guy. It looks like the NFL guy runs into a brick wall and bounces off. The punter puts his forearms in the middle of the guys chest and pushes him back over like he's a creampuff.

...but nothing can compare to some of the best stuff in Britain. So let's all sing along with that Halifax ad (to the tune of Sex Bomb): "Maybe I'm a banker who's completely obsessed/I've got an account that's bound to impress/this current account/pays a higer amount/of extraordinary interest. Extra, extra..."

2 unrecognizeable teams that everyone thought sucked (Rams, Titans) actually turned into one of the greatest super bowls ever. I wouldn't count this one out just yet, it doesnt matter whose playing, just if the game is good or not. BTW, Pearl Harbor needs to be during the game because there is NO way im watching N Sync.

I LOVE football!!! However, this IS going to be the MOST BORING Superbowl I've ever seen ( I'll still watch it though). The trailer idea is cool, and people , ease up on other people not liking football. It's not for EVERYONE. And whoever commented on the NCAA basketball tournament is right -- in my opinion the best sports event every year -- bar none!

Hope the LOTR trailer is different than the one with 13 days. I thought that was a very good "teaser", but they need to really floor this superbowl audience with something special above and beyond the other generic trailers. We shall see... GO RAVENS!!!!

Dark Horizons has an article stating that an "undisclosed trailer from Newline" (most likely the LOTR) will be featured during the PREGAME SHOW!

Mad Eye Moody you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There was no "systematic genocide of their entire culture... erasing entire tribes and all about destroying their history." (how do you destroy history anyway?) There were some fights between our settlers and the Indians, just as there were fights between the Indian tribes, and attacks on settlers by Indians. There were also some abuses of the Indians by our government. But the idea that there was some systematic wipeout of the Indians is a farce. There is simply no proof and no example of anything of the kind ever happening. And to say that we should have stayed off of the Indians land is ridiculous. First of all if they were so great then they would have wanted to share the land as some did... second of all, if you look at the small amount of Indians that there actually were (compared to how many people live in the US today, to say that those few Indians should have control of this entire land mass is ridiculous. Then you compare the slavery of the 1800's to the Nazis who took power in the 1930's. America didn't invent slavery. In fact the slaves were bought from African slave owners. Third, our entrance into the war was not for "revenge" against the Japanese. We ignored what was going on at the time because we had just been in a world war and we had no reason to get involved. The unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was not some random event to anger the United States. The Axis Powers were seeking nothing less than world domination, but I don't know if you quite understand that. You attempt to lessen the signifigance of the Pearl Harbor attack by saying it was a military base, so it was ok. I suppose that if I decide to keep a gun in my house then a burglar is justified in killing me.. that seems to be your reasoning. Then again you try to make the same distinction between "innocent civilians" and the military when you talk about the atomic bombings. War is not some game where you set rules, killing people is killing people, whether it's a soldier or a baby. The United States dropped the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to win the war.. pure and simple. If the Japanese had the bomb they might have used it not to stop the fighting but to completely conquer the rest of the world with nothing to stop them, and that's not a silly thing to say if you know about the mindset of these people at the time. The only regret there should be is that they were forced to do it and there wasn't some other way it could have been resolved, and that we didn't have the bombs earlier in the war. Before you accuse the USA of being the Great Satan, maybe you should look into the Japanese plans for their invasion defense. Their plan was to hand out guns to their people, including women and children (the so-called innocent civilians) and sacrifice as many of their people as it would take. The attitudes of our country versus Japan were completely different. Winning the war and expanding the Japanese empire was EVERYTHING to them. That's why you can watch video of Japanese people jumping off cliffs when they found out they had lost. Some of them even refused to believe it was true. I don't mind if you want to disagree about our role in the war, but why don't you read some history books before you go spouting off bullshit. The United States is not the great evil in the world, and is in fact the greatest and most compassionate country that has ever existed.

... as a former defensive player, i have to say there's nothing more boring than watching two good defensive teams with mediocre offenses. it's kind of like going to a track meet and only watching the shot put. the shot putter's points are as important as the sprinter's, but who have you heard of, mike carter or carl lewis? even defensive players aren't that psyched about watching other guys play defense. defensive players like to PLAY DEFENSE, not watch. that being said, i'll still watch what might become known as the STUPOR BOWL. i also look forward to the trailers, which will probably be the most action we'll see that evening. don't get me wrong. i think the giants and ravens are damn fine teams, but i'm from st. louis, therefore i'm still smarting over losing to the new orleans "AIN'TS" (as in "ain't gonna see the playoffs again"). later.

