Trigger happy US troops accidentally kill two Iraqi girls yesterday.

[James46]

Correction:  War is NOT a nice parlor game.  War is hell--for anyone near it.  Either side.

[James46]

Sorry I cannot continue.  I have life and death emergeny to deal with here. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In war, innocent people die.  That newsflash is probably pre-Sumarian.  When you cite one side and not the other you are being biased.

that doesn't make it right and seems like a vaild argument against war.

[J. J.]

In war, innocent people die.  That newsflash is probably pre-Sumarian.  When you cite one side and not the other you are being biased.

that doesn't make it right and seems like a vaild argument against war.

Is it a valid argument against World War II, the Civil War, or the American Revolution?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Personally I think the American Revolution was an overreaction, the colonists were actually taxed much less than British citizens.

The other two however were essential wars to save the world from fascist domination and preserve the union and end slavery. Nothing here. All the money wasted on Iraq should've been spent on healthcare here. The Iraqis get free healthcare under their new government, Americans first!

[J. J.]

Personally I think the American Revolution was an overreaction, the colonists were actually taxed much less than British citizens.

The other two however were essential wars to save the world from fascist domination and preserve the union and end slavery. Nothing here. All the money wasted on Iraq should've been spent on healthcare here. The Iraqis get free healthcare under their new government, Americans first!

Please remember to vote from "Prime Minister" in 9 days.

Please also ask it, because innocents were killed, it made either the Civil War and WWII less "worth it."

[freedomburns]

In war, innocent people die.  That newsflash is probably pre-Sumarian.  When you cite one side and not the other you are being biased.

that doesn't make it right and seems like a vaild argument against war.

Is it a valid argument against World War II, the Civil War, or the American Revolution?

For some reason I am having a very difficult time equating the Iraq War with our American Revolutionary war for independence.


freedomburns

[??????????]

Do the Iraqis not deserve freedom? Do you really think that Iraqis wanted Saddam in power? Why doesn't Iraq deserve freedom in your opinion.

[George W. Bush]

Shut the Hell Up BRTD. Everything you say is total insanity. Al least I can see where Freedomburns is comming from! Your just Insane.

[J. J.]

In war, innocent people die.  That newsflash is probably pre-Sumarian.  When you cite one side and not the other you are being biased.

that doesn't make it right and seems like a vaild argument against war.

Is it a valid argument against World War II, the Civil War, or the American Revolution?

For some reason I am having a very difficult time equating the Iraq War with our American Revolutionary war for independence.


freedomburns

I'm not equating, but BRTD ask it if was a valid argument against "war."  My answer is, that is the price of war.  You, I take it, would would consider it to be worth the price in the case of the American Revolution.  Whether or not innocents are killed, as usually is the case, is not the question.

The question is, is the killing of the innocent worth the price of removing that regime.  If pushed, I'd probably say yes.

[Silent Hunter]

Sad, but it happens. At least in the West we investigate these kind of things and try to bring the people to justice.

[opebo]

Do the Iraqis not deserve freedom? Do you really think that Iraqis wanted Saddam in power?

Yes, of course the great majority of Sunnis wanted Saddam in power.

[J. J.]

Do the Iraqis not deserve freedom? Do you really think that Iraqis wanted Saddam in power?

Yes, of course the great majority of Sunnis wanted Saddam in power.

A great majority of the minority, even if accurate.

[opebo]

Terrorists killed 22 Iraqis today. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6276868/

How happy are those 22, Freedumbburns?

To you, those were terrorists killing innocents.  To the other side - they were freedom fighters killing collaborators.  Whats the difference - point of view.  There is no qualitative difference.

[AuH2O]

Opebo- just so you understand- if you are consistent in that viewpoint, it is automatically hypocritical for you to make ANY value or moral judgements.

For instance, if someone bombs an abortion clinic, you would have to say there is no "qualitative difference" between that and abortion because the bombers believe they are saving lives.

[opebo]

Opebo- just so you understand- if you are consistent in that viewpoint, it is automatically hypocritical for you to make ANY value or moral judgements.

For instance, is someone bombs an abortion clinic, you would have to say there is no "qualitative difference" between that and abortion because the bombers believe they are saving lives.

Of course.  And killing those types of fanatics is the only solution - telling them they're 'wrong' does no good at all.

[AuH2O]

Fine. Just so long as I don't see you using words such as "wrong" and "right" or "good" and "bad," there is no problem.

[opebo]

Fine. Just so long as I don't see you using words such as "wrong" and "right" or "good" and "bad," there is no problem.

I'm sure you've never seen me use such asinine terms.

[Jake]

For instance, is someone bombs an abortion clinic.

Yay

[CollectiveInterest]

Saddam's goons intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Have the Bush apologists ever quantified their claims about SH killing people extra-legally.

To get these huge numbers are they counting people killed as part of the Iran-Iraq War? Are they counting people convicted in court and executed?

[J. J.]

Terrorists killed 22 Iraqis today. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6276868/

How happy are those 22, Freedumbburns?

To you, those were terrorists killing innocents.  To the other side - they were freedom fighters killing collaborators.  Whats the difference - point of view.  There is no qualitative difference.

Sixteen were in the police/armed forces.  What about the other six?

[J. J.]

Saddam's goons intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Have the Bush apologists ever quantified their claims about SH killing people extra-legally.

To get these huge numbers are they counting people killed as part of the Iran-Iraq War? Are they counting people convicted in court and executed?

You could quite possibly be talking about over 1 million killed if you factor in the Iran-Iraq War.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm

[John Dibble]

Reporting this incident is one thing - it happened, it's factual. We should learn from incidents like this to be more careful, though that will not garauntee that this type of incident will never occur again. No doubt the troops involved deeply regret the incident.

However, the title of this thread is utter trash. It shows contempt and hatred for the troops. In war, innocent people will die, on purpose or on accident. Our side rarely kills innocents on purpose, and if it happens it is usually caused by an isolated group that disregards the standards of conduct they are supposed to be held to(and will be punished for it). This was an accident, and calling the troops 'trigger happy' for making a mistake in a warzone goes too far. The enemies in this warzone could be anyone around you, they blend in with the civilian population - you might have no idea they are near until it is too late. Inevitably, mistakes will be made, it would only be a matter of time. So my advice to you freedomburns is to stop acting like war is some simple black and white thing where everything is clear, because it is not and never will be.