Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Ah, James... and you assume that pro-war people do not know how brutal and deadly war is?
I know war is nasty, but sometimes *not* going to war leads to more, even nastier problems. For example, in the case of Iraq: less than 1,000 dead civilians during the war, as opposed to an estimated 20,000 dead civilians each year under Saddam's rule.
(And of course, the infamous pre-world war 2 appeasement of Hitler, instead of standing up and saying no.)
You cannot say "let's not fight, ever" just because civilians and soldiers will die in a war - if you do, the people that don't give a rat's arse about such things (Saddam and friends) win.
|
Well dragon, i guess i am very conflicted about the entire war.
I hear some of the pro points that are made, but i still don't have a warm fuzzy about this. Getting rid of Saddam was fine by me, it's just that i failed to see why it had to be done right there and then. There was 2 other compromise positions before the UN that would have allowed for a bit more time, a bit more diplomacy, and maybe could have spared a few lives. I will agree that I do not think for a minute that the US EVER deliberatly targeted civilians, but like it or not, innocent people got killed, or in the case of that kid, hurt really bad.
Whatever the truth is, of this I am sure. We'll never know one way or the other.
The funny thing about this was that the US bombed the shit out of every gov't everything EXCEPT the Iraqi Ministry of Oil Production. Hmmmm.
Very conflicted