i respect the way the aussie's play their game, but let's not compare. the punter you're talking about (w/the chargers if i'm not mistaken) also said in an interview that NFL players would kill aussie rules/rugby players. not to slam them, but hibbidy was right. i am one of those 6'6 285lbs guys he's talking about. when i played, i benched around 400lbs (just below average for my position... and that was in college) i also ran a 4.50 40 and a 10.67 100 meters. i've been to australia and watched a game in sydney (rugby league), and trust me, i wouldn't sweat anything i saw on that field. when you mentioned that american players should play without pads, well we used to, and many still do... we're usually around 8-13 years old and we call it sandlot football. but as men, you just can't take guys who are that big, strong, and fast and not use protection. when american football started out they used only leather helmets, but then the players were a lot smaller in stature. but with level of skill in the game today, without pads, there'd be so many players maimed and even killed the sport would be banned. i've seen the snapped legs and broken arms, jaws, and even necks... all up close. not to mention how many players i've seen knocked into seizures or hit so hard they just stopped moving. i played most of my college ball with both shoulders taped and harnessed down (because they've been dislocated so many times). the thing is all of this was my college experiences... WITH PADS. so, not to get into a pissing contest with you, but i'm curious... have you played either?

Hey what about N'Sync doing the halftime and BBB doing the National Anthem. That's why we will be watching. Certainly not for the football.

1) There was NO systematic genocide against the Indians. Despite whatever the United State's official policy toward the Indians was, it just didn't happen. I didn't claim the Indians weren't abused and that they were not killed in some instances. But the idea of all kinds of Indian massacres is false. The image presented of the Indians in movies like Dances With Wolves might be semi-accurate in some instances but was mostly not true. Many of the tribes were warlike and regularly fought each other, and in some instances attacked colonists. Of course there were people who attacked the Indians and killed them. Noone's denied that. But this idea that we wiped them out is not true. Of course they were abused in many other ways, which I am not denying. 2) It was never an official policy of the United States Government to kill Indians. The policy was to pay them for their land and force them westward. If they didn't comply they would face military force. This is of course not something to be proud of but it is far from genocide. The official position of the United States when it was at its most extreme was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This DO NOT advocate genocide against the Indians, but rather payment for their lands. This forced almost all of the Indians east of the Mississippi to go west, which was only around 100,000.

3) Most Indian deaths were not caused by murder... " The Indian population had been dwindling through the decades after the mid-19th century. The California Indians alone, it was estimated, dropped from 100,000 in 1853 to not more than 30,000 in 1864 and 19,000 in 1906. Cholera in the central Plains in 1849 struck the Pawnee. As late as 1870-71 an epidemic of smallpox brought disaster to the Blackfeet, Assiniboin, and Cree. These events gave currency to the concept of the Indian as "the vanishing American. The decision of 1871 to discontinue treaty making and the passage of the Allotment Act of 1887 were both founded in the belief that the Indians would not survive, and hence it did not much matter whether their views were sought in advance of legislation or whether lands were provided for coming generations. When it became obvious after about 1920 that the Indians, whose numbers had remained static for several years, were surely increasing, the United States was without a policy for advancing the interests of a living people." Again, not a great aspect of our history, but far from genocide. 4) Of course the US practiced slavery. But slavery was not some American ideal. Civilization did not spread uniformly throughout the world. So you had people from civilized areas that encountered populations of relatively uncivilized people, so they though themselves superior. Slavery was a worlwide phenomena, so pointing out that Americans practiced slavery is true, but does not differentiate it from any other area of the world at that time. 5) My point about military bases was not meant to be about military tactics. The point was that to try to establish some kind of war code is ridiculous. War is a last resort, it's about doing whatever it takes to win. Personally I hate it and it brings out all that is bad in humans. But the atomic bomb was used in a way that the US thought would be most effective in ending the war, or making it harder for the Japanese if they were going to continue fighting (we only had 2 bombs). "It only worked in WWII because until then such instant, wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter was incomprehensible." Indiscriminate slaughter was incomprehensible until then? Please. Must I remind you what was going on in Germany and Russia at that time?

6) The Japanese were rounded up into camps. This was also another awful event and there's no excuse but it can't be compared to other countries. There were no piles of bodies in the United States. Noone was forced into slave labor or executed. I haven't claimed that we have had such great leaders. But in this case I think the facts I just mentioned speak for themselves. 7) About the racism thing you say I need to do some fact checking. Why? Everyone knows how blacks were treated in the past. Once again, this country isn't perfect and I'm not denying the way they were treated. But once again you must compare the two. A Nazi dictatorship intent on the complete extermination the Jews and the indefinite expansion of it's borders.... vs. the segregation of army units. The hippocracy is there, but the original post claimed that we were as bad off or worse than the axis powers, and that's just not true. 8) Your example of taxation just doesn't float with the facts. The United States was founded on the idea of taxation with representation. It's what started the revolution in the first place. We do not have low taxes because we don't care about the poor. Canada has high taxes because it's accepted and practiced there, not because they are morally superior. The United States gives billions of dollars in foreign aid every year, and has the highest personal contribution level of any country, period. This country started revolutionary ideas like welfare and social security. These ideas came about during the depression. Germany's idea for a cure for the depression was to take what it wanted by force.

