Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dr wadd
That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".
The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.
All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.
|
I certainly wouldn't deny that the Coalition strategy has resulted in civilian deaths, but I would contest the rate at which those deaths have occurred - on 9/11, about 3,000 people died in the space of a couple of hours. In Iraq ... well, withot having figures to hand, I can say I need to be convinced it has been anything like this bad.
And I think you give too little credence to the intent behind these people's actions. This isn't a laboratory experiment demonstrating two ways of achieving the same result, this is real life and real people are involved. And in an ideal world, according to Martin Luther King, people should be judged by the content of their character.
Sure, the road to hell might be paved with good intentions, but if were on the road to hell I would rather have George Dubya Bush along for the ride than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.