‘Any attack carried out from this day forward will unmistakably be one against the Iraqi people.’
Posted by Karol at 04:17 PM
But the bodies will still be those of American soldiers.
So, Karol, see any good movies over the weekend? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Actually, most of the bodies are of Iraqis: volunteers for the IP, worshippers at a Mosque, people who are seen as in any way “collaborating” with the coalition, and sometimes just people standing at the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s the way with terrorism, civilians are killed more frequently than soldiers.
At any rate, working towards a sovereign, free, democratic Iraq is definitely the best way of honoring the memory of the 800 or so Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
>>>At any rate, working towards a sovereign, free, democratic Iraq is definitely the best way of honoring the memory of the 800 or so Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice >>>
Too bad 10,000 Iraqi civilians had to die for everyone else to be “liberated.”
Fee, how many died during the American Revolution for all our freedom?
That is one of the stupidest quotes that I have read. I wonder how many Americans fall for propaganda like that.
How many Indigenous Peoples (”Indians”) were killed so we could live in this country? My point is not to continuously compare how many people died so we could have “freedom,” but to ask ourselves why we must continue on this path of killing-for-freedom, and especially in places that are NOT America?
But Saddams killing just for the hell of it doesn’t bother you?
Ok. Saddam shouldn’t kill his own people, but we should do it instead?
Karol, are you also a person who believes that when we dropped the atomic bombs on millions of Japanese people that we saved more lives than we took?
From where do we learn these types of convuluted justifications? From the people who profit from war? The United States Government? Can you really trust this fuzzy logic?
Fee, what about all those Germans we killed in WWII? They never did anything to us. Do you think we shouldn’t have killed them either.
It’s just a weak argument to say killing is always wrong. Killing to stop more killing is very right.
Do you think it was really justifiable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Leipzig during WWII?
Dan, you have seriously lost it if that’s really a question.
killing to stop killing cannot possibly be right. If you take the view that the murder/slaughte/genocide whatever you want to call it is wrong then killing others to stop it is just as wrong.
There is no moral defence for Dresden, Leipzig, Cologne, Coventry, London, Tokyo or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. unfortunately that is what happens in a war. I disagree with your point on killing Karol but i will say it is sadly often he only way to stop other things.