9) "There are plenty of more compassionate countries/governments than ours out there." I'd like you to name a few. Every country claims that it's doing what is best for it's citizens, when in fact it's easy to discover other motives. The idea of communism is all about helping the worker and achieving the utopian society. We all know what happens though. I'm not saying this is a perfect country, because it is far from it and there will never be one. But there are great things about this country that cannot be ignored. And so many people these days want to bash what's great about the US by being pessimists and pointing out every bad thing that happened in the past or is happening now. But I don't care where you go, you will not find a better place to be.

It's usually the only reason I tape the SuperBowl, other than the cool commmercials. N'Sync in the halftime show? Gimme a friggin' break. Aerosmith is cool, but N'-friggin-Sync? Is there any masculinity left in the NFL?

Baltimore is statistically the best defence in the history of the game ... anyone who does not know what they have done this year has never watched sportscenter ... the giants are overrated undersized and slow ... the ravens will end the season with a shutout! jamal will run all over the giants line and sharpe and the q man will decimate the secondary ... its a no brainer ... the only way the giants will score (if they do) is on special teams ... on another note get ready for a return of the 49ers ... its time for a new dynasty ... next year will be the garcia-owens year ... mark my words ... (PS ... soccer is still the best sport ever ... football is a close second ... only because of jerry rice ... and maradonna was better that pele!)

Forgive me, for I come from a land far, far away where football is played with the feet of a person. I iz confused...

You haven't really disputed anything I said. I never claimed that the Indian Removal Act was an agreement. Yes, they had to move or face our military. But there was no mass genocide. Once again, where is the evidence? You name these acts of congress that changed year by year but as far the genocide go you don't have much to say. Did the Indians really own all the land? If you want to claim ownership of a large land mass it seems that you would need to set up an actual government first. It would be foolish for the SMALL amount of Indians that lived here to think that they controlled the entire continent and noone should be allowed in. I don't remember saying anything about the Jews and Palestinians. But as long as you want to get into it, everyone who knows anything about the situation knows that the Arabs are much more at fault than the Jews. Arafat was offered a deal that gave him so much that it enraged the Jews and made some call for Barak to leave office. Yet Arafat rejected it. That's because he doesn't want to make peace with Israel, he wants to destroy it. Of course you see CNN showing the Palestinians throwing rocks while the Israelis fly around in attack helicopters. Then at night when the cameras are gone they pull out the guns and start shooting. Again, I'm not saying that either side is in the right. But one side is clearly more interested in peace. As for whitey, you are claiming that we INVADED America so we could destroy civilizations? We REALLY ARE horrible!! Please. As far as military codes of conduct go, they often only apply to the side that has the advantage. The reason Russia did not nuke the United States during the Cold War is not because they were on some moral high ground. It's because they knew we would strike back. You talk about the horrifying conduct of soldiers in Vietnam. I know the kinds of things that happened. I know a man who flew in helicopters where they would interrogate vietnamese men, and when they got all the information they could, they pushed them out the door. These are the kinds of things that happen in war, and probably always will, despite this so-called new electronic warfare. It's why American soldiers in Germany rode their tanks into battle with the heads of enemy soldiers stuck to them. Rules are only rules and will always be broken as needed. What is proper conduct in war? Give me a break. There's nothing proper about it. Soldiers do not "exist for a reason". They are just like any other person, but are given training and weapons. They're still people and have families. The only reason noone ever imagined a city being destroyed is because noone ever imagined such a weapon, not that noone ever imagined such a thing could be done. What is the difference in the time anyway? If everyone that would die in the war all died at the same instance, is that any worse? And yeah, the United States was looking out for its own interests during the war. That's why any country gets involved in ANY war. Look I can go on forever on specific details, but my point it that your whole idea of war seems to be that it is some kind of sport where you try to make it fair. The atomic bomb drops were unfair and cowardly because we didn't lose any men? Look at what youre' saying.

