Would it bother you if Bush clubbed an infant to death with a club?

Probably so.

Now, Would it bother you if he bombed 10,000 innocent Iraqi citizens to death?

Including many children?

Then why aren't we (on edit: the collective populace of America) as pissed as if he had personally clubbed the child to death?

Hmmm.

He and his did.

...or the informal majority 'we'? Because We are endlessly pissed about the Iraqi children Bush** has murdered, while we are pissed because the price of gas has gone up.

It's expected in a war. It's for the better good, better there than here.

After all Iraq could have gained the knowledge in a couple of centuries to harm us. We have to protect our own. And isn't giving the global corporatists the highest profits they've ever seen, so nice, that's why W was selected. True capitalism. It was the right thing to do for all.

I am stuck on the freeper thing.

pro-war morons if Saddam's delivery systems were camels.

Yes.

Perhaps a baby harp seal would garner more attention, sad to say.

Whatever the fuck that means.

The Freepers are slow to understanding that. They are not really adept to change.

who wouldn't care if he clubbed an infant to death. Hannity and Limpballs would find some bizarre way to justify it and the kool-aid drinkers would just nod in agreement. There are people who are so far gone that the chimp would have to show up on their doorstep with an axe and a Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" grin before they'd even begin to doubt that he's a fine, Christian gentleman.

i think people on the left need to learn what the word "we" means

if you are hanging out w. people who are cool with highers-up giving orders to have babies killed, knock it off and hang w. a better class of people

don't assume "we" are cool w. the bush war on iraqi babies, crap, that's just insulting, you know?

we are all here for the same purpose so give us a damn break

Thanks for your points.

It would be understandable.

before I have to give you a spanking. :P

...American public would have to have their collective noses rubbed in the horror of what we have done, and are doing, in Iraq, up close and personal, for real outrage to take hold. Humans are masters of rationalization and denial---it's what we do.

er...."of course I don't like Bush but at least he isn't a Liberal"


pretty much exactly what I've heard in response to similar scenarios when I've presented them. Idealogues to the core.

We (and the allies) carpet bombed Nazi cities without any care if the bombs landed on a house, a school, a hospital, or a church. We dropped two atomic bombs on Japan killing over a half a million civilians within seconds.

I guess it all depends on whether a war is considered justified. I guess that makes it OK to kill innocent people.

It's a difficult decision. How do you weigh a human life against the better good? 60 million people around the world were killed at the end of WW2. More than half of that total were civilians. Was stopping Hitler and Japan worth the death of that many people? What if it was 100 million? 200 million?
The reality is, no matter what you do, people are going to die. Either we allow Hitler to take over the world as he slughters millions...or we willingly kill millions ourselves in the process of stopping him.
We are in a similar situation with the war on terror. Except this time it appears there are people that believe that stopping Al-Queda is NOT worth the deaths we are causing. However, if we don't stop Al-Queda, they will only continue to kill innocent people.

War is hell. It has plagued civilization for thousands of years. But the way we live our lives today was decided by the result of wars of the past. Imagine if Charles Martel didn't stop the Muslims from invading Europe at the Battle of Tours? Imagine if France won the French and Indian war? Imagine if the colonists lost the American Revolution? Imagine if the Confederacy won the civil war? Imagine if the Nazis won World War II?
Yeah... our world would be a very different place if any of those wars ended in a different way. That's the sad truth of our civilization and species.

There is no Hitler; there are no concentration camps (unless you're counting Guantanamo Bay); no other country has attacked the US. The terrorists who hijacked the airplanes in 2001 were predominantly Saudi; not Iraqi and Iraq had nothing to with any attacks in the US. The "war on terror" has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq, other than the actions of the US has made Iraq a haven for Muslim extermists, which it wasn't before under its secular dictator. To compare the Iraq war (part 2) to World War II is either disingenuous or breath-takingly ignornant.

Both in the Korean War and in the Vietnam War our military war planners had little regard for civilians and children. Soldiers were told to distrust Vietnamese children because they could be Viet Cong and many were killed because of this. And don't forget the bombing of Dresden in WWII, one of the more shameful episodes in that war.

If we are ever going to be able to claim a high moral ground in the future, we have to change our war culture drastically.

On edit: I forgot Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war.