- Jun 4, 2001
Maybe them looking similar to those who attacked us is good enough for that guy.Originally posted by: Firebot
No one in Iraq attacked the US. What organization do you speak of which was based in Iraq?Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unfortunatly most of the anti-war crowd feel the only justified war is if a country, not an organization, physically attacks the US i.e. Pearl Harbor.Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Are you really comparing the army of Iraq to the combined forces of Germany, Italy, Japan, and all the countries under their rule, in the 1930s and 1940s? Are you actually surprised in the least that a war named World War II had more casualties than a skirmish involving one superpower and one third world country? How intellectually dishonest could you be to draw any parallel between the death counts of World War II and Iraq?Originally posted by: Genx87
We have come a long ways in 60 years. Lost about 110,000 a year in WWII.
How is it shocking that a thread about soldier death counts would lead people to reflect on the purpose of those deaths? The natural thing to do when dealing with death is to try to rationalize the death in the grander scheme of things. In this case, dahunan posits that perhaps had we not gone to war, these men and women might still be alive. If that is to be believed, then we must naturally ask ourselves if the goals of the war were worth the lives of the men and women lost so far. In dahunan's mind they are not. You may feel that the deaths have not been in vain, and it is your right to think and say so. But to jump down someone else's throat for his view that he would prefer our troops be alive is asinine.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Go preach your bullshit, unrealistic world peace message while singing kumbaya somewhere else. At least some of us try and deal with reality. :roll:
This had potential to be a good thread /wave
Well, this is naive and realistically very unprobable.