You seem to be operating under some sort of notion that war is something that happens between two armies. It isn't; never has been, never will be. War is something that happens between two NATIONS. Is it morally better to wait for an Japanese janitor to be drafted, THEN kill him? To give you an idea of how stubborn the japanese would have been in a knockdown drag-out fight, one only has to consider that both bombs were not dropped on the same day. After annihilating Hiroshima we offered the Japanese terms of surrender. The city lay in ruins, and yet the Emperor refused to surrender. We warned them of the destructive potential of the atomic bomb. Did not phase them. We had to wipe out another city to prove it was not a fluke or conventional attack like Dresden Germany. I think it shows considerable restraint on our part that we did not go straight for Tokyo. And don't feed us any more crap about hiroshima not being a military installation. The Japanese pulled together for the war effort in astounding ways. Little effort was expended by even the civilian population that was not geared for the war effort. Hiroshima was a manufacturing city. They provided materials of war. Not ammo or planes, but parts, sheet steel, textiles such as uniforms etc. That makes them a target. Everything depends on perspective. If you look at it as in 1 minute at Hiroshima 90,000 Japanese were dead or dying when we could have bombed 5 or 6 factories and killed 6 or 7 thousand people instead, yes it was a terrible thing to do. Since the Emperor was prepared to fight it out to the last man, consider the millions on BOTH sides that would die. Some have argued that the Emperor would have given in if it became hopeless. However, fighting to the death would have satisfied their honor. THAT is the only thing they needed as a reason to fight. And fight they would. But to be eradicated from above with no chance to fight? No honor to be found there. THAT is why the atomic gambit worked. It saved lives and won the war. That we used atomics to end it is no worse an evil than opening fire on your enemies in the trenches with a rifle. It's all the same thing. You are killing your enemies. Japan was our enemy, not Japans military. I do however appreciate your comments on the internment of americans who happened to be of asian decent. It was terribly wrong. I sincerely hope this nation never stoops that low again, no matter how dire the need. But to an active armed enemy of our country... Especially in the case of Japan, no quarter was asked, and none should be given.

This is getting old and tiresome, but I'd like to point out one thing about the Gulf War. We NEVER targeted any civilian buildings. We told Saddam that any military installation would be a legitimate target, and he chose to house civilians in these buildings. We never purposefully shot any hospital. No doubt that some civilians were killed in the raids. This was not done on purpose. You might remember when later, after the Gulf War, we bombed one of his factories and he actually had signs that read "Baby Food", in English no less, put around the building. Contrast this with the Iraqis' rape and murder of the Kuwaitis as they took control. Oh I'd also like to know hot it was evil of the colonists to "introduce" diseases to the Indians. The Indians only had "governing bodies" within the tribes themselves, which fought among themselves, ironically probably for land in most cases. It's funny how you hold this high moral standard for the colonists, but not for the Indians. It was evil for the settlers to land here to escape religious persecution among other things and start lives in a new land. But it's just fine for the Indians to claim ownership of entire continent, letting noone in and in some cases waging war on anyone who did. I don't understand your ideas of "being there first", as if it was evil for anyone to migrate to a new area. And again you act as if all these people came to America and immediately started killing Indians. This is completely baloney. You accuse me of acting as if the United States has no faults and they you go to the opposite extreme and as act if the colonists hunted the Indians. I want you to tell me why it's wrong to kill civilians in a war but it's not wrong to kill soliders. Are you going by the Thou Shalt Not Kill commandment? I think that applies to everyone. Clue me into this moral philosophy of yours.

Accidentally hitting that Chinese Embassy in a NATO police action and wiping out an enemy city in a WAR for SURVIVAL aren't the same thing. Not by a long shot. (F16: 20 million dollars. F14 45 million dollars. B2 Stealth bomber 2.2 billion dollars. Decent map of downtown Belgrade: Priceless) Let me re-iterate. War is a state of conflict that exists between 2 or more NATIONS. Not Armies. not Navies. The rules of engagement are different. A city that does produce war products is in fact a acceptable target. Anything that would serve to lower the morale of the enemy is a target. (Dresden Germany) Etc. In open war Target details are reduced to 3 classes. Hostile, Neutral or Friendly. The people of the enemy nation are not neutral. CERTAINLY not friendly. In a police action like serbia, we have to consider only military units as hostile. Civilians are off limits. In a LIMITED war like Desert Storm, where we were liberating a conquered ally, we have to use the same rules of engagement as a police action. It is not open warfare. We could shoot anything Iraqi in Kuwait, but only destroy military infrastructure within Iraq itself. Lets pretend Iraq was Mexico. If they invaded the US directly a state of open war would exist between the two, and no one would blink twice if we were bombing anything in Mexico that was warmer than a coyote, had more electricity than a AAA battery or more metal than a pop can. It's self defense. A war for survival. Japans goal was nothing less than world domination. The complete defeat of the Allied powers. They were also the agressor. I don't care if a grandmother is killed even though she won't be carrying a gun into battle. That she could package rations that could feed a soldier during an attack against my country is enough. That a 15 year old boy is a year from conscription to the enemy army is enough. War is not pleasant. War is not nice. War is the last resort when diplomacy and reason have failed. to quote Prince Otto Von Bismarck , "All treaties and rules between great states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle for existence." one of my favorite quotes.

"All treaties between great states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle for existence." Read treaties to mean rules, courtesies, laws, etc.