On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:13:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

Another glowing example why countries should not be ruled by
oppressive dictatorships; communist, socialist, or fascist.

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?

Lose the sarcasm. It doesn't help your credibility. Besides, modern
liberalism didn't really start taking off until the 1960's. Although
they have been caught trying to "revise" history.

... Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

What "greater good" are you talking about?

That should be plainly obvious. Ridding the world of a threat.

In WW2 we were fighting a
declared war against nation-states. Civilian casualties were a
regrettable strategic necessity, once the imperative of destroying enemy
industries was established. Many people still do not accept it as axiomatic.

So why then should your well crafted thought here, not equally apply
today? Does the fact that the players play by a different set of rules
change the urgency or legitimacy of the mission?


In this case, we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation for no logical
reason and with no serious justification.

The logic and justification are there. The problem is that you refuse
to accept it, for reasons which I'm sure you think are valid, but are
based on little more than your own personal beliefs.


.. and in the course of that
war our military inadvertently killed over 10,000 civilians. It did
little or nothing to hasten the defeat of enemy armed forces.

Saddam's army is history. His WMD program is gone, the citizens of
Iraq have a chance at self governing. We've accomplished many of our
goals. I'm also not so sure that that 10,000 civilian casualty figure
is accurate. How many of those citizens were killed by insurgents, and
Saddam loyalists?

There was
little or no enemy industry to destroy, indeed we wanted to preserve the
most important (oil) so as to grab it quickly.

It's not important to destroy industries. The only reason to cripple
industry is to deprive the enemy the means to continue to wage war. In
the case of Iraq, the war was over so quickly, that there was no need
to knock our manufacturing and other support industries. We're not
there to bring the population to its knees. We only want to remove the
"bad" regime. Oh, and to date, just how much Iraqi oil have we
"grabbed"?

Iraqi civilian deaths are a fact that the Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will
not ever accept, but true nonetheless. Unfortunately this will influence
history for a long time to come.

I don't understand your duplicity here. In one paragraph you defend
the civilian casualties of WWII as "strategically necessary", yet you
bemoan the same statistic in Iraq. War is war. The goals are the same.
People will die, but the hope is that a greater good will have been
served in the long run. History has validated the cause for WWII. It
will take a few years yet to validate the Iraq war. But ask yourself,
is the world better off with or without Saddam Hussein in power, with
his network of thugs aiding and abetting anti-western terrorists and
covertly developing WMD?

Yes, he's not the only one, but you have to start somewhere. The
bigger question is: are you ready to take the war against terror to
the next level?


